This diary entry is a response to repeated reports of continued dirty tricks against the Dean campaign in New Hampshire. We know that in Iowa Kerry people were calling teachers with false statements about Dean's relationship with Vermont Teachers (who talked about their previous clashes, but nonetheless endorsed him "enthusiastically." We have documented calls from kerry heqdquarters in Cedra Falls calling Dean an 'environmental racist." ABC has confronted Kerry with his attack literature in Iowa which he said was only pointing out differences (even though he screamed "unfair" and "attack" at Dean ads that reminded people that Kery had supported Bush on the war. But what is happening now, and which apparently happened in Iowa, is way over the line.
There are dozens of reports of robocalls - automated phone calls made by machine - calling people earlyin the morning and late at night, sometimes repeatedly, purporting to be from the Dean campaign. They are not. Karen Hicks, NH State Director of DFA has assured the people of NH that DFA no longer uses robocalls, and restricts all campaign calls to between 8:30 AM and 8:30 PM.
I doubt any campaign would be stupid enough to do this directly with campaign resources that have to be accounted for [well, Kerry at times is pretty stupid, but not that stupid, is he?}. Therefore these are probably being paid for independently of the campaign.
I remind people again that Mrs. Kerry has made clear she will use as much of her personal fortune as she deems necessary to protect her family from attacks, and that such expenditures are independent nof the campaign. When you consider what John Kerry has chosen to describe as attacks on him, it pains me but I draw the conclusion that the likely culprit behind such calls are people supporting Kerry, and the most likely funder is Mrs. Kerry. This is not YET a direct charge, but it is a logical conclusion.
The specialty of the Clark campaign is the leak of information in theory showing the opposition candidate(s) in a bad light - this has always been Chris Lehane's Method of Operation. Somehow I do not see Lieberman doing this kind of thing. And the risk for Edwards, should it be tied to him, is that his entire argument that he is running a positive campaign would blow up on him ... if the press were to cover the story.
Kerry supporters have been seen taking down Dean yard signs in several cities in New Hampshire. That is bad enough. The robocalls are probably a violation of law on several counts [although I am not a lawyer].
If it turns out that such activity is being done by Kerry or by his wife or by supporters with even tacit approval by the candidate or the official campaign organization, then whatever else one can say, it in my mind disqualifies him to be supported as a Democratic candidate for president. That is worse than Segretti, it is almost Rovian, and I fail to see how supporting someone who would justify such action is any different than supporting the Republicans who use similar tactics.
Mr. Kerry, you say all you want to do is compare. Then let's compare. Explain openly your flip-flops on issues that matter to Democratic core voters. Explain why you supported removing tenure from public school teachers, and your willingness to turn every public school in America into a charter school. Explain your voting to override Bill Clinton's veto of a bad Republican bill.
And if you really believe in Democratic values and openness, why don't you simply disavow your membership in Skull and Bones, and expose that organization for the totally undemocratic and unrepublican [in the boradest sense of both terms] institution it is.
Also, acknowledge the accusations you made in testimony before the US Congress about American servicemen committing rape and other atrocities. Repeat those statements now and stand by them, or disavow them and admit that either you were wrong or that yoy made them in order to sensationalize and advance your own career. Acknowledge that you yourself did NOT sleep on the Mall during Operation Dewey Canyon, but instead stayed at the house of a friend in Georgetown.
Oh, and while you are at it, maybe you should disavow some of your family fortune, since the first wealthy Forbes made a good deal of his money in the opium trade. Or maybe you don't think that matters, and that it is okay and presidential to mime smoking marijuana in the midst of a presidential campaign, while you demean one of your opponents as 'too angry" -- by the way, have you looked in a mirror recently, or observed your own facial expressions and body language on the campaign trail?
I had said that I would support any Democrat against Bush. I still make that statement. But I refuse to consider as a Democrat someone who will resort to the dirty tricks we associate with the worst of politics as they have been. If in fact what is going on is part of your camp, as it seems to be, I will be unwilling to support you in any way for any public office or trust.
I'm sorry - the end does not justify the means. You, as a Vietnam Veteran, surely should know that. Otherwise you can consider yourself one with the officer who explained that in order to save the village we had to destroy it.