<font size=4>Kerry's ONE draft deferment cover the same period of years as FOUR of Cheney's, because Cheney changed schools. If Kerry had got his SECOND draft deferment he applied for to go to Paris, it would have added up to the same number of years as Cheney's five.
<font size=3>
Robert Musil
<font size=4>
MAN WITHOUT QUALITIES
Undiscovered Checks
The Swiftee assault on John Kerry's record represents reanimation of just one of several skeletons lurking in the Senator's closet, with the others for the moment slipping from public attention. But the others are probably destined to emerge at some point, perhaps to paralyze his campaign as the Swiftees have done.
Some <font color=green>"forgotten"<font color=black> examples:
John Kerry has cancer (or, to use the current euphemism, he <font color=green>"is a cancer survivor"<font color=black>) and many other health issues that have not been fully disclosed.
Indeed, Senator Kerry's health difficulties seem to be more serious than those of Vice President Cheney - whose health issues the Democrats have tried to make a campaign issue. It is worth recalling, for example, that former Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, who rebounded from cancer to briefly become the Democratic presidential front-runner in 1992, died [at age] 55. Tsongas ... with a liver problem related to his cancer treatments and later developed pneumonia, died at Brigham and Women's Hospital. He died free of cancer the hospital said. .... [H]e declared himself cancer free after being one of the first 100 people to undergo a grueling, experimental transplant in which his own bone marrow was removed and later reintroduced into his body.
<font color=blue>
John Kerry has not released either his full military or his health records.
Teresa Kerry's tax returns remain undisclosed.
Court records for John Kerry's divorce from his first wife have not been disclosed.
This is not a complete list.<font color=black> But it is remarkable how much Senator Kerry appears to be relying on his ability to keep information from the voters. There is a strong tendency for this kind of information to find its way out, one way or the other - sometimes in not very savory, ethical or even legal ways. But it does tend to happen.
Just ask George Bush about that DUI incident.
<font size=3>
Posted 10:40 PM by Robert Musil
Momentum?
Post convention bounce and <font color=green>"momentum"<font color=black> are related, but by no means the same thing. SurveyUSA's specialized sampling - which is not a standard preference poll - finds that <font color=green>"momentum"<font color=black> has shifted to Bush:
<font color=green>
The number of Americans who think George W. Bush will be re-elected in November has suddenly jumped 10 to 20 points in dozens of cities around the country, according to SurveyUSA tracking polls conducted before, during and after the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
SurveyUSA has been asking respondents not who they will vote for, but rather: who they think will win the presidential election in November. This question is more sensitive to changes in sentiment, and is designed to capture "momentum" swings more precisely than preference questions asked of likely voters. Tracking polls released today, 9/3/04, the day after the Republican National Convention ended, show sizeable swings in the public consciousness. ....
<font color=black>
Results of these surveys are not intended to forecast the outcome of the presidential election in November nor predict how respondents would vote in an election "today"; rather, results here are intended solely to measure shifts in momentum, which can reveal much about the public's collective psyche. Momentum can and does change in a campaign, sometimes dramatically. Events may well happen during this campaign to shift momentum back to the Democrats just as suddenly as it has here shifted to the Republicans. Results presented here should not be confused with SurveyUSA Election Polls, which are conducted over a longer field period, and which tightly screen for registered and likely voters, and which do in fact ask respondents how they would vote in an election "today."
Posted 3:17 PM by Robert Musil
<font size=4>
Is That Correct?
At a meeting with editors of the Wall Street Journal yesterday Bush campaign chief Ken Mehlman said:
<font color=red>
"Competition is a great thing for schools and it's a great thing for the media. CNN is more honest because of Fox."
<font color=black>
Mr. Mehlman is spot-on with his first sentence, but I believe he is dead wrong on the second. It is true that Fox News is one of the newer elements to news delivery that allows interested news consumers to check up on CNN and other liberal news outlets. In that sense, competition has been a great thing for the media and for news consumers.
But that's not the same as saying that CNN (or the New York Times, or any other particular news outlet) is now more honest than it was, because of Fox or any other reason.
In fact, the American news market seems to be heading the way of the British news market - with outfits such as CNN and the Times bearing an increasing resemblance to loony left shops such as the Guardian. The more the CNN's and New York Times of the American market have been countered by the likes of Fox News, the shriller and more tendentious the CNN's and New York Times become.
<font size=3>
It's true that competition is great for the market - but that doesn't mean increased competition necessarilly pulls any particular competitor towards producing a generic or average product. In fact, the better markets often - but not always - produce greater choice and diversity of product. For example, Old Ma Bell concentrated on "Plain Old Telephone Service" - but that's not where the market has gone since the breakup of her monopoly. Fragmentation seems to be what is happening to the American news market as the outlets grope for niches and special audiences. It's not an accident that CNN did much better in the ratings with the Democratic Convention - while Fox polled much better than CNN for Republican Convention coverage.
Yes, competition is a great thing for schools and it's a great thing for the media. But CNN is shriller and more tendentious and less honest because of Fox. That seems to reflect what CNN thinks CNN's particular audience wants to hear. Why not? Anyone who doesn't like it can always flip to Fox.
Posted 11:11 AM by Robert Musil
<font size=4><font color=green>
Deferments
<font color=black>
One of John Kerry's more pathetic answers to the firestorm that is the inevitable and oft-predicted consequence of his having made his essentially irrelevant 4 months of Vietnam service the centerpiece of his Presidential bid is his criticism of Vice President Cheney's five draft deferments:
<font color=blue>
"The vice president called me unfit for office last night,"<font color=black> Mr. Kerry said. <font color=blue>"Well, I'm going to leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments make someone more qualified than two tours of duty."<font color=black>
Mr. Cheney received five deferments and did not serve in the military..
Voters should be free and informed to decide whether they care about Senator Kerry's charge - although I don't think it makes much sense (or has much force) as a campaign argument. But what about those <font color=blue>"five deferments?"<font color=black> Why would anyone even need five deferments? Why did Mr. Cheney need to request five deferments?
Well, it turns out that Mr. Cheney mostly seems to have changed schools as a college student, and simply needed to make additional requests to accommodate the move. Mr. Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebr., January 30, 1941; attended public schools in Lincoln and Casper, Wyo.; attended Yale University 1959-1960; Casper College, Casper, Wyo. 1963; B.A., University of Wyoming, Laramie 1965; M.A., University of Wyoming 1966; Ph.D. candidate, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1968.
Here's the apparent story, as gleaned from various sources on the web - some of them violently anti-Cheney:
1. While Mr. Cheney was at Yale the military was taking only older men and he therefore needed no deferment at that time.
2. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 he turned 22 that month and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System.
3. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.
4. Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
5. Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
6. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption (his fifth deferment), which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.
So it seems that three of Mr. Cheney's deferments cover only his undergraduate career.
Senator Kerry also requested and was granted a deferment
for his undergraduate education - but only one deferment
was to cover that period in his career only because he
didn't change schools.
Then Mr. Cheney requested and was granted a deferment to cover his post-college education. When the "married man" deferment was ended, Mr. Cheney was granted an exemption based on his being a "married father." This seems entirely technical - the two deferments are essentially a single deferment.
Senator Kerry also requested a post-college deferment to
allow him to study in Paris - but it was denied. Senator
Kerry then enlisted in the Navy rather than be drafted. He
and his his supporters have characterized that enlistment
as <font color=blue>"volunteering,"<font color=black> which it technically is. But the
Senator could not have avoided service by
not <font color=blue>"volunteering"<font color=black> - contrary to what was squarely and
falsely asserted by Bill Clinton in his Boston convention
address and what the Senator has often attempted to induce
the public to believe.
<font color=green>
In sum: Mr. Cheney requested two substantively separate deferments from the draft - both were granted. Senator Kerry also requested two separate deferments from the draft - one of which was granted and one was denied. He then enlisted in the Navy to avoid being drafted.
So what's the big deal? The differences between Mr. Cheney's requests for deferments and Senator Kerry's seem to be entirely technical - except for differences arising solely from the Senator's second request for a deferment being denied by his draft board. It seems a stretch to argue that one is entitled to be President because of something one's draft board did thirty-some-odd years ago.
<font color=black>
POSTSCRIPT: One may be able to view these deferments another way: Mr. Cheney obtained deferments for four years of his life (ages 22 through 26). While I have not been able to definitively determine the date of Senator Kerry's deferment, he seems to have obtained a single four year deferment for his four years at Yale. Senator Kerry then tried to obtain further deferment, which would have secured for him more total deferment in excess of the four years of deferment both he and Mr. Cheney had obtained. But Senator Kerry's draft board denied that second request.
This is heroic patriotic intent on John Kerry's part? I don't think so. The man should just pipe down about draft deferments and make the best of what he's got. What he's doing now is embarrassing ... for him, the Democratic Party, veterans everywhere and the country as a whole.
<font size=3>
musil.blogspot.com. |
