The sudden recent flurry of Democrat references to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is no random occurrence. On several occasions in the last few weeks, prominent Democrats have invoked variations of the term "swiftboated" with telling regularity.
Referring to them on November 5, Senator and 2004 presidential wannabe John Kerry (D.-MA) claimed that, this time around he will "make certain that people don't get away with that." In the wake of Hillary's disastrous performance at the last month's debate in Philadelphia, husband Bill rushed in to diffuse criticism of her by the other Democrat candidates on the basis that they were engaged in a "Swift Boat" attack against her.
The Democrat plan is as predictable as it is transparent. By continually employing references to the Swift Boat Veterans in a universally derisive sense, they hope to discredit the organization in totality.
Thereafter, it is thought, Democrat propagandists should have an easy time attaching the label to any and all organizations that dare to criticize Hillary, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, or any of their members who come under scrutiny. Thus they intend to eliminate any negative messages by destroying the messenger. Yet their plan is fundamentally flawed.
The Democrat Party smear machine may indeed cast aspersions on the character and veracity of John O'Neill (founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) as well as other organizations and individuals which make it onto the Democrat "enemies list." Yet such attacks cannot eradicate factual information brought to the public through the efforts of O'Neill and others like him who fearlessly put forth the truth.
Furthermore, the mere fact that Democrat operatives recognize the need to devote so much time and energy to this effort stands as proof of their vulnerability to similar onslaughts between now and Election Day. Once specific word of malfeasance or the existence of an ominous political agenda reaches the public, no amount of liberal tap-dancing, back peddling, or personalized counterattacks will erase the damage such information inflicts on the false front of liberal politicking.
The primary case in point of recent days is, of course, Hillary's frenzied "bob and weave" in the wake of the October 29 debate where, to her surprise, moderator Tim Russert confronted her with the alarming facts of New York State's plans to give drivers' licenses to illegal aliens, and her past support for the abominable measure.
Even after several attempts at "clarifying" her position on the issue both during the debate and during the days that followed, it is obvious that grave damage has clearly been done to her standing in the pre-election polls. And no amount of personal attacks against Russert can put that genie back into its bottle.
Despite the severity of Democrat responses to these broadsides, or the constant repetition of the supposed "unfairness" and detrimental effects that such tactics have on the political discourse, in the present day of alternative media, efforts of this nature will consistently prove effective against a disingenuous candidate. And this is the case for one unavoidable reason. In each of the previously mentioned situations, the accusations are true.
As it was with John Kerry in 2004, in the absence of hard, contradictory evidence, the shrillness of complaints against such assaults only serve to solidify the guilt of the intended target. Had Kerry truly been an innocent victim of an unwarranted mudslinging campaign, he could easily have disproved the allegations of his accusers by releasing his military records.
Yet it is now 2007, and in the intervening three years since this debacle began, he has failed to do so. Case closed. And the current field of Democrat candidates, offering phony life experiences and striving to put a false but palatable veneer on their liberal agendas, is no less vulnerable than Kerry was during the last election.
However, Republicans are extremely premature if they believe that the situation offers them an opportunity to gloat. While Hillary's nomination may indeed be in jeopardy, the ascension of either of her opponents bodes no better for America. Though she may present the grimmest face of liberalism in the perception of many, the political philosophies of her Democrat rivals are no less sinister.
Each differs from her merely in the manner of cosmetic touches necessary to put a good face on their campaigns in order to fool the public as to their similarly malignant nature.
Furthermore, the recent actions that have caused Hillary so much exasperation can and will be brought to bear with even greater effect on any Republican who is similarly vulnerable. This is a double bladed axe, which will cut in their direction if their chosen candidate bears similar vulnerabilities. And as things currently stand, this may well be the case.
Establishment Republicans maintain steadfast support for Rudy Giuliani, a liberal New Yorker, in his presidential bid. In this they are abetted by the liberal media which, for strategic reasons that seem to escape many Republicans, have all but declared Giuliani the unquestioned winner. They remain blissfully unaware of this impending setup.
Any disparagement that the former First Lady has received will pale in comparison to that which Giuliani, or any Republican who exhibits the slightest bit of vulnerability, can expect. Moreover, such attacks will surely come at the most inopportune time for the Republican candidate. But unlike their Democrat counterparts, grassroots conservatives are constrained by their moral and intellectual honesty from ignoring unfavorable information. The attack will take its toll.
Of course at that time Hillary will get a "pass." It is beyond naive to presume that Russert, or any of his surrogates, would ever interrogate any Democrat hopeful in the last days before the general election if the slightest possibility exists that doing so might boost chances for the Republican nominee.
Copyright ©2007 Christopher G. Adamo