BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Yeah, it just doesn't seem to cross some people's minds that this might not be about them, or Bush. There were and are a lot of people REAL unhappy with Kerry for what he pulled in 1971. 6236[/snapback] And so instead of attacking him on the merits "for what he pulled in 1971," they decide to spread lies and smears about the military honors he earned in 1969. That makes sense.
RCow Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Could you post links to these polls, so that everyone can see what you are talking about? 6172[/snapback] Polling Report Washington Post Newsweek Here's a few, I'll post the others when I find the link.
KRC Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Polling Report Washington Post Newsweek Here's a few, I'll post the others when I find the link. 6252[/snapback] Thanks. I will look them over.
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 And so instead of attacking him on the merits "for what he pulled in 1971," they decide to spread lies and smears about the military honors he earned in 1969. That makes sense. 6243[/snapback] You don't know that they are lies and smears. You don't know that they aren't. Unless you, I or anyone else was on that boat at that time, how could we? It really doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of conflicting stories. A firefight can look very different depending on where you are at within it. Kerry discredited a lot of people. He could have criticized policy without making it personal. His choice to do so. Perhaps this is an attempt at payback. "Call me a baby killer? OK, I'll call you a lying coward." What PERSONALY is going to hurt him worse? He takes pride in selling out his "Band of Brothers". You start poking him with the not the hero stick, I think it gets more personal to him.
KRC Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Please provide link where it says Bush specifically asked the Swifties to stop their ad. 6239[/snapback] I have seen quotes where he has condemmed ALL 527 ads, not just the Swifties. I guess "ALL" is not enough for some people. Is this another one of those "it depends what your definition of all is."
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 You don't know that they are lies and smears. You don't know that they aren't. Unless you, I or anyone else was on that boat at that time, how could we? It really doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of conflicting stories. A firefight can look very different depending on where you are at within it. Kerry discredited a lot of people. He could have criticized policy without making it personal. His choice to do so. Perhaps this is an attempt at payback. "Call me a baby killer? OK, I'll call you a lying coward." What PERSONALY is going to hurt him worse? He takes pride in selling out his "Band of Brothers". You start poking him with the not the hero stick, I think it gets more personal to him. 6255[/snapback] No, I think that's wrong. I think the "not the hero stick" is what resounds with voters a lot more than the "he protested the war stick." Or "shtick," as the case may be. And that's why they're going after his record. Vets aside, the average American doesn't give a rat's ass these days about whether someone protested the Vietnam War. But if you say "he lied to get those medals," well that's something everyone can understand. As for the rest of what you said... official records back up Kerry's version. Even the people who are at the head of SBVL now -- Thurlow, Lonsdale, Hoffman, Elliott -- backed up Kerry's version... until he started running for president. Then they changed their stories. It's pretty easy for me on that basis to decide what to believe.
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 No, I think that's wrong. I think the "not the hero stick" is what resounds with voters a lot more than the "he protested the war stick." Or "shtick," as the case may be. And that's why they're going after his record. Vets aside, the average American doesn't give a rat's ass these days about whether someone protested the Vietnam War. But if you say "he lied to get those medals," well that's something everyone can understand. As for the rest of what you said... official records back up Kerry's version. Even the people who are at the head of SBVL now -- Thurlow, Lonsdale, Hoffman, Elliott -- backed up Kerry's version... until he started running for president. Then they changed their stories. It's pretty easy for me on that basis to decide what to believe. 6264[/snapback] Just a wild guess, but on the mine blowed up the boat bronze star mission it would not surprise me if they all lied together in a joint embellishment. Happens, you know.
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 I have seen quotes where he has condemmed ALL 527 ads, not just the Swifties. I guess "ALL" is not enough for some people. Is this another one of those "it depends what your definition of all is." 6258[/snapback] Gavin said that it has been reported that the Swifties refused to stop their ads at Bush's request. This is patently wrong and I see no support for this contention anywhere. I suppose you could read it as "At Bush's request, the Swifties refused to stop their ads." That I could go with.
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Just a wild guess, but on the mine blowed up the boat bronze star mission it would not surprise me if they all lied together in a joint embellishment. Happens, you know. 6275[/snapback] Once again, BiB... their stories were different before Kerry started running for president. And check this dude out. Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record." A group of Vietnam veterans who protested outside the county courthouse Monday said French implied he had firsthand knowledge of Kerry's war actions when in fact he had heard about what Kerry did from friends. In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events. French did not return two messages left at his office Monday. A friggin' district attorney offering a statement made by others for the truth of the matter asserted therein. I believe this constitutes inadmissible hearsay, but what do I know? I'm only a lawyer myself.
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 I'd continue to banter, but I'm slowly getting tired of being locked up with server timeouts.
BRH Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 I'd continue to banter, but I'm slowly getting tired of being locked up with server timeouts. 6313[/snapback] Good, it's not just me.
_BiB_ Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 Good, it's not just me. 6318[/snapback] Scott said on the other side it's only happened to him 4 times.
Mickey Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 I have seen quotes where he has condemmed ALL 527 ads, not just the Swifties. I guess "ALL" is not enough for some people. Is this another one of those "it depends what your definition of all is." 6258[/snapback] Ken, it is an obviously politically calculated response to the issue. If he truly rejects the Swift Liars and their ads, why resist the request/demand to spefically do so rather than do what he did? The answer is easy, the President has decided, from a political standpoint, that his best option is a generic criticism of all 527 ads. If there were no difference between singling out the siwft liars and complaining about all 527 ads, the President wouldn't be making that distinction and sticking to it under fire. His opponents are recogizing the same distinction the President is making himself. An ad isn't a bad ad just because it is a 527 ad. An ad is a bad ad if it is full of lies. Don't get me wrong, I am not being critical of the President for making the distinction, it is probably the best response to the situation from his standpoint. The fact is though, he sees it as an important distinction and so I see no basis for mocking those of his opponents who are making the same distinction.
VABills Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 An ad is a bad ad if it is full of lies. How would Bush know if it is a lie, he wasn't in Vietnam? It could be true.
KRC Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 Ken, it is an obviously politically calculated response to the issue. If he truly rejects the Swift Liars and their ads, why resist the request/demand to spefically do so rather than do what he did? The answer is easy, the President has decided, from a political standpoint, that his best option is a generic criticism of all 527 ads. If there were no difference between singling out the siwft liars and complaining about all 527 ads, the President wouldn't be making that distinction and sticking to it under fire. His opponents are recogizing the same distinction the President is making himself. An ad isn't a bad ad just because it is a 527 ad. An ad is a bad ad if it is full of lies. Don't get me wrong, I am not being critical of the President for making the distinction, it is probably the best response to the situation from his standpoint. The fact is though, he sees it as an important distinction and so I see no basis for mocking those of his opponents who are making the same distinction. 7108[/snapback] I disagree. If he is condemming ALL of these ads, then the Swifties are included. Why single out just the Swifites? The Dems would just turn around and say "well, you condemed the Swifties, but why didn't you condem xyz group?" It would be a never ending cycle with the Dems. Bush came out and condemed ALL of these groups, thereby taking that issue away from the Dems. Funny, when Bush called on Kerry to do the same thing (condem the 527 ads), Kerry can't seem to do it. To me, that looks like "well, it is OK for 527's to do this stuff, as long as they do not criticize my Vietnam record and only focus on Bush." Why is Kerry avoiding condeming the ads of these groups? It looks like Bush put the ball in Kerry's court, and so far, he has done nothing with the ball. Time is running out. Kinda makes Kerry look like a hypocrite. "These ads are fine when they are attacking Bush with lies, but as soon as they start going after the focus of my campaign (Vietnam), then I need to condem the acts of just the group attacking my Vietnam record." Not a smart move, IMO.
Alaska Darin Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 Ken, it is an obviously politically calculated response to the issue. If he truly rejects the Swift Liars and their ads, why resist the request/demand to spefically do so rather than do what he did? The answer is easy, the President has decided, from a political standpoint, that his best option is a generic criticism of all 527 ads. If there were no difference between singling out the siwft liars and complaining about all 527 ads, the President wouldn't be making that distinction and sticking to it under fire. His opponents are recogizing the same distinction the President is making himself. An ad isn't a bad ad just because it is a 527 ad. An ad is a bad ad if it is full of lies. Don't get me wrong, I am not being critical of the President for making the distinction, it is probably the best response to the situation from his standpoint. The fact is though, he sees it as an important distinction and so I see no basis for mocking those of his opponents who are making the same distinction. 7108[/snapback] Thankfully John Kerry has denounced specific groups of Democrat 527s for the same behavior. Oh, that has happened. Let's keep debating about this bull stevestojan so we can ignore the fact that neither of these monkeys (or their parties) deserve to run this country.
erynthered Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 Guess who agree's with you D? I read that Terazza said, No one has the qualifacations to be President. Way to support your husband Terazza
RCow Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 I disagree. If he is condemming ALL of these ads, then the Swifties are included. Why single out just the Swifites? The Dems would just turn around and say "well, you condemed the Swifties, but why didn't you condem xyz group?" It would be a never ending cycle with the Dems. Bush came out and condemed ALL of these groups, thereby taking that issue away from the Dems. Funny, when Bush called on Kerry to do the same thing (condem the 527 ads), Kerry can't seem to do it. To me, that looks like "well, it is OK for 527's to do this stuff, as long as they do not criticize my Vietnam record and only focus on Bush." Why is Kerry avoiding condeming the ads of these groups? It looks like Bush put the ball in Kerry's court, and so far, he has done nothing with the ball. Time is running out. Kinda makes Kerry look like a hypocrite. "These ads are fine when they are attacking Bush with lies, but as soon as they start going after the focus of my campaign (Vietnam), then I need to condem the acts of just the group attacking my Vietnam record." Not a smart move, IMO. 7119[/snapback] You're looking at this from the GOP point of view. Those who currently support Kerry are NOT leaving him because of the 527 issue. Kerry is not branded by so-called hypocracy in b/c it's not the issue, they focused ONLY on the one ad and Bush has no credibility to call an end to 527 ads in the eyes of the electorate. No one really believes Bush is some kind of clean campaign crusader and Kerry is not touched by GOP criticism that Kerry is not opposing 527s b/c it's not the issue. The GOP wants to make "evil 527s" the issue but it's specific attacks in the SBVT that are front and center. The GOP is not making a similar attack on any particular anti-Bush 527 ad to put Kerry on the spot therefore the public only hears that Bush gave a half-hearted rebuke and made a poor attempt to look like he's against negative campaigning. The anti-Kerry folks want to make this about Kerry but it's not working. The Kerry folks have no comment and no obligation to respond to Bush's call to end all 527s because it's not the issue.T here's no hypocracy in his position on 527s because Kerry supporters ONLY discussed the lies in one particular ad and did not condemn 527s in general. Moreover, they've made a very substantial case that the Bush people were (illegally) behind this one specific ad. Last but not least: If Kerry folks get increasingly angry about attacks on Kerry's record and support Kerry more because he fights back; and the Bush people see this Ad as a "fact" and a good reason to vote against him -- the only real question is what do small percentage the undecided and soft feel about this scuffle?
Mickey Posted August 25, 2004 Posted August 25, 2004 Thankfully John Kerry has denounced specific groups of Democrat 527s for the same behavior. Oh, that has happened. Let's keep debating about this bull stevestojan so we can ignore the fact that neither of these monkeys (or their parties) deserve to run this country. 7288[/snapback] For what it is worth, Kerry has denounced an anti-bush ad: Kerry Denounces anti-Bush ad
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.