The Smear Campaign Against Kerry

Remove all ads!

Yes, well I'm sure you have forgotten about how the Bush minions smeared John McCain in the primaries. There were all those rumors and phone calls of how McCain had fathered all those "illegitimate black childern." Frankly, I think every decent American should be offended by Shrub and his goons. He has tarnished everything decent that America has ever stood for.

 

If you want an example of a smear campaign that dwarfs the SBV claims (the SBV have even moved on and are calling Kerry to task for his anti-war stand) not only in terms of support by the Liberal media and Democratic 527 groups, but also in the magnitude of the inaccuracies and distortions, one need look no further than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Liberal soft money groups have been sponsoring free showings of that trash in most of the swing States. At least the Washington Post in a neutral and unbiased study have found that it appears that there is some merit to the claims that the SBV make...virtually all reliable sources have tried to distance themselves from Moore's distortion of fact and truth.

I never felt it was right to question Kerry's military service...he was there, he took hostile fire, he has my respect as a veteran. What I find to be unforgivable is that he would gladly testify before Congress that American servicemen where murderers and butchers and lawless, when POW's (like John McCain) were resisting torture to NOT make those kind of statements.

In my book he was a traitor in that way to all of his brothers in arms, and is unfit for office. He should have held his comments until the war was over and our soldiers were home.

That is only my first reason to not vote for Kerry. I fear that not enough Americans will agree with me.

 

Funny how Kerry is being thrashed today for speaking the truth in a time when no one wanted the truth. Still dont it seems.

 

Gods above I want to see you lot in a room with foam bats. I swear you lot are on the verge of hitting one another. This is great reading

I wish in New Zealand we had as many people as you do with more money than brains. Then we too could see these political movement private-funded ads.

I'll just stick to Jib Jab for now though

 

Here we go again.

1. Moveon.org is not just a web site. The "funny" ads you watched are not just for streaming on the web site. They are television ads being run to influence voters.

2. I totally disagree with your assessment of what is a smear and what is a "criticism". To me comparing the President with communism is one hell of a smear. As Hacken pointed out there are people who do not believe that what the SBV are saying is a smear and is instead telling "The Truth" or you could say a criticism of how Kerry behaved in Vietnam and once he returned to the States. Once again I consider it the pot calling the kettle black. The left has been demonizing Bush for years. I need someone to explain to me how called the President "Shrub" is not a smear or even a character assassination. I don't see anyone (besides me) complaining that it is inappropriate.

3. As to why Bush and the other people in Moore's movie haven't sued him, you should have asked me. Nobody in their right mind would sue Moore in a public courtroom. He has shown repeatedly that he is a publicity hound and the last thing anyone would want to do is to give him another stage. It is the same reason that most gossip magazines don't get sued. As to Moore having fact checkers, you should do a couple of web searchs. There are plenty of sites out there that refute almost everything he has to say.

As I stated before my major problem with the entire issue is the hypocrisy of it. A negative campaign is a negative campaign. The left looks at SBV commercials and jumps up and down and screams "Bad Bad, you stop that". Then they look at Moveon.org and the various other pro Democrat organizations and they make an evaluation and say "That isn't that bad, nothing to see here, everyone keep moving." I consider it intelliectually dishonest.

As to Abomination wanting us to get the foam bats out, all I can think of is the Simpsons when Bart realizes they work better if you slide the foam piece off.

 

And in answer to your question as to why Michael Moore doesn't get sued, it is very difficult to prove libel or slander in the particular medium he uses. Interestingly enough...the one "employee" of Moore who has positively been identified has come forward to cofirm his misuse of the headline of a particular newspaper announcing Gore as the winner in Florida...turns out the supposed headline was really just an op-ed piece some weeks before the election. Really, anyone who thinks that Micheal Moore paints an honest and unbiased view of American history needs to take a look at this lovely bridge I have for sale. He raises some interesting ideas, but so does Alien vs. Predator.

If it were so easy to sue...don't you think Kerry could settle the whole deal and just take the SBV to court? Kerry will not sue, because it is too hard to gain a conviction and he does not want the questions of his military service drug out into the harsh light of a courtroom.

Unfortunately, Department of Navy records seem to support at least some of the SBV side of the story.

 

Um, I think the explanation is really quite straightforward. Anyone who is somewhat fluent in English is well aware that "shrub" and "bush" can be used pretty much interchangably. I'm sure there's some technical difference between what one would call a shrub and what one would call a bush, but they both define somewhat large plants typically seen in front of people's houses. So obviously, calling Bush "Shrub" is merely a pun, a play on words if you will. However, a pun is certainly not either a smear or a character assassination. It happens all the time in politics.

If you want an example from the other side, look at former Democratic presidential hopeful Dukakis (pronounced duh-cock-is). I seem to remember a few puns regarding his name that were far more colorful than "Shrub". Of course, you may be too young to remember this - I think he ran in 1988. In fact, I feel it is fortunate that Bush is only referred to as "Shrub" as there is another slang definition of "bush" that is far more defamatory than shrub and more along the lines of what Dukakis endured.

It is my personal feeling though that none of the items mentioned will have any impact on the election whatsoever. People have notoiously short attention spans and even shorter memories, and it is unlikely that they are going to remember some television ad that was released over two months prior to the election. Same thing with Fahrenheit 911. The biggest mistake Moore made was releasing the film in June. He already had the problem of overcoming the fact that his film was extremely one-sided, and most republicans weren't going to go see it anyway. Then you have to further hope that people actually remember what they saw four or five months later, which is assuming quite a lot. Basically, it's only late August. If this came out in late October, it would have a far greater impact.

 

First of all, my mother (and I'm assuming everyone else's mother) always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. Making fun of Bush's name because of what happened to Dukakis in 1988 (by the way that was my first presidential election so I was around) is inappropriate.

Second of all didn't making fun of people's names go out of style sometime in elementary school?

 

Ugh, I'm failing to make my point. No, I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. My point of bringing up stuff from 1988 was to show that making fun of people's names is nothing new. You asked why "shrub" wasn't a smear or character assassination, and I explained it was merely a pun. I thought that had answered your question. People do it because, even though it's childish, some people find it highly humorous.

You are certainly free to reject such reasoning, but I merely answered a question you had asked. If you were old enough to vote in 1988, then you certainly should be jaded on this stuff already. I know I am, and I wasn't old enough to vote in 1988 (although I was in high school, and thus old enough to remember the campaign).

 

Ya'll have to be from Texas, I guess, to know the "Shrub," or little Bush. Some of us referred to him that way while he was our "illustrious Gov." It's just a play on words.

More importantly it is a bestselling book by Molly Ivans, one of our "liberal journalists" who had a close up look at Shrub while he was in Austin. He has had the honor of being lampooned by Molly in a few of her other books as well.

http://books.politinfo.com/details/index-0375757147.html

What is interesting is that Kerry is being referred to as being "anti-war." Wow, what a dubious honor. The opposite is, of course, "pro-war." Now, that's certainly something to be proud of. But that would be something Shrub would not know anything about. Still, he may have seen something of war on TV, or maybe he has read about it. That would go as well for Cheney and Rummy and all the rest of the "good old boys" in Shrubland.

Of course, Colin Powell, the only "real warrior" among them, has been a moderating force in the "WAR MOVEMENT" that seems to have gripped some Americans lately. More war? just what we need.

But we are expected to forgive Shrub for all his hellraising, alcohol ridden, drug induced, jailbird days. But Republicans have lots of excuses for those "bygone" days. They say, "that was then, but now is now." Yet, they can still harp on Kerry for being opposed to one of America's greatest military disasters in the early 1970s. Those are not such "bygone" days. Which is it guys? or does one only apply to republicans, whilst the other is only for Dems? Great double standard there. The word "hypocrisy" certainly does come to mind.

[ August 25, 2004, 06:28: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Tal, I would suggest taking a look at This spinsanity column. You may find it educational.

Note: spinsanity is the closest thing I've found to a non-partisan resource, and if anything, it has a liberal bias, as it's run by democrats.

 

Tal,

Are you suggesting that Republicans have manipulated the majroity of the public to believe that no autrocities were committed by Americans in the Vietnam War? And then further speculate that the same thing will happen with Abu Greib in the years to come?

While I will not deny that there are many Americans who believe that (the part about Vietnam), it certainly isn't the majority, or even a large minority for that matter. Plus, don't forget that the Republicans would have no reason to rewrite the history of Vietnam. After all, it was the Democrats that sent the vast majority of troops over there (first Kennedy and then Johnson) and a Republican who ultimately brought them back home (Nixon).

Similarly, I do not see people "selectively fogetting" what happened in Abu Greib either. Again, I cannot deny that there are a small percentage of people who believe those soldiers did not do anything. They believe that now, and will likely continue to believe that until the day they die. However, the vast majority of people believe what their eyes see, and those pictures were posted everywhere. Plus, with the media even more wide-spread today than it was 30 years ago, billions of more people saw those images than would have if it occurred during the Vietnam Era.

You have every right to be very skeptical of any of the actions taken by the current American administration, just as many Americans are. I will even go so far as saying it is fair to compare Vietnam atrocities to Abu Greib, but it is your conclusions that I would contest. I believe quite the opposite (and I'm speaking of Americans here, I don't know what public opinion is in Europe about this). I believe if a poll was conducted today, you would get at a minimum 90% of the respondants saying that they believe Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam (especially at the one village - I can't remember the name - Mai Tai or something like that?) and that American soldiers humiliated, tortured, embarrassed, sodomized etc. Iraqi prisoners in Abu Greib.

 

IMO, the Republicans are attempting to counter Kerry's pretty good war record with the current "smear" ads. Since Shrub has no war record to run on, this is the best he can do. It is really the veterans - typically a Republican bunch - that is being targeted. They vote, and count for a lot in swing states such as Ohio.

I think more to Tal's point is that the ads are working on its targeted block of voters. That group also believes that the average G.I. got a raw deal on the Vietnam War issue. The Republicans are playing on that belief and having some success, despite the fact that Shrub chickened out of Nam. They will exploit any issue in their quest for absolute power.

 

What amazes me so much is the fact that the US claims: Abu Graib? The actions of a few who have fallen from the greatness that is the United States of A.
Sure.

There is torture in Iraq, torture in Guantanamo, torture in Afghanistan, suspects sent to other nations (Syria) to be tortured. There is torture in US prisons.

Our media reported that german special forces (KSK) released afghani prisioners who were suspected to have some kind of connection to terror organisations rather then turning them over to US authorities - for they knew what would happen.

Prisoners are transported around the globe in a fashion that is spared animals in civilized countries, to a place that shows just how corruptive power can be.

Still we hear that the USA and especially its armed forces are the best, the most nobel humankind has to offer. Bush who ought to be held accountable for this sickening disgrace is likely to be reelected.
You have no idea how galling that is to a non-american.

That a considerable portion of the US citizens has so little need for reality makes Tal's claims quite real, in my most humble opinion. They seem to sort it out as a lapse and it will be nothing more than a sidenote, thereby failing to notice just where they stand and how others outside the US have come to regard them.

 

While Bush is a putz, Kerry is right up there with him. Maybe even a little 'putzier'

He went in lobbied for 3 purple hearts as quick as possible and got out.

All of his wounds were superficial and his first purple heart was for a piece of shrapnel about the size of a piece of rice in his arm. It was removed with tweezers and bleeding was pretty much nonexistent.

He went into Vietnam with one goal in mind: to build a political career based on his hero JFK. He didn't even think he would see action by choosing the Swift Boat route so he thought it would be a good move. A decision by command put the boats into use much to Kerry's dismay.

I respect his service to our country but no more than i would any other soldier, maybe even a bit less considering his political motives.

He is a rich, privaledged, spineless man who takes no stand on anything and has done nothing as a senator or politician in general.

Sound like anyone?....At least Bush isn't spineless and has a set of balls on him, stubborn as they may be.

We need (as much as i'm afraid to say it) another Clinton, or even Reagan would be better.

What's the good of having France like us when people like Kerry start taking 50% of my paycheck to help some lazy-ass ghetto trash on welfare keep smoking crack and popping out babies? I would like to consider myself liberal but how can I when they would just tax and spend America to death?

I think Libertarian may be the way to go.

 

@Dendri - First the part I agree with you on - that I spelled Abu Graib incorrectly - I spelled it "Greib" for some reason.

Unfortunately, I also have a bone to pick with you. In your opinion, the average American has "little need for reality". I find that insulting. How many American citizens do you know? I mean, I'm sure there's a few tourists over in Koln, but I can't imagine you personally know that many. I freely admit that the administration is terrible, and has done things I'm not proud of, but when you pull out the broad brush and make comments like that, you're going to tick a whole lot of people off.

@Tal - Sorry. I didn't understand the context you were placing your comments in. It makes perfect sense to me now. As you probably gathered, the way I interpreted required a great leap of logic.