Bowling For Voters II

Part one here.

As Clark flirts with a Dean-style meltdown in the arms of Mike Moore, an intrepid PBS crew tries bravely to salvage something for some Democratic candidate somewhere.

DAVID BROOKS: As Mark said the questions were adversarial and you had to be ready for things, and Wesley Clark was not ready for them. He read some lavish praise that he wrote in London Times about the Bush war effort and the liberation and the possibilities for democracy, totally fumbled how he could square that article with his current position.

He was presented with something Michael Moore, his supporter, had said in front of him that George W. Bush was a war deserter; why didn't he object to that, which is untrue. Why didn't he object now, and he didn't do it at the debate, he didn't do it then and he came off seeming to me like a hater. Then the final thing was --

JIM LEHRER: A hater?

DAVID BROOKS: A hater. I think there are two kinds of candidates in this race: there are the ones who oppose bush and want to get him removed from office, that's most of the candidates. And then there are two who take it to an extra level, and who are always assigning bad motives to the Bush administration and that's Wesley Clark and Howard Dean. I think what we're learning over these two weeks is the Democratic Party prefers the first and not the second.

Implying Kerry is the first type? Don't be sure he won't yank the rug right out from under anyone making that claim on his behalf.

And yes, we'll leave exploration of the PBS use of the "hater" term for another day. But on somewhat of a side note the PBS piece ends with a remarkable hat tip to Ronald Reagan:

JIM LEHRER: How did you feel about Clark last night, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I don't know if I subscribe to Dr. Brooks's assessment there on the motives involved. But I don't, quite frankly. But I do think that Wesley Clark showed flashes of some eloquence, but I think he stumbled on the Michael Moore question. Jim, I've been around politics too long, I guess, but I remember in 1966 when a rookie candidate from California named Ronald Reagan was running for governor and the major issue in the Republican primary for governor, where Reagan was actually an underdog, was whether the candidates would accept the support of the John Birch Society, the kind of loony tunes anti-Communist group then prominent in California politics.

And Ronald Reagan had a wonderful answer, he said I seek the support, welcome the support of all freedom loving law abiding Californians, but because somebody endorses me means in no way that I endorse them. And, you know, that's the answer. You couldn't rebut it, you couldn't argue with it. And Wesley Clark stumbled on the Michael Moore question last night, no doubt about it.

So, can we expect the Democrats to borrow a page from Reagan's strategy guide? (Certainly, right after they they decide to join the war on terror on America's side.)

I'll leave the final word on Bush/AWOL to an expert, fellow MilBlogger and retired Air Force Reservist Baldilocks, who chimed in some time ago with what I believe to be one of the finest meme-killing blog posts ever composed (hey, you anger an Air Force vet and you're going to get carpet bombed, a'ight?):

...And, on top of that, if the member wants to take an extended period of absence from his/her duty for any reason—family, school, work in a political campaign, or just because he/she needs a break—he/she can do it with the unit commander’s permission. That’s it. That’s all that’s required. Not a flocking act of Congress, not some monetary exchange in a back room somewhere.

I know this, because I did it. Yes, little bald-headed black chicks can take a break from the Reserves if they want to, just like rich white guys. And I kept my money--and my virtue, such as it is--in my pocket when I did it.

Ain’t America great?