Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Didactic Dirt
The case for vicious campaigning.
BY BRIDGET JOHNSON
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Without fail, every campaign season--from the race for president of the United States to senior-class president--kicks off with a pledge from candidates to run a clean race, to talk about the issues, to rise above political infighting, yadda yadda yadda.
This leaves us with the same tired, benign drivel: "I believe in the promise of America." (Who doesn't?) "I want to focus on the issues" (Then focus already!) "I love the American people." (Can't we just be friends?)
Then a few weeks into races, when TV commercials become less about policy and more of an atomic volley back and forth between rivals, campaign-watchers act as if some sort of sacred political doctrine has been violated, characterizing "dirty campaigning" as an offense against the memory of our Founding Fathers. Or "un-American," as Teresa Heinz Kerry called it last week, just before she told a reporter asking for clarification to "shove it."
Actually, the juiciest infighting and personal political battles began with the birth of this great nation. The race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to succeed George Washington was a political catfight, and America got treated to a second round four years later. Andrew Jackson's campaign called John Quincy Adams "the pimp." Democratic cartoonists called Abraham Lincoln "Honest Ape." Sleaze about illegitimate births, mistresses and syphilis has been slung without mercy since the heyday of the Constitution.
But if a vice president was capable of shooting Alexander Hamilton, if a president was predisposed to Oval Office trysts, shouldn't we know that beforehand? Shouldn't we see the deepest, darkest recesses of a candidate's mind, rather than focusing on a phony smile and oversized scissors poised just so at a ribbon cutting?
I say, take the gloves off. I'm not going to whine this year about candidates not playing nice or talking too much trash to each other. This is promising to be the dirtiest campaign in years, and I don't want to miss one blood-curdling moment.
And why is this important? Because I don't want a leader who will invite Osama bin Laden to sit down for group therapy and talk about why he wants to destroy the United States; I want a leader who will take the fight to al Qaeda and its cronies regardless of what France thinks. I want a candidate who is less concerned about whether the world wants to come out and play than about dirty bombs dropping on our doorstep. Tough times take a tough hombre who can roll with the punches and fight back when necessary, and isn't afraid of violating some unwritten code by informing us of his opponent's flaws.
The drawback to dirty campaigning is that the ignorant will buy some false dirt as truth. But then you step into the fray with a fiery retort, and let the verbal bullets fly. If a candidate has the tendency to lie through his teeth, better to let it come out now than later. If there is a sordid past lurking behind the coiffed man, draw it out and let the voters decide if this personal issue matters in his ability to lead. Don't write off dirty campaigning as a fault of the weak. It's an American tradition that sometimes reveals valuable information.
So let the games begin. And the campaigns are probably one step ahead of me. An Amazon.com search for the book "Dirty Political Tricks" by "Anonymous" revealed only one left in stock--and "more on the way."
Ms. Johnson is a journalist and screenwriter in Southern California.
Kathianne said:Why is it that women are nearly always the ones that call out for such radical ideas? (Wait to you find where she's writing from!) :shocked:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005431
TheOne said:Republicans have a track record of this kind of stuff. Karl Rove is the cherry on top of the sundae.
Merlin1047 said:Tell me - do you have to expend a lot of effort to be so self-righteous, or is it a natural talent?
Take a look at the tactics of the Clinton campaign. And you have the damn nerve to bitch about Rove when you have that spawn from hell Soros working for the libs.
Please.
gop_jeff said:I fail to understand why talking about your opponent's voting record or stance on the issues is supposed to be bad or 'negative.' Shouldn't a candidate be able to draw a distinction between his stance and his opponent's stance?
TheOne said:I am not aware of the improprieties and "dirty" nature of Clinton's campaign. I am not saying they didn't exist, I am just unaware.
I really don't know what Soros has done, but to compare him to Bush's official political strategist, Karl Rove, is a stretch...don't you think?
I think the record is pretty clear though. The GOP is the king of dirty tricks and dirty campaigning. I think you are in a serious case of denial to argue otherwise.
TheOne said:I think an incumbent President should have a long list of all the positive things he has done in four years to enumerate. His record alone, if it is good enough, should carry the day.
freeandfun1 said:He does and it will.
Kathianne said:Exactly. Kerry on the other hand, has a problem. His 55 minute speech, intended to 'introduce him to the people' ONLY addressed his service in Vietnam, that looks possibly manufactured. It skipped his 20 years in the Senate, so he has to attack.
freeandfun1 said:I saw on the news this morning that the RNC has put a link to Kerry's speech on their website. They said the more people watch the speech, the more that want to vote for Bush. That says it all right there.
TheOne said:I am not aware of the improprieties and "dirty" nature of Clinton's campaign. I am not saying they didn't exist, I am just unaware.
I really don't know what Soros has done, but to compare him to Bush's official political strategist, Karl Rove, is a stretch...don't you think?
TheOne said:I think the record is pretty clear though. The GOP is the king of dirty tricks and dirty campaigning. I think you are in a serious case of denial to argue otherwise.
Jimmyeatworld said:Ok. So you're unaware of what happened in Clinton's campaign. That sounds a little like Berger's "accident", but...whatever.
TheOne said:Berger's accident, nice choice. I wonder why we aren't hearing anything more about that from the rabid right?
Kathianne said:Google it. It is being quieted by the 'erroneous left media'. But these things have a life of their own, somehow I think we'll be hearing more.
Berger Cleared of Withholding Material from 9/11 Commission
By Scot J. Paltrow
The Wall Street Journal
Friday 30 July 2004
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said.
Mr. Berger's lawyer has said his client returned all of the photocopies after he was questioned about missing items by archives staff. But officials have said they are still looking into whether some of the photocopies may have been destroyed. It is illegal to remove classified material in any form from the archives.
Late last year, archives personnel called in investigators when some classified materials were discovered missing after Mr. Berger reviewed them in response to a 9/11 Commission request for Clinton-era national-security records. Staff members became suspicious that Mr. Berger had removed items during a first visit, and on a second visit secretly numbered copies given to him and determined afterward that not all had been returned. By some accounts, Mr. Berger had been observed by the staff stuffing papers into his clothing, although Mr. Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, has denied that.
So far no charges have been filed. Mr. Breuer has said that on two occasions his client had inadvertently removed several photocopies of the Millennium after-action report, but later returned them.
Kathianne said:Check the old threads, me done doing your work. That was already undone.
