Damn you! Damn you all to Hell!
Actually, it should be "Condem You! Condemn you all to hell!"
So today I take a break and I see Max Cleland in a political theatre that could be titled "the postman rings once." Basically Cleland and other vets, including ex-POW Sen. John McCain I believe, think the President should condemn the (IMO) mostly false and certainly slimy Swift Boat advertisements. (Bush' campaign knew he was coming and had an appropriate ambush, a vet who wanted to give a letter to Cleland.)
Bush has praised Kerry's military service, but has not specifically condemned the Swift ads. He condemns all 527 ads. When pressed, Bush responded he wanted to see a stop to "All of them. That means that ad, every other [527] ad"
Should Bush specifically condemn the Swift Boat ads? Should Kerry condemn all the 527 ads?
Bonus points to whoever is the first to tell me where the title of this post comes from.
posted by TheRadicalModerate @ 8/26/2004 01:01:00 AM
43 Comments:
I'll start this off by saying that the candidates should stop/condemn all false and misleading ads. I don't have a problem with negativity, I have a problem with outright lying.
Saying "I condemn all 527 ads" isn't good enough. Some of these ads are true, or partially true.
I've heard claims that Kerry has condemned certain anti-Bush ads, but except for one that he condemned after the SBVTs I haven't heard him say it.
Whew. I am glad that in the middle of an extreme tirade I was typing to comment about this post, my computer (Sony VAIO laptop) decided it was too hot again and shut down. I am just generaly angry at the depths the Democrats have sunk to, sending Max Cleland all the way to Texas for a photo-op. It hasn't effected my opinion of the Bush camp except to re-enforce my opinion that he needn't trample on the free speech rights of any group; just stay with his current position. Does he know the truth? I doubt it. Using a disabled American veteran to do your dirty work is condemnable. I have all the sypathy in the world for ex-rep Cleland, but I don't have to like his mindset because of it. I don't like him letting himself be used in such a fowl manner. I think it is high time to let the whole Kerry Vietnam service thing pass and concentrate on what Kerry would do if elected by reviewing his career in the Sanate as compaired to four tyears of a Bush presidency and maybe his time as Govenor of Texas. He, he, he...my first post was much harsher, really.
Throw Bob Dole into the discussion as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34024-2004Aug25.htmlFYI, it appears you can search the 527s at the IRS:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id=109644,00.html
Pez says ...
I guess everybody pretty much knows how I feel about politicians in general. That said, let me add that anyone who believes ads in general is an idiot. I think the fact check link you guys are talking about pretty much cinches (clinches?)it.
gecko had said (damn that's a great name!):
"It hasn't effected my opinion of the Bush camp except to re-enforce my opinion that he needn't trample on the free speech rights of any group;" This sounds like Kerry is trampling on free speech. The swifties ads aren't free speech. It's outright lying.
This is why alot of us hate politics, lies, lies and more lies. (and you wonder why I am a pessimist)
I can't seem to figure out how to say it (and not get deleted at the same time). Free speech doesn't mean we have a right to tell untruths or to purposely slander someone when their is no proof, or in the case of the swifties their own words say they are lying.
There is a difference between lying and misleading. Looking at that fact-check site I saw several examples. I don't have a problem with the Dems saying Bush has lost jobs and then quoting JUST the manufacturing jobs. It's true even though its misleading (though I think they should say manufacturing jobs). Likewise, I don't have a problem with the Reps saying Kerry voted to raise taxes 98 times and supported a 50 cent gas tax. I question how they arrived at the 98 figure but the gax tax thing is true. (I heard a liberal saying that by the way the Reps calculated it that Cheney voted for taxes 114 times, anyone know about this?)
I was reading on a site that some liberal nut case with too much time on his hands figured out that Bush's whereabouts were unrecorded for about an hour. This guy happened to be in the same city at the time. The whole point was that he said "what if I said that Bush and I had a gay meeting during that time?" He was asking if this lie would be okay. After all, there are no records to say otherwise, it would just be his word against Bush.
"I think it is high time to let the whole Kerry Vietnam service thing pass" Dude, even I wouldn't let it pass. You don't ignore bullies you stand up to them.
"concentrate on what Kerry would do if elected by reviewing his career in the Sanate as compared to four years of a Bush presidency and maybe his time as Govenor of Texas."
That's funny cause Sheryl said the same thing. Aren't you guys on opposite sides? I think this would be worse for Bush since he's done alot of harm to this country while Kerry doesn't seem to have done anything at all.
PEZ - (repeating) Politicians Especially Suck
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
intense!
love,
jason mulgrew
internet quasi-celebrity
Pez says ...
I forgot the commas in a line.
"I think people who believe ads, in general, are idiots."
which is not to mean that
"people who believe ads are, in general, idiots."
I should've said
"I think people who, in general, believe political ads are idiots."
Hmm, now I can't figure out which one is right.
HOw do you become a quasi-internet celebrity?
my question exactly. wouldn't it be easier to be an internet quasi celebrity?
Mac
Hi Pez,
When I say we should look at their records, it's not because I feel great about the lies being spread in ads. It's because if you look at their records, then it's easier to get around those lies.
I don't believe in looking at votes perse. Very often someone in Congress will introduce a strong bill, let's say an environmental bill, then their opposition will introduce a weak "environmental" bill as an alternative. Then when the election comes around, the one who introduced the weak bill will say--"Look, Joe didn't vote for our anti-smog legislation" when in fact it was written to provide incentives for companies to do whatever was most profitable (like pollute) and was a substitute for a bill that would have cleaned the air.
And that goes for the tax votes mentioned as well. Who knows what the alternatives on the table were. It just doesn't make sense to try and evaluate things that way. Even though I really love groups ike Vote Smart, who do dissect voting records. But without context, there's no meaningful discussion, because politics is a game of spin.
I don't think any of the candidates running have faith in the ability of the electorate to see past the smokescreens. And judging from how Bush is gaining in the polls from these lies, I think there is legitimate reasons for concern. Considering how easily Bush exploited 9/11 and "terrorism" also suggests that people in this country are easily manipulated.
However, if you look at what these people have done in office, Kerry has stood up for things that strengthen our nation while Bush has been destroying it. That's just my opinion, but I'm willing to defend it, even if I am getting tired.
Speaking of exploiting.....I read that Bush's campaign is using some footage of the Iraqi soccer team at the Olympics in their ads....I haven't seen it (don't watch TV) but I read of it.
Mac
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sheryl, if I EVER see you do that again, I will automatically delete every single post you make! You do not give out personal information or hint where it can be obtained.
Pez,
Your post about punctuation was excellent. There is a book out now about punctuation. I read a review of it and it is supposed to be good - not academic at all but interesting and helpful. Your post reminded me of how crucial, punctuation is. I think the third try was the best one.
Mac
Now that I'm calming down about the Olympics ad, let me disagree. Pez' comment should've been:
"I think people who believe, in general, political ads are idiots."
That way the "in general" refers to the belief.
Sheryl is right. If there were no such thing as spin then there would be no need for political parties as the facts would work everything out and the world would be all sunshine and ice cream. Unfortunately, the world is very gray. One (of many) group wants one thing to the detriment of others, so there has to be a compromise to discourage strife. You might like things as they are or were before 9/11. I particularly didn't care for the state of the world, however I was not concerned as my family was safe and I was easily providing for them. I can tell you that 9/11 was a very bad thing. In the last three years I did not see any damage done to the reputation of the US as a take charge nation. The UN has gone to crap, partly to the avarice of countries like France and Russia, because we stuck our foot in their pie. I don't subscribe to the liberal feel good "we are the world" view; alot of other countries in the world don't provide the freedom our country provides it's citizens (and some non-citizens as well). So don't ask me to join the good neighbor squad. Look at Canada; would you live there?
Anyway, we won't look at John Kerry's records from Vietnam. No one side can prove the other is lying andd I'm glad the President is keeping out of it.
We won't look at John Kerry's voting record either. He may have only voted this way or that (read sold out) because something needed to be done. Maybe, he needed to get home for dinner early.
Let's look at what George Bush has done as President, because he doesn't compromise and his record will surely turn up something bad for America, but not Compromising Kerry, oh no.
Can we look at the potential each candidate has to mess up, I mean, fix the country? Please tell me what George Bush has done to destroy America?
I think Bush should condemn the ads. I think candidates should condemn all untrue ads, including their own. why can't they simply tell the truth without all the lying?
btw, thanks for the factcheck url, it looks great.
KT
i thing the problme with the whoel free speech thing is that people don't take responsiblity anymore. I remember reading about some radio guy who in the middle of a trash crisis told his listeners to dump their trash on city hall. when they did city officials wanted to arrest him. i dont know what happend from there, but he should've been arrested. you have to take responsibility for your speech.
likewise, if i see some guy burning the american flag then he has to accept the responsibilty when I bash his head in. to me burning the flag is the same thing as assault. with an assault it is perfectly legal to defend yourself.
these swift vets it seems are mostly lying if you can believe the media. but they have a point kerrys senate discussions hurt the nam soldiers. I know I would be pissed. but two rights don't make a wrong.
gregB
oh, no one has said anything, but doesn't the title come from Planet of the Apes and isn't it
Damn them! Damn them all to hell!
gregB
That's freaky, all three of us posting at the same time. Well, mostly.
Let's see how has Bush damaged America?
Well
the crapy economy
the rollback of the environment
the unfunded war
the rising deficit
the loss of jobs
the hate other countries feel towards us
Shall I continue
KT
oops, that's unfounded war though this war is really unfunded isn't it?
KT
what did Sheryl do?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Radical Moderate, What I linked to is public information!!! I couldn't have linked to the government record if it were not.
When people choose to bribe their politicians with large contributions, they do so publicly. That's all I linked to. It was a public FEC document. People make that choice when they contribute. There are reasons that it is public, and one is so that people can hold each other accountable.
I do not consider it at all inappropriate to share public information about people who are bahving in a hypocritical fashion that clearly is undermining our democracy.
If you would like to remove my postings, have at.
I was unaware until recently ( a few months ago) that any contributions made to a candidate or politician was potentially or actually available to the public. on one hand, there is a lot to be said for keeping things transparent and making people - both contributors and politicians accountable. However, it is not a choice I make to make this information public. if I want to support certain candidate's and I want to write them a check, then I have to abide by the guildelines already posted. Any amount I give is so small compared to the large sums of money companies give (ranging from $250 to $500 - my contribution) that I do not view this as bribery. I don't really think that my check makes a huge difference but I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
You've removed the posts now but I think the numbers posted were in the hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands. At what point is a contribution a bribe?
I know the info is public knowledge as well as where we live. But just because it's out there doesn't mean it should be used for political purposes. Telling people how to contact someone who contributed X amount or even telling people how to harass someone for contributing money is dead wrong. When it's a corporation, that's different because of the huge amounts of money exchanged. But I think the person you posted about gave at most $750. Unless I read it wrong and it was $750k.
I read in Time magazine that the SBVT's biggest donor is a developer named bob Perry who has given more than $4 million to Republicans. this doesn't however mean that there is a conspiracy and that the Republicans funnelled money to him to disparage Senator Kerry.
It's about passion isn't it? If you believe in what you are doing and you have the money or the energy to do something about it, then you do it whether you write a check for $250 or donate your time, or even set up blogs to have discussions like this. Then everything becomes public knowledge or information.
but there should be some respect for personal privacy. Just because it is on the net or available doesn't mean it should be abused.
I am glad you removed the posts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have moved gecko's post to the questions section so that I may give an opportunity for all to discuss this (eventually) piece by piece rather than in one all too confusing milieu.
If you have seen gecko's questions, please do not respond at this time. I'm trying to balance current events with general questions. I may have to start posting less questions simply because many people have little time to respond.
Sheryl, consider this.
Everyone knows I am a nutcase. What if I'm pissed at the Republicans and then I see your posting of someone else's personal information. In my mixed up brain I decide that this is the person responsible for everything that goes wrong in America. Now I know where he lives and I'm going to make him pay. If it wasn't for your post I would've never realized how to get the info or I might have not connected the dots.
As greg said, freedom of speech carries responsibilities. Are you willing to take the responsibility that I, as a nutcase, would've never killed this person if it wasn't for your aid and assistance?
Finally, IIRC, you are pro-choice. Do you think it's right for anti-abortion activits to pass around the names of doctors who perform abortions, or of women who have them? I certainly hope not.
RM:
Your
RM:
Darn computer shut off as I was posting.
Greg B:
very quickly in case this machine shuts off again. I agree with your post about responsibility and freedom of speech. BUt I don't quite really understand what freedom of speech comprises of. I first heard of it in connection with the mapplethorn (?) pictures. They were explicit photographs of some sort if I remember.
as for flag burning, yes I agree with you. I think there are far more productive ways to change your country when you disagree with it. At the lowest level of involvement VOTE. I have no time for idiots who burn their country's flags or effigies of their presidents. If you hate your country so much, leave. But don't expect much sympathy if you get caught fighting for the Taliban. Why should anyone born in America be given special treatment if they're caught behaving in ways that endanger the USA and its citizens?
I think Greg that you wrote that the youth have no disclipline and I agree. I think everyone should be made to live abroad for a while in a third world or developing country.
I am not American and I don't think this is the best country in the world. But there are a lot of things I like about this country. And there are a lot of things this country has to fofer that are not found elsewhere.
There are enough people who do hate America and Americans simply because they are americans. Why add to it? When Americans burn their own flags, it's used by other countries hostile to the USA to motivate their citizens.
I don't think these people actually understand that to some countryies, the USA is really the Great Satan. So for those of us friendly to the US or even citizens, exercise your freedom of speech wisely.
The prison abuse in Iraq did not help at all. And it has grave consequences beyond human rights issues.
I don't think "anti-american" is a propaganda ploy employed by the government. I've lived in countries where people really hated America and Americans.
What I don't understand is that people are dying to come to America, literally. Yet there is such widespread apathy among its own citizens. America stands for so many great things. Wouldn't it be great if its people stood for America.
When I think of America's defining moment, I think of how the country came together and pulled together after Pearl Harbour was bombed. That subsequently led to a swift end of WWII. I have seen evidence of Japanese war conduct. It's not a pleasant thing.
I admire the effort that people like you - Radmod, Gecko and Sheryl put out in doing your part in educating people or providing a place for exchange of views and ideas.
now - does anyone really think that the country will go to hell if bush wins another term? I thought I caught that in one of the posts but can't remember where.
Mac
I don't see Sheryl posting today. Perhaps she is upset with what happened yesterday. it's easy to get carried away with enthusiasm and excitement.
I just read this! It was an article on the next generation of conservatives (no slur at all!) on campuses and the organisations behind them including Young American Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies institute and the Leasdership Institute. Apparently there is a website that has printed one of the leaders of one of these groups home address and phone number. And this website "seeks further information on its targets, including social security numbers, automobile plate numbers, names and birthdays of spouse(s) children and friends".
This is scary stuff. All this info is probably available on the net. But this is outrageous.
Just as muslims are ashamed of the few who committed atrocities in 9-11, I know liberals who would be appalled at this type of behaviour. We can simply tar people with the same brush.
I think Sheryl meant well. She's intelligent and passionate about what she believes and she's enthusiastic and energectic. It's easy to get carried away because she wants to share what she knows and wants people to be equally informed.
But I think you were right to remove the postings.
Mac
Dang it! I meant to type we CANNOT tar people with the same brush. I meant that this type of behaviour by a group of people who call themselves "liberals" makes other moderate or in this case SENSIBLE and law abiding liberals look bad! I'm a liberal on many issues and I am passionate about what I believe to be right. But I would never use intimidation on someone else just because that person is a conservative. Or to even think of targetting their children!
This isn't freedom of speech. This is a call to intimidate people just because they don't share your political views. There should be something in the law to protect people. What if I decided to organise a liberal group on a campus and some nutcase decided I was a threat?
Mac
Swift Boat Fight
New SVFT AdsGo here to see who served with John Kerry, then watch the "Any Questions?" ad again. The truth shall set you free, but they all must be lying, right? None of the democrats are lying, oh no.
My problem is that the charges against Kerry have nearly all been shown to be false due to contradictions in the statements by the SBVTs, documentated records, defections, and statements by many who said "I don't if he lied but I hated what he said after the war".
BTW, gecko, the SBVT site never addresses who were witnesses to his actions. At least, I haven't been able to find it.
My feelings are that the SBVTs have shown a propensity for lying. As in "the boy who cried wolf" why should we believe anything else they say?
This O'Neill character from the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" originally debated Kerry in 1971 on the Dick Cavett show about Vietnam. He's been slagging off for 30 years.
C-Span showed the '71 debate last year, but they didn't put it in their online video archive. I emailed them and suggested they do so. If others did so as well, maybe they would put it online, and we could see what this is really about.
===================================================
C-SPAN PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS
Viewer Services: Questions about our schedule, how to buy videotapes, and for any other general comments about C-SPAN - viewer@c-span.org
Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - events@c-span.org
Sheryl gave me this article on my blog. It notes O'Neil's involvement against Kerry since the Nixon years.
I can understand some veterans being pissed off at Senator Kerry. Even when taking the whole testimony into context it was still a smear on the whole of the Armed Forces. Maybe you have to be a veteran to get it. I can tell you (more arrogance?) that it is probably an ego thing when I say I don't appreciate it when John Kerry toughts his "two tours in Vietnam" as a qualifier to be Commander-In-Chief. His two tours consisted of 1) service on a ship off the coast and 2) four months in country, when the rest of the Armed Forces served at least 10! I tried and tried to find reference to another Sailor or anyone who left Vietnam early after getting three Purple Heart medals. I searched for the illusive BUPERSInst (that's a Navy Bureau of Personnel Instruction) that let him do it. I could not find them.
I can understand some veterans support of Senator Kerry, perhaps out of a sense of party loyalty. Hell, these things happened 30+ years ago! Those who are his posse are probably loyal in the sense that they served under him and were treated well, then and now.
What I would like to do is give the guy the benefit of the doubt and move on with the election, but now I'm seeing these ads on Fox and CNN! Let's all focus on the issues as each candidate presents them, please?
Hey Gecko,
Have you read the testimony that Kerry gave to Congress that O'Neill was actually objecting to?
Because Kerry was only telling Congress what vets had testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation. At Winter Soldier vets, were getting up and admitting that they had personally done gruesome things to people in Vietnam.
One of Kerry's pet projects has been drugs, and part of the reason is that American soldiers came back from Vietnam drug addicts. (I think maybe it was even the US government supplying the drugs, but don't quote me on that.)
Anyway, if you haven't read the testimony, then don't take O'Neill's perspective for granted. I read Kerry's testimony, and I think it's very interesting and well considered:
http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/jkerrytestimony.aspThanks,
Sheryl
Sheryl, I have read Kerry's testimony. I am also reading what these "Winter Soldiers" said in their statements to Kerry. Everyone knows bad things happen in war. Leadership goes awry and atrocities do occur.
What I dislike and I think the Vietnam veterans dislike is that Kerry exaggerated the extent and further damaged the reputation of the Armed Services. Remember. we still had POWs during that time who were being tortured in order for the enemy to get false statements out of them. Kerry gave them the propaganda they wanted.
You can say I am brainwashed or something, but the military has taught me conviction and honor. The people who were in the winter soldier group had conviction also. Straight conviction can lead people to spin things, so their point is more believable to those that want to hear it, wether it is true or not.
From what I remember of his testimony, the atrocities he spoke of were mainly relative to the Winter Soldier hearings. Either people at Winter Soldier in fact testified to things like cutting off people's ears, or they did not do so.I haven't read the hearings, so maybe you have an idea about any inconsistencies. But most of the claims he made seemed fairly cut and dry--either people said such things or they did not.
The focus of his testimony, it seemed to me, was that we needed to get out of Vietnam ASAP. I didn't read anything that lead me to blame the soldiers for whatever happened. The feeling I was left with was that the soldiers had been betrayed by their government. It reminded me quite a bit of the war in Iraq. Makes me wonder whether Nixon was "chicken hawk" as well.
I thought it was interesting what that Senator said about the proportion of vets voting against military action in Congress. I live in a military city, and a lot of vets in this city discuss military action almost like they are following a football game. A real machismo factor involved. But then maybe war drives some vets into politics just so they can make sure that such powers aren't abused.
War is hell, I believe the saying goes. I sure didn't like it when I was in it, but it was my job. I can tell you that I won't just take an embittered soldier or sailor's words at face value. I only have two points to make.
The first is that Kerry exaggerated the facts that were presented to him by the winter soldiers.
The second is that if you take a number of veterans, then divide them into a group that is disenchanted, upset, and convinced that there is nothing good that will come of our involvement in Vietnam, their conviction could lead many to lie in order to further their cause. Kerry was not wrong to testify on their behalf; how could he discount what they told him? I don't believe that any man of conviction could stand by within a group of others and watch soldiers from another country rape and mutilate women, even enemy combatants, and none of these men made a move to stop them? Here is testimony; look for BISHOP.
If the swiftboat vets are all liers, can I not say the same for these winter soldiers?
Thanks for the link, Gecko. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home