Conservative Poker Fan in "The Biz"

Friday, October 15, 2004

Hughposium the 3rd

Before I get to Hugh Hewitt's question for the weekly symposium, I'm sure anyone that visits the site and looks around will notice that the last time I posted was in response to Hughposium #2 (I think that's what these weekly questions should be called, at least). I have made no secret that this blog was created because of the great work that Mr. Hewitt has done on his blog and radio talk show. This is also another indicator of the power of the blogosphere, I believe. This is a new incarnation of sending a letter to the editor, except almost every letter can get published without a filter. I don't know about you, but I always sense a trend in the letters chosen to end up in the newspaper or magazine every week. There's two letters published supporting the left's view (isn't it interesting that center-left just doesn't sound right? For another time, perhaps), and then there's a churlish, often angry reading letter supporting the center-right's view. It never fails to end up with this type of formula of "two left, one angry right" letter. With the advent of and current surge in popularity of blogs, those letters can now be written with a guaranteed form of distribution. More importantly, the information will get to the world unfiltered; however many right leaning letters are written will be "published," and the same on the left. You'll never convince me that the dead tree media will ever be happy about this situation.

On to this week's question:

Weekend Symposium 3: How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

My feeling is this; the initial hole dug by Kerry was probably not that deep. He definitely crossed the line but if all he had done was make mention of the Cheney's daughter in the debate then, after hearing some huffing and puffing from certain media outlets, made an apology for offending anyone, I don't think it would have had much staying power as an issue.

But Kerry, and those around him being the condescending, arrogant group that they are, decided it was a good time to bust out some shovels and keep digging. First was Cahill's simply unbelievable edict that somehow a candidate's children were "fair game" in a campaign; since when!? This is simply not done, and for Cahill to proclaim that it is and will be done was astonishing. So she decided to join Kerry and jumped in the hole, shovel in hand.

And then there was, in my mind, the most cynical moment of this whole ordeal. After Lynne Cheney spoke out about what a cheap shot the remark was, Elizabeth Edwards got on a radio show and in a very (do you see it coming?) condescending way opined that Mrs. Cheney's reaction sadly shows how "ashamed" the Cheney's are of their daughter. In a word; WHAT?! The Cheney's reaction (Dick Cheney responded later on) was wholly unrelated to their daughter's situation and was entirely focused on the despicable remarks made, now not just by Kerry but also Cahill and any other apologists out there (hello Josh Marshall). What I find particularly galling, and I think this is where the lasting damage is going to occur, is that the Kerry campaign decided to use the wife of their vice-presidential candidate to try and shift the focus from Kerry's out of line remarks and onto the Cheney's reaction to those remarks (and don't try to tell me using Elizabeth Edwards in this way wasn't the plan that was come up with and was a coincidence of an interview gone awry....everything in these campaigns is planned and re-planned). How cynical do you have to be to weigh the political fall out and decide using the aggrieved wife's counterpart on the opposition ticket is the best way to try and throw up a smoke screen?

This is where the Kerry campaign brings out the Earth moving equipment and stays in the hole for good. As has been noted by Mr. Hewitt, an overwhelming majority of Americans, 64% as polled by the Washington Post, felt that Kerry bringing up the Cheney's daughter was out of line. Even 4 out of 10 voters voting for Kerry said it was out of line. With that many people understanding what a cheap stunt it was, how do you think those people are going to feel when they find out Elizabeth Edwards considers their reaction, which matches Lynne Cheney's reaction, actually reveals how ashamed they are of the Cheney's situation, not how out of line Kerry's remarks were?