Stuck in an imaginary past?

I am beginning to think that, whether we like it or not, the 2004 election will be about what really happened in the early 1970s, even how things worked back then. Whether this is a good idea is not for me to decide, but right now the big argument is over the precise capabilities of 1970s word processing equipment. The problem is, while I see big media fraud as a larger issue than the election, I am not sure how or where the spin will evolve. Not that spin is my problem, but I worry that Rathergate might cause some people to overstress the importance what went on in the early 1970s.

By way of personal example, I'm not running for anything, but in the early 1970s I was a crazed Marxist-Leninist who did not live a clean and sober life! Unlike some members of my generation I admit that I was wrong in those days. But so what? How important is any of it now? Not very.... But as I say that, I have to recognize that were I running for office and someone put words in my mouth or said I did something I didn't do, then I too would have to revisit the 1970s to rebut their claim. How to do that and avoid the unnecessary distractions that would inevitably create -- well, that's something I'm glad I don't have to face.

It's easy for me to understand why most people would never consider running for public office.

In any event, we are stuck with reality. And there seems to be a Rathther serious disconnect with reality over the genuineness of documents purporting to be from the 1970s:

The typography experts quoted by major media organizations are nearly unanimous in their doubts that the Killian memos are genuine.

-- Josh Levin (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Nearly unanimous? According to Gunga Dan, none of them count:

Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not [authentic], I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumour mill...

-- Dan Rather, quoted over the weekend in the New Zealand Herald.

Asks RatherBiased.com,
Does Dan's "professional rumor mill" include ABC News, NBC News, and the Washington Post?

Dan, no one needs to show you "definitive proof that they are not" authentic. The burden of proof is on you. You introduce photocopies of suspicious documents that can easily be replicated on Microsoft Word. You don't provide the originals, which you say you don't have, and you don't tell where you got them.

You also have not produced a single expert who is willing to go on the record and say these documents are real. All the experts you have cited have either backed away or said their comments were misrepresented.

As I said before, if this case were being tried in court, the documents would be without credibility. There's no showing of authentication beyond a naked claim that they're authentic. Not one witness claims any knowledge of their origin. (That CBS refuses to disclose anything about their origin speaks for itself!)

Meanwhile, I found it worth a chuckle that Eric Boehlert is stating that the forgery allegations are all part of a right wing conspiracy:

there is clear evidence confirming that the same conservative operatives who have been busily promoting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smears of Kerry are now engaged in pushing the story that CBS's "60 Minutes Weeknight Edition" aired forged documents in its Wednesday night report on Bush and the National Guard.

Creative Response Concepts, the Arlington, Va., Republican public relations firm run by former Pat Buchanan communications director Greg Mueller, with help from former Pat Robertson communications director Mike Russell, sent out a media advisory Thursday to hawk a right-wing news dispatch: "60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake."

This is via Kevin Aylward at Wizbang, who thinks the forger may be one Marty Heldt, an Iowa farmer cited by Boehlert as an "independent researcher".

That last Media Matters writeup is just too rich and juicy for me to ignore. Most of the piece consists of an item-by-item defense against the forgery allegation (as long as it is unconvincing; another bare recital of how technology was available which might have been able to produce what everyone's now producing on Microsoft Word). But in the last paragraph, the finger is pointed at Republican operatives, notably Karl Rove, as likely culprits behind the "set up."

Talk about having your cake and eating it too! Arguing in the alternative is sometimes the best way to represent clients in litigation, but is Media Matters representing a desperate client on Death Row? The effect is downright comical.

Kevin may be right about Heldt, but I'm also fascinated by Salon's Eric Boehlert, who seems to have a bent for fictionalizing the 1970s. From what I can see, Boehlert's the guy who first promulgated the fabricated claim that the Air Force performed drug tests in the early 1970s, even citing detailed regulations -- despite the fact that the Air Force didn't implement drug testing until the 1980s.

Retroactive nostalgia, perhaps?

Would someone who'd manufacture drug test regulations also manufacture documents?

The common thread is the 1970s and George W. Bush.

With less than two months to go, I fear this election will be so mired in the past that current issues will be forgotten. Perhaps that's the goal.

Coming soon, I predict: 1975, and drunken driving! I'm sure Boehlert and company will supply new facts about this and other pressing 1970s matters. And when do we get to question the timing?

The focus might as well be on who was wearing pajamas in the 1970s, or even who was wearing what.

And speaking of "tired attire," here's Dan Rather apparently wearing a toga! (via Glenn Reynolds.)

They had toga parties in those days!

(Which is Classical nostalgia....)

posted by Eric on 09.13.04 at 09:13 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1445






Comments

Your prediction is absolutely brilliant. I don't think this pattern of allegations is an accident. I think Kerry hired a new team that specifically wants to go on the attack, in response to the SBVT allegations.

Also, Kerry is appearing on Imus Wednesday, a sign of desperation, in my opinion, so he can get credit for facing hard questions and still come off as an amiable guy.

Imus asks hard questions, but he won't press the issue if Kerry tries to laugh them off.

So, I think Kerry will come out strong for domestic policy issues, while saying we should "rise above" all this pettiness.

At the same time, his campaign operatives will leak drunk driving stuff to ABC.

The best thing about Rathergate is that it should make news organizations think twice before cooperating with political campaigns.

It SHOULD do this, but after what I've seen this week, I cannot underestimate the audacity, or the stupidity, of Kerry's allies in the media.

Michael Duff   ·  September 13, 2004 10:58 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits