The Smear Campaign Against Kerry

I'm so glad you brought this up. This bill is one that neither the conservatives, nor the progressives like very much. Most of that "expansion" goes to the big drug companies, some of Shrub's biggest clients - oh, sorry, I think in places they are still called "contributors." But more importantly are the criminal charges leveled by Richard Foster. Who is this guy anyway?

Who's Thomas Scully?:

Hhmmm...

Suprise! Another Bushie minion vanishes quietly into the night. But let's not stop here, for the fun is just beginning.

Well, that is just opinion. However, it is shared by many, given the dubious circumstances of how this bill was passed.

Our plot thickens...

This bill certainly is one to be proud of. I can understand why the Republicans are so anxious for the American public to hear all the "gory details."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571136/site/newsweek/

But what about the AARP? The ones who "supported" the bill? And said: "This bill is better than no bill."

Here's more from the AARP website:

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/prescription/Articles/a2004-03-10-forces.html

 

I don't know a lot about US politics and the muddy combination of power, money, business and political maneuvering overseas, but I feel like I'm sitting in a lecture right now. I'm just damn glad that it's not quite the same here in Australia - there are strict limitations on what is considered "political advertising", and it's nothing near as vicious or as underhanded as what I'm reading about. Sure, Labor is referring to PM John Howard as a liar, a deceiver and a man who deliberately misled the electorate, but that's nothing compared to some of what is being reported here.

All our politicians are lawyers or something similar, which means that although they might be shifty bastards by default, at least they're not in bed with corporate interests to the same extent (and part of that, I'm sure, is the fact that corporate Australia is minimal compared to corporate America). That said, I honestly hope Kerry wins - there's no way he can be as incompetent and as bad for the USA (and the rest of us) as Bush. The sooner the PNAC ideas are rejected out-of-hand, the better, IMHO.

 

Tal ... I've learned never to argue with the man who has the microphone (or the moderators power). Opening this thread you state your anti-Bush slant, and I think you are supporting you argument by not allowing people to compare the Swift-Boat ads to F9/11. Both were big stories in the press. Both generated lots of debate.

Your key frustration in your opening post seemed to be that the White House did not renounce the ads. Did the Kerry campaign renounce F9/11?

In a recent Salon.com article, the Kerry folk are asking for the books to be taken off the shelves. Did Bush ask for F9/11 to be pulled? Did he manipulate the FCC or in some other way delay the release of the DVD's (which should be out just before November)?

The liberal folk have not let up on "Shrub" (as some tactless folk call him) since he was elected. He's had 3.5 years of negative press to overcome. The fact that he's still in the running is impressive.

If you are supporting Kerry, ask yourself a few questions. It doesn't matter what the Swiftboat vets are saying ... but (1) can you be confident that Kerry is not lying about his Vietnam record? Also, despite the fact that GW has made some mistakes in Iraq, can you (2) confidently state what Kerry's position is on that war? If you can answer "yes" to both, then sleep peacefully. If you have questions, then maybe you should take a step back and re-think your vote.

Just food for thought.

 

Mathetais - Glad to see you again after some time. But:

Could we say the same for 8 years of negative, conservative press about the Clintons? By conservative accounts they were murderers, molesters, rapists, drug dealers and accused of not only renting the Lincoln bedroom for fun and profit, but stealing the furniture as well.

[ August 27, 2004, 08:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@Hacken Slash

Are you talking about a name I used to use in the forums? No. I use to be Naug, but I changed my name to Sauron the Wolf after I had a bad day and got particularly nasty in a thread. I thought it fit my evil, bitter state that day. Now I changed it to Sauron the Puppy 'cause i've since mended my ways and still pee on the carpets(j/k)

 

1) I honestly don't care if some of the details of Kerry's war records are less glowing than he makes them out to be. How many tales don't grow in the telling? What I am SURE of is that the Swift Boat group has a much more explicit track record of outright lying than does Kerry.

2) Kerry's position on the war in Iraq is a very small piece of the overall picture. Maybe we shouldn't know exactly where anyone wants to take whole Iraq situation because the situation is so fluid and changeable. Again, while I may not be sure of Kerry's stance on this one little element of everything a president has to do, I am sure that I prefer his stances on many other issues.

 

Tal & Beren ... some of the Swiftboat group are democrats who voted for Clinton. Others were supporters of McCain. You really can't write them off as being in Bush's back pocket.

Anyways, Tal, your idea here doesn't scare me as you don't get a vote. Its Bel, Rally and the rest of the US crew I'll be praying for (or against!!!! )

 

While it's people who are willing to believe whatever the right-wing propaganda machine churns out that I'll be praying for/against.

 

Ummm... Are you sure this is Australia and not the U.S.? What these people are saying about John Howard is the EXACT same thing the Dems are saying about Bush! Except they do it in reference to the war in Iraq.

 

Interesting debate and I have three links to contribute, and a few thoughts.

The first one is about that politics in America have IMO ceased to be a poltical thing - the GOP has managed to persuade the Americans that elections are about culture and made America the country with the rightest public opinion in the world, to the extent that people vote GOP against their interests.
GOP legislature may have crippled your income to lower wage, took away working standards, crippled unions and allowed companies control markets as a result of generous deregulation. Nevermind ... as Bush so nicely told his wealthy friends at dinner in Fahrenheit: "You are my base!"
Not important to people who perceive the issue of, say abortion, or gay marriage, or gun control, as more pressing. Looking at US PR and elections campaigns I feel it is all about the importance of emotions over facts.

And that's the article: Bush, the working class hero.

The swift boat vet club pummeling on Kerry is just a convenient, denyable, way to achieve smearing the enemy, or political opponent. "It's not us, the Bush team, but concerned US citizens, more, war veterans!"
The Swift Boat attack on Kerry uses a classic propaganda tactic: have PR professionals organize and launch a well-funded smear attack, an ad hominem barrage against Kerry's integrity, and do it through a front group with enough separation from the Bush campaign to pretend independence. Then use the right-wing echo chamber to keep the issue alive and churning, spitting plenty of mud and confusion. It's a strategy that is virtually guaranteed to hurt Kerry in the polls - and as there is election time that's Rove's way to do his job: Playing dirty.

The swift boat vet approach has two key advantages for Bush's campaigners:</font>

1. Camouflage:
   By putting the attack in the mouths of Vietnam veterans, the Bush campaign has given its message a degree of credibility that it would not otherwise enjoy.
2. Emotion over facts:
   It replaces factual discourse with emotion-laden symbolism. Sometimes the identity of the third-party messenger becomes more important than the content of the message itself. The Swift Boat Veterans are designed to symbolize "veterans versus Kerry," evoking associations and emotions that are difficult to address through logic or debate.

GOP campaigners view politics as "the continuation of war by other means". That has an impact on their methods and especially applies to Rove.

So that's what this is about: Have someone else say it.

An overview on the swift boat vets, if no one has posted it yet, is here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

PS: personally I find the name of that front interesting enough: It implies that there are lies about swift boat vets, and by criticising Kerry they imply he lies - aren't they out for truth? Really brilliant, these razor-sharp, or should I say, cut-throat, GOP PR goons.

PPS: Quite interesting is the funding info on the swift boat guys on disinfopedia. It has raised some $ 150.000, which mainly come from 3 sources:

So the generous donors for the swift boat veterans are people working to discredit Kerry on Vietnam under Nicon already and friends of Bush's election campaign manager ... so it seems to me that Rove asked some likeminded friends for assistance, a smear campaign against the other candidate ... likely? Absolutely.

[ August 29, 2004, 12:15: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Fair call, I see your point Aldeth. As I see it, the principle similarity between "children overboard" and the justification for the war in Iraq (term used loosely) both here and in the US was that both were exaggerated grossly and based on faulty or fraudulent information. On that basis, there is little or no difference, I agree. From way over here, it seems that the US election is running on the basis of "who can you trust?" and "who is the better military man?" The emphasis on the personality of the candidates is bound to bring out slurs and attacks on their character, as it is an attempt to discredit Bush/Kerry the man, rather than Bush/Kerry the Republican/Democrat. In Australia, the attacks directed at the leader of the government are diffused over senior party members and aimed at discrediting the entire cabinet/ministry.

I think the other difference is in the intensity and vitriol in the statements. The election was called yesterday for October 9th, and although it's early days yet, so far everyone is talking about economic policy, health, education and national security. The delving-into personal lives and affairs doesn't seem to be happening here, and probably won't during the election campaign to any significant degree. Maybe it's to do with the position the US occupies in global economics and politics (as opposed to Australia), but the same amount of cut-throat willingness to do anything it takes to get the upper hand doesn't seem present here. Possibly this is because voting is compulsory and the majority of Australians hate the government no matter what happens, maybe it's because there are strictures on political advertising, probably also because there is far less money involved in Australian politics than in US politics.

 

Wow, if the SBV could cause such havoc with 150K, now I understand why the Bush campaign is so upset about the $60 Million spent against him.

I know the link is from foxnews, but it is an AP article.

 

Agreed. Those ads were shown in primetime in several states. A 30 second spot during primetime easily costs more than $150,000. The money they had wouldn't be enough to show the commerical more than once.

 

Once again, I think you are over-focusing because the attack campaign was critical of Kerry and ignoring that the campaign critical of Bush is far greater. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I believe Bush is correct in that the entire concept of the 527 organizations is flawed and they should be abolished. The fact that the federal elections committee is dragging its heels is not being treated with outrage by the media is a scandal of its own.

 

I disagree with that statement. I believe Bush has been complaining about them for a long time. See the above link about his complaining to the Federal Elections Committee about them. He has been their target a hell of a lot longer than Kerry. It was only the attack on Kerry that woke the media up.