What, Me? AWOL?:
The Rude Pundit listened a couple of days ago to the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC when Lehrer interviewed Ruben Navarette, Jr. of the Dallas Morning News about the upcoming (now past) primaries (link goes to the audio). Navarette appears regularly on the show to offer "commentary" about voters and what they may be seeking in the next election. When Lehrer brought up the "accusations" made, most recently, by Michael Moore (with his "deserter" reference) and DNC chair Terry McCauliffe that our Commander-in-Chief was AWOL while doing time in the Air National Guard back in the Vietnam War, Navarete said, speaking for people of his generation (20s-30s) who weren't around for the Vietnam War, that the issue was a non-starter. Navarette, who seems to hold moderate-to-right-wing views, said that these voters don't feel that what someone did during the Vietnam era, during a time of great confusion, thirty years ago, has any relevance to their votes in the upcoming election. We don't care, he seems to say, if Bush shirked his duty: "I don't give Bush any strikes for not showing up for duty in Alabama, just like I don't give Kerry any points" for going to war. (For a summary of the AWOL issue, here's a quick version from Josh Marshall.) Beyond the obvious and ignorant overgeneralization in the statements, what Navarette is missing is the fact that so much of this campaign is going to be a chance to look again at Bush, since last time the press was so pre-occupied with destroying Gore. To say that Gen-X-ers won't care is such a startling desire for historical ignorance; campaigns are about character. If someone committed a crime or breaking of contract thirty years ago that others were sent to jail or to war for, then it says something about the man who committed the act.

Because, you know, Bush is soooo willing to take responsibility for everything that goes on in his administration. From blaming Congress for the underestimate on the prescription drug benefit to blaming the intelligence for the decision to go to war to blaming September 11 for the deficit (and not his tax cuts), the Bush White House is about buck-passing, refusal to admit error, and closing ranks. If Bush farted in a closed room, he'd blame someone in the next room for passing gas too close to an air vent. If Bush was caught standing over the nude, still-warm corpse of a dead hooker, pants down, bloody knife in his hand, he'd blame the hooker for slicing her own throat and yanking his panties off while she fell to the ground. Or he'd get George Tenet to take the blame, but not fire him, because, you know, he's a good guy.

And the White House is just outraged, outraged, that the AWOL allegations are being made, again. Scott McClellan said the claims are "baseless and outrageous," when, really, they've got a pretty good basis in reality since no records show Bush was there and Bush's only defense is "I'm pretty sure I was there," which, of course, makes most of us nod and say, "Oh, yeah, there's a few coke-induced black outs I'd like to fill in." And McClellan blames election year politicking. Apparently, memories are short, since this is the same George W. Bush whose 2000 campaign in the South Carolina primary used every ugly allegation short of child molestation against John McCain in order to win. Question whether or not an opponent's wife is addicted to painkillers or whether the opponent has fathered a child out of wedlock? Hey, fair game, according to the Bush rules of engagement. Question if a man who is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces used his privileged father in order to leap ahead of others to get a coveted spot in the Air National Guard and then shirked that duty? Outrageous. (And, remember, at least Bill Clinton took a principled stand against the war - he didn't "dodge" the draft.)

What this really comes down to is that the right, whether it's the Bush administration or columnists speaking for Gen-Xers, is scared shitless of John Kerry (or Wesley Clark). They are scared to death to have any moment when Bush would have to stand next to someone who saw combat and see how small, how very small, Bush would seem when talking about "our brave men and women in uniform," because, well, he'd be talking about the man opposite him. (And, yes, Gore did serve, but Gore was Gore, with all the other baggage he chose to carry.) And, Jesus, what a sight that's gonna be. What an amazing squirmfest. What a chance for the weasel to final show his slither.