Oh, you're a bad pony. And I'm not gonna bet on you.

Posted by Thad

In a startling case of life imitating blog, David Mamet has weighed in with some words of advice for the Democrats:

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."

It's not bad, but I have to say, I prefer the original version.

Via AMERICAblog.

- Thad

Comments

[John Emerson]

"How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush?"

Mamet is fine, but Bartcop has been using that line for years.

[Thad]

Hey John,

That was kind of my point -- what Mamet's saying isn't news to anyone in the blogosphere (although obviously it's nice to have those views endorsed in the LA Times by a world-famous playwright and filmmaker). But anyway, if you have a link to Bartcop's original use of the "couldn't even stand up to Bush" meme, I'll include a link to him as well.

[GaijinBiker]

"I didn't bring up the subject"? That would have been rich, coming from the guy who "reported for duty" as a fightin' veteran.

Kerry thrust his military record into the campaign, and by implication, called Bush's into question.

[Thad]

GaijinBiker,

The SwiftBoating of Kerry started long before his convention speech.

[GaijinBiker]

And Kerry's touting of his military record started long before the Swift boating.

[Thad]

So that completely justifies the Swift Boat slanders and lies, of course.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Of course it does, Thad. When a political candidate points to his or her factual past achievements, it's only fair--nay, proper--for the other side to spread malicious lies about them.

[ethan]

big ups for quoting my favorite mamet flick in the subject.

it's really a must-see, people.

[Nancy]

Ooh, look at Mamet's manly manly metaphors about poker and alleys.

Mamet's an asshole - anybody want to debate me on "Oleanna?"

So who cares what he says?

[gordo]

Gaijin Biker--

I think you're right in pointing out that Kerry shouldn't have said anything about not bringing the subject up. It would have been irrelevant and untrue.

I've seen a lot of people on the left say that Kerry lost because he didn't defend himself, but I think that the people who lost confidence in him would have ignored any defense he might have offered. The real issue wasn't Kerry's service, but terrorism, and people who doubted Kerry's ability to ensure national security were looking for reasons to oppose him.

From this perspective, Kerry's main problem was his failure to clearly articulate a coherent alternative to Bush's approach to terrorism. Broad pronouncements on fighting "a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more (OMFG!) sensitive war on terror" weren't going to cut it.

Kerry needed to let us know, point by point, exactly what concrete actions he would take that would be more proactive. He had to point to specific strategic alternatives, and tell us how these alternatives would be more effective.

Kerry already had the Bush Bashers in his pocket. If Kerry had done a better job of convincing independent voters that he could handle national security, the Swift Boat attacks wouldn't have been enough to swing the election.