ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 30, 2004

NEW YORK - - There is a cruel irony to the attacks on John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.

One of the main points of attack by Kerry’s critics is that Kerry did not deserve all three of his Purple Hearts and that he exaggerated at least two of them in order to get out of Vietnam. (If you got three Purple Hearts, which are given for injury in combat, you got to go home.)

To believe this accusation, however, you have to believe that Kerry schemed to get wounded - - but not too badly - - for the purpose of getting home early.

But, as we all know, there was a far easier way of getting out of Vietnam. It was called not going in the first place.

This is the option that George W. Bush took.

This is the option that Dick Cheney took.

This is the option that Bill Clinton took.

This is the option that hundreds of thousands of young men of John Kerry’s socio-economic class took.

But this was not the option that John Kerry took. (For the record: I was eligible for the Vietnam draft, but was never called because of a high lottery number. This did not displease me.)

Kerry not only volunteered for military service; he not only volunteered for Vietnam, but he volunteered for highly dangerous duty on the Mekong River in a so-called swift boat.

Kerry’s reward for this military service is now to be attacked as a coward and a liar, while Bush and Cheney are hailed as a “war-time” president and vice president.

Hold on, Kerry’s critics say, Kerry may have been in Vietnam, but he was there for only four months. (Kerry says he was there longer.)

But as we all know, some periods of time can seem a lot longer depending on the circumstances. Take the four-month figure that Kerry’s attackers use.

I would argue that four months on a swift boat in combat in South Vietnam is a lot longer than four months in the Air National Guard in Alabama or four months spent in various college deferments.

The attacks on Kerry’s military service have been effective in one respect, however. They have revealed one weakness of Kerry as a campaigner so far: Kerry has not yet made the emotional connection he needs to make with voters. An emotional connection (trust, likeability, etc.) is what you need to win.

Consider: In 1992, Bill Clinton was accused of many things, many of the accusations were true, Clinton denied them all and many people believed Clinton.

In 2004, Kerry is being accused of many things, many of the accusations are untrue, Kerry denies them all and some people are taking a “wait and see” attitude.

The irony is that the man who volunteered for military service - - service which Republicans claim to honor and revere - - is being attacked for his service, while those who didn’t go are getting a pass.

If there is a lesson in this for young people who may be considering a career in public service?

Yes: The less you do, the less you volunteer for, the less you serve your country, the less you can be attacked.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 16, 2004

WASHINGTON - - I keep hearing how “remarkable” and “poignant” and “courageous” it was when New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey announced recently that he was gay, an adulterer and was resigning from office.

But I don’t buy it. I don’t think it was poignant or courageous. I think it was just old-fashioned politics. And the only thing remarkable about McGreevey’s announcement was how disingenuous it was.

I saw McGreevey’s announcement on TV - - some keep referring to it as a press conference, but since he took no questions, it was no press conference - - and I have since read the text of his statement six or seven times. (It is not long.)

And the one thing I still cannot figure out is why the guy is resigning. You certainly can’t figure it out based on what he says in his statement:

1. First he says he is a “gay American.” OK, fine with me. But why resign over that? You don’t have to resign from office if you are gay. A number of gay Americans hold high office in this country. True, some people might not want to vote for McGreevey for re-election based on his sexuality (and some people would want to), but we are not talking about re-election. We are talking about something so serious that McGreevey feels he has to resign now. But being gay is not the reason.

2. Second, he says he is an adulterer. “Shamefully, I engaged in an adult consensual affair with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony. It was wrong. It was foolish. It was inexcusable,” he says. Inexcusable it may be - - though plenty of people get excused for it - - but, again, it is also no reason to resign. Bill Clinton was an adulterer and he didn’t resign his office and today it is hard to find many people who still care. So I don’t think McGreevey’s adultery is his reason for resigning.

3. Thirdly, McGreevey implies that he could have been blackmailed. “I realize,” he says, “the fact of this affair and my own sexuality, if kept secret, leaves me, and most importantly the governor's office, vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure.” But the key words here are “if kept secret.” Since McGreevey revealed the secrets of his sexuality and adultery, he can no longer be blackmailed. So it’s no reason to resign.

4. Lastly, he indicates the pressure might be too great for him and his family. Sort of. Actually it is hard to tell what he means by this: “Given the circumstances surrounding the affair and its likely impact upon my family and my ability to govern, I have decided the right course of action is to resign.” And that “likely impact” is so severe that he is not going to resign until Nov. 15! What sense does that make? If the pressure is so unbearable and is having so serious an effect on his ability to govern, why doesn’t he resign immediately?

Clearly, something else is going on here and none of it looks good. McGreevey’s statement tells us everything but the truth.

And for those praising McGreevey today for his courage and candor, would it not have been more courageous and more candid of him to say something like, “I put my lover on the public payroll in a job for which he was not qualified. That was wrong; I am sorry and am resigning immediately.”

But McGreevey did not say anything like that. Instead, he used his sexuality and his family as a smokescreen.

Some will say I am being too tough on him and that what he did must have been terribly painful. But McGreevey only acted because he knew everything was about to become public anyway.

I remember my days as a newspaperman in Chicago when some pol would learn that the media was going to drop a bomb on him and he would rush to hold a press conference to try and muddy the waters. Or a pol would be advised by his lawyer that he was under investigation and the prosecutors might go easier on him if he was a private citizen and not the holder of high office.

So excuse me if I am not heaping praise on McGreevey today.

His announcement was no profile in courage. It was just a profile in politics.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 11, 2004

WASHINGTON - - Have we reached a turning point in the presidential election? Or have we just reached a turning point in how the press views the presidential election?

Or is that the same thing?

On Tuesday, Charlie Cook, a highly-respected non-partisan political analyst, wrote in his column for the National Journal that things are looking bad for President Bush.

Cook’s chief point is that while Kerry holds just a slim lead in some polls, there are very few undecided voters out there and that Bush realistically can expect to get no more than 25 percent of them.

Which would mean a Kerry victory in November. Cook is not foolish enough to predict this and, of course, he includes the usual language about how things can change. But here are his concluding thoughts:

“…President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals
of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering
economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively
affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely
unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the
undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into
Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points.

“This election is certainly not over, but for me, it will be a matter of
watching for events or circumstances that will fundamentally change the
existing equation - - one that for now favors a challenger over an
incumbent.”

The following day, The Note, which is the highly-influential on-line political newsletter of ABC News, reprinted those paragraphs from Cook and added its own conclusion: “…the reality is - - as amazing as this seems - - this is now John Kerry’s contest to lose.”

The Note then listed some reasons, which include:

“Forget the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs and Team Bush's inability - - so far - - to enunciate a second-term jobs/growth agenda….

“Forget the fact that that we still can’t find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004.

“Forget the fact that California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey…aren’t in play and never were.

“Forget the latest polling out of Ohio (and perhaps Florida).

“Forget the extraordinary anti-Bush energy that exists on the left and the ‘how-do-we-whip-our-folks-up?’ dilemma that exists on the right.

“Forget the various signs that the Democratic challenger is playing in battleground areas for the middle and the President seems geographically and issues-wise to be still shoring up the base.

“But remember the poisonous job approval, re-elect, and wrong-track numbers that hang around the President's neck to this day….”

Both articles will be influential within the press not just because the authors are respected, but also because neither publication is known as being anti-Bush.

And for them both to reach the same conclusion - - the “existing equation” now favors “a challenger over an incumbent” in Cook’s words and “this is now John Kerry’s contest to lose” in The Note’s - - is a startling departure from the “political stalemate” view which many in the press have held so far.

As I said, this week may go down as the turning point in this presidential campaign. Or it may be the turning point in how the press views this presidential campaign.

Or is that the same thing?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 9, 2004

WASHINGTON - - Welcome to another installment of Ask Dr. Politics!

Q: I am planning a family vacation but I don’t want to leave home until the presidential campaign is over for fear of running into one of the candidates and his vast entourage that paralyzes all road, air, boat and railroad traffic around him. So my question is this: Is the presidential election over yet?
Dr. Politics: Unfortunately the election is not over. In fact, it has not really begun since the traditional beginning of the presidential election is Labor Day and we are not there yet. It just seems like this election has been going on forever because, well, it has been going on forever.

Q: How do they decide which party gets to hold its nominating convention first? Do they really flip a coin?
Dr. Politics: The party that controls the White House gets to go last. That is why the Republicans get to go last this year. Going last is considered an advantage because it is closer to Election Day and voters might actually remember who the nominee is.

Q: Is it true George W. Bush will dump Dick Cheney right before the Republican Convention?
Dr. Politics: I doubt it. Not only would it be an admission that that invasion of Iraq was a mistake, not only would it upset much of the Republican Party’s conservative base, but Cheney serves a very necessary function in the Bush White House: He doesn’t create problems for Jeb Bush in 2008. Cheney is a vice president with little or no hope of running for president in 2008. If Cheney were replaced, his replacement - - Rudy Giuliani, for example - - would certainly expect to run for president in 2008 and would have an advantage over other candidates. And the Bush family, the reasoning goes, does not want anyone having an advantage over Jeb Bush, the president’s brother and governor of Florida.

Q: Does Jeb Bush really expect to run for president in 2008?
Dr. Politics: We don’t know. The family always considered him the “smart” one among the Bush brothers, but if he does run, he will face considerable opposition within the Republican Party and from people who believe two presidents is dynasty enough for any family.

Q: So if we know who the Republicans will nominate for president and vice president, what excitement is left for the convention?
Dr. Politics: The balloon drop? The number of people wearing cheese heads? The president’s acceptance speech? You pick.

Q: When is the Republican Convention?
Dr. Politics: It is scheduled to begin on Aug. 30 and end on Sept. 2. Which means that just like the Democratic Convention, it will be one day too long. Since the results are known in advance, nobody cares about the platforms and all controversy is strictly banned, there is not enough news to sustain four-day conventions any more. And, in fact, the commercial networks have cut back their coverage to just three days. So why do parties insist on making them four days long? Because the hotel and restaurant industries insist on it.

Q: Why did the Republicans choose New York City for their convention?
Dr. Politics: You mean just because it is in a state the Republicans cannot win in the fall and in a city who mayor is only nominally a Republican? Well, I suppose it could have something to do with the availability of hotel rooms and taxi cabs and the proximity of Ground Zero. Actually, New York City wanted to host both conventions this year, but the Democratic Party refused to hold its convention in any city that also hosted the Republicans.

Q: So who is going to win in November?
Dr. Politics: We don’t know. But we are comforted by the immortal words of Adlai Stevenson, who said, “In America, anyone can become president. It’s one of the risks we take.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 4, 2004

Simon Says:

For all the dire warnings and gloom-and-doom predictions, Boston handled the Democratic Convention wicked good. New York City in late August? Most New Yorkers probably won't even notice there is a Republican Convention going on.

If there is any difference between a root beer float and a Black Cow, I have been unable to discern it.

For those of you who missed it, Bill Clinton’s appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman” this week was surprisingly serious. “I wanted to ask you about the status of Africa,” Letterman said at one point. Clinton replied, “It is not hopeless” and said that AIDS was the biggest problem. In another exchange, Clinton talked about the expiration of the assault weapons ban on Sept. 13 and said, “Kerry is for extending it.” Which leaves me with just one question: So how come Kerry never talks about it?

I am not sure why your belt color is supposed to match your shoe color, but it is.

Ron Reagan gave one of the best speeches at the Democratic Convention. It was sincere, non-partisan and well-delivered. It is not easy to make stem-cell research understandable, but he did it.

The cost of parking overnight in a hotel garage has gotten totally insane.

There has been a ruling from the International Crossword Puzzle Commission in Antwerp: Using Google to solve crossword puzzles is definitely cheating.

Why do ATMs dispense $50 bills? Nobody wants $50 bills. The standard is simple: If a cabbie won't take it, we don't want it. (The only people who use fifties are drug dealers and they use them to light their cigarettes.)

There is nothing quite as beautiful as a beautiful bridge.

Heard that this presidential election is going to be really, really close? Modern history says probably not. When incumbent presidents run for re-election, they tend to win big or lose big.

When is the last time you heard a really good marching band? (And when is the last time you really wanted to?)

Instead of publicly naming the buildings that we think terrorists are going to attack, why not surround the buildings with undercover agents and catch the terrorists in the act?

Until I saw a nighttime golf tournament on ABC this week, I had no idea you could play golf at night. (When did country clubs put lights in?)

In my experience, whenever you check into a hotel and the desk clerk tells you that he is giving you an especially nice room, he is invariably lying.

In the future all babies will be given BlackBerries at birth and will learn to communicate solely with their thumbs. Human speech will eventually atrophy and wither away except for talk radio.

Quick, name the only state whose first two letters are vowels.

Anyone who says “what you see is what you get” is always hiding something.

Is it too soon to start worrying about Jeb?

I really admire people who know how to wrap packages.

Blaze orange may be the big color next year.

How is it that the party of Lincoln in the Land of Lincoln cannot come up with a competitive candidate for the U.S. Senate?

It drives me crazy every time the New York Times refers to Osama bin Laden on second reference as “Mr. bin Laden.” How many people do you have to murder before you lose the “Mr.”?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
AUGUST 2, 2004

WASHINGTON - - A time-traveler from 1972 would not recognize the Democratic party today. The party that once opposed the war in Vietnam is now wallowing in it. The party that once spent its time championing abortion rights, gun control, and affirmative action just spent an entire nominating convention barely mentioning these issues.

Why? Because the Democrats believe they can win with John Kerry and winning with John Kerry means winning with Vietnam. No image, no theme, no message has shaped his campaign as much as the war that deeply divided this nation more than three decades ago.

Vietnam defines both Kerry, the man, and Kerry, the campaigner. He believes it shows his values (he volunteered while others ducked or dodged), it shows his leadership (he commanded troops in battle), it shows his compassion (he saved a life or two), it shows his toughness (he took a life or two), it shows his moral strength (he had the courage to later oppose the war he fought in), and it shows his vision (he has experienced the horrors of war and will not be quick to commit American troops to combat without a good reason.)

It is, however, also a gamble. Americans are still conflicted over the war. Many would like to forget it, not have it thrown in their faces. And while some Viet vets see Kerry as their champion, others have never forgiven him for giving back his ribbons and criticizing the war while it was being fought.

Yet often last week, the convention seemed a mere excuse to revisit the war. After Kerry landed in Boston last Wednesday afternoon, he left Logan airport by boat and was flanked by his crewmates from PCF-44 and PCF-94, the two swift boats he skippered in the Vietnam war in 1968 and 1969.

And there was no shortage of convention speakers willing to define Kerry by his Vietnam service. Former general and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark told reporters, “Every decision [Kerry] is going to make concerning national security is going to be formed by his personal experience of hearing the bullets snap overhead and the thump of mortars and seeing the look in people’s faces. He sees what war does. He’s lived it.”

One of Kerry’s crewmates, David Alston, gave a speech on the convention’s opening night saying, “I stand here before you only because almighty God saw our boat safely through those rivers of death and destruction, by giving us a brave, wise, and decisive leader named John Kerry.”

Kerry’s Vietnam service also conveniently gives Democrats an excuse [as if they needed one] to bash President Bush, whose own service in the Texas Air National Guard during the war years has been questioned.

Even Bill Clinton, who ducked service in Vietnam, highlighted the differences between the Kerry and Bush military records. “During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current president, the vice president and me, could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t,” Clinton told the delegates. “John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it, too. Instead he said, ‘Send me.’ ”

Over and over again, the Democrats emphasized strength, even though historically voters have seen the Republican party as the party of backbone. Democrats have been so closely associated with social issues instead of strength, in fact, that many political analysts see them as the “Mommy” party and Republicans as the “Daddy” party.

But his Vietnam service helps Kerry look strong and all over the FleetCenter, where the convention took place, were streaming electronic signs that read: “Stronger at Home, Respected Abroad.”

And when Kerry began his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention by saluting and saying, “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty,” he served notice that the war is going to be very much front and center from now until Election Day.