Comments on: First they came for the grocers…

By: John Gibson

John Gibson — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:44:14 +0000

Howard, you still consider it to be “Christmas” after the New Year. I understand maybe a few days on either side of the 25th but I’ve never heard anyone still consider a period of time to still be “Christmas” after the New Years demarcation point. But that is irrelvant as I bring your attention to an Oct 14, 1979 letter to the Boston Herald… John Kerry wrote: “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.” So the question is: Assuming (big if) it is accurate that Kerry was later in Cambodia and using you explanation would it be possible for somone to consider it to still be Christmas Eve sometime in January? Note the nice literary license Kerry takes in blaming Nixon who wasn’t even President at the time. —- Another point on Cambodia… I hear Brinkley defending Kerry by saying that he did end up going into Cambodia later on during his Vietnam duty. Am I missing something? If that can be proven as true then what logical explanation could their possibly be for it’s omission from his book? It doesn’t make any sense.

By: Russkie

Russkie — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:04:00 +0000

Zizka wrote: > Because fisking is stupid? “Fisking” is taking an argument and responding to it point-by-point. What could be more sensible than than actually responding to the assertions and arguments of someone who sincerely disagrees you?

By: howard

howard — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:56:20 +0000

Clare, don’t kid yourself: you’re not independent, and you’re not open-minded. You are a republican, and you have your mind made up. There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t pretend otherwise. Nat, harping on the moveon bush = hitler is patheric. Their “screening process” was merely a phrase; in fact, if you submitted an ad, it got through the screening process. Then someone called attention to it and that was the end of the story. Why do you think that’s a valid comparison to anything? As for the rest of your remarks, in brief: a.) when someone says “Christmas,” they don’t have to mean December 25. I had my wisdom teeth out Christmas of my freshman year at college, and no, i don’t mean December 25, i mean early January, during the tail end of the Christmas season; b.) Although i’ve seen various right-wingers making some reference to some diary entry, i haven’t seen it, but given the kinds of arguments right-wingers like, i have little doubt (although i could be proven wrong) that not come under fire yet means at that specific assignment; c.) at a minimum, Kerry was very near Cambodia on Xmas eve, and he went into Cambodia at least in January, which is what Doug Brinkley is sure of. Despite your pathetic attempt at an analogy (the anniversary is SEARED in my memory), it fails the first test, in that it isn’t analogus. (BTW, i’ve conducted a very great deal of oral history research, and I can assure you that there are plenty of people who have events SEARED in their memory who nonetheless have details of calendar, or particpants, or something else wrong.); d.) most of the swifties weren’t one boat over; the vast majority have no direct eyewitness knowledge of john kerry whatsoever. Yes, i would wager on that. You have anythign to say, nat, that isn’t standard right-wing piffle? Like tell us how you feel about the fact that George Bush claimed that he’d served in the Air Force when he’d actually, of course served in the national guard, or the fact that George bush claimed that he’d been flying all the way through his Guard service when he hasn’t, or the fact that we have yet to see a winner to Garry Trudeau’s challenge to find someone who remembers Bush in Alabama, or the fact that Bush supported a war in which he, condescendingly, wouldn’t be a private? Feel free to share your feelings….

By: John Gibson

John Gibson — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:43:57 +0000

Kimmit, Regardless of whether you believe the SBVT are credible or not, Kerry has been exposed about lying about his record simply by the number of his Vietnam stories have been modified by the campaign. Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas? Before SBVT, he says unequivically he was. Afterwards his biographer says he wasn’t and the campaign tries to spin it as he was close to Cambodia. What about the wound for the 1st Purple Heart. After SBVT charges, the Kerry campaign changes their story and admits that it may have been an accidental self inflicted wound. Regardless of what you feel about their credibility it’s not like John Kerry is an innocent victim of the SBVT group. He’s been caught in too many lies to play the victim of unfair attacks.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:47:15 +0000

Because fisking is stupid?

By: Russkie

Russkie — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:41:32 +0000

Kimmit wrote:

Claire, I am honestly baffled by your characterizations of the two candidates. Kerry is patently obviously the more responsible of the two, while Bush is a lying thug. If your attitude is indicative of the swing voters in this country, it means that our media has been even more irresponsible than I had previously imagined. Bush is hated by the Left because Bush is an amoral lout. Sometimes, the simplest explanation really is the best.

What a marvellously content-free message! Why is Claire wrong? Because Kimmit said so and he’s louder and nastier. Why is there no such thing as left-wing “fisking”?

By: Kimmitt

Kimmitt — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:17:04 +0000

Claire, I am honestly baffled by your characterizations of the two candidates. Kerry is patently obviously the more responsible of the two, while Bush is a lying thug. If your attitude is indicative of the swing voters in this country, it means that our media has been even more irresponsible than I had previously imagined. Bush is hated by the Left because Bush is an amoral lout. Sometimes, the simplest explanation really is the best.

By: Zizka

Zizka — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:31:37 +0000

You have some dumb fucking trolls here, but it would be Stalinist and wrong to call them moronic brownshirt fucks. The swiftboat controversy is a diversion from actual political issues. Point Bush. The 527 issue is a deft distraction from the swiftboat controversy. The point isn’t shadowy groups, or soft money, or 527’s. It’s lying. The SBV’s are liars. Over 200 of them signed affidavits attesting to hearsay, which would be illegal except that the affidavits were un-notarized and void. Others lied directly. Bush 30-love. And then, some of the non-MBF trolls here succeeded in changing the subject one more time. I can’t remember what comes next in tennis. Pursuant my know-nothing man-of-the-people Fascist-Stalinist persona, I’d just like to say that academic training often leads people to miss the main point because they’re zeroing in on an interesting aspect of the question which is responsive to sophisticated analytic approaches.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:16:38 +0000

“I guess what frustrates me so much about this campaign is the level of anger, invective, and viciousness displayed.” Well, yeah; Now that the Supreme court has spiked the 1st amendment, we’re in the endgame for democracy in the US. The next few elections as Congress finishes closing all the “loopholes”, (Mopping up the last remnants of our freedom of speech.) are for all the marbles. Whoever is on top when the job is finished is on top in perpetuity, or at least until the government gets overthrown. Naturally people get nasty when the stakes get THAT high.

By: Claire

Claire — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:35:43 +0000

I am an independent who spends time reading and listening to both sides of the electon debate. I’m trying to keep an open mind on both major-party candidates. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the candidates so far: Bush: Good job responding to 9/11 terrorist attacks, and willing to make the hard choices to protect the country. Too involved in social issues (marriage, abortion/birth control, stem cell research) for many Americans’ more libertarian bent. Fiscally too prone to support big government and spending for most conservatives’ tastes. Makes a decision, takes a position, and sticks with it, even if unpopular, due to personal convictions. Tends to deal with data and details, to the point of getting bogged down occasionally. Perceived as an authority figure, either positively or negatively. Personable in an intimate setting, but comes across as stiff, uncomfortable, or bumbling in many political settings. Kerry: Appeals to many on a personal level. Perceived as patrician or elitist by some. Has taken multiple positions on many issues over time; makes it difficult to predict his response on issues like terrorism and the war in Iraq. Has consistently supported the traditional Democratic position of large government and increasing government support and services. Difficult to judge his leadership abilities, as he hasn’t been in a senior leadership position on the national level yet (Lieutenant Governor of Mass., junior Senator from Mass.). Doesn’t get into facts or details much, preferring to deal with broad concepts and ideas. Often perceived as personable, but also distant and prone to remarks and behavior that makes him appear mean-spirited. Bush has a tendency to answer questions directly. Kerry, on the other hand, rarely answers the questions asked. If I were their mommy, I would characterize them as follows: Bush: a generally good boy, with a tendency toward being mischievous. His manner and behavior would cause you to consider him a slacker and a cut-up unless you’re willing to spend the time getting to know him better. Kerry: a whiner prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, with a tendency toward lying and showing off in order to achieve his goals. His manner and behavior would lead you to consider him a good boy, but experience will prove he needs significant supervision. I guess what frustrates me so much about this campaign is the level of anger, invective, and viciousness displayed. And as someone sitting on the fence, I have to say that I see most of it coming from the left. And I can’t help but remember the behavior of the Clintons and the Gores onstage at the Presidential Inaugural ball, where they acted like a bunch of teenagers at the prom instead of the responsible, dignified leaders of the world’s only superpower. I fear the same level of juvenile behavior and attitudes should the Democrats prevail in November. I wish that someone would reassure me that this won’t occur, but based on the level of foaming-at-the-mouth invective that I see whenever Bush is mentioned, I’m afraid that it will.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:39:14 +0000

“do you belive Media Fund, Moveon.org and Americans Coming Together are fronts for the Kerry campaign?” They are, by exactly the “reasoning” that the Swiftboats people are fronts for Bush. Most people understand that folks who donate to a candidate they like, are also liable to donate to groups attacking the candidates they don’t like, without having to be directed to do so by the candidate. In fact, they’ll tend to do so even if the candidate pleads with them to stop… Which is ironicly how McCain got into the whole campaign finance gig; He didn’t like an advertisement some independent group ran attacking his opponent, and ordered them to pull it. They told him to stick his order where the sun doesn’t shine, and the rest was history.

By: John Gibson

John Gibson — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:10:31 +0000

keebler2012, do you belive Media Fund, Moveon.org and Americans Coming Together are fronts for the Kerry campaign?

By: keebler2012

keebler2012 — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:48:38 +0000

The Real Genius of the SwiftBoat Ad With help from mainstream Media’s extended remix of the SwiftBoat Vets claim, we watched the Kerry campaign masochistically sustain damage. It is indeed amazing to observe just how contrivingly long the Media let the accusations stew. They escalate others’ spurious claims for them as if they were plausible by virtue, which after awhile are only allowed to degenerate into a he said/she said echo chamber, eternally marring the Kerry record despite the actual service record. And from what I can tell, this was not even the true impetus for the ad. The effectiveness of the Swiftboat Ad to actually deconstruct Kerry’s heroic status as a War Veteran was just icing between the layers. Just a synergistic benefit. Yes, as far as actually directly attacking Kerry, the BushTeam (connections from which the Ad was funded) probably didn’t bet on doing more than muddying the playing field and perhaps therefore blemish by proximity. Seeing how Kerry is now actually embedded in public consciousness as not only possibly guilty of the claims but somehow as low-down dirty as the motivation that birthed the SwiftBoat Ad Tactics themselves is a bonus pack of Twinkies for Rove. Though Kerry initially tried to take the high road by leaving defense up to McCain and Public Record, his image was effortlessly swept away by the Information Monsoon, a testament to the Media’s powerful Blender of Associations. In addition, BushTeam knew that by not outright denouncing the ad would enable the Media to keep on reporting(accusing) Kerry of it. When this thing is over he will have been so absurdly damaged, people will look back 5 years from now and ask, “Kerry didn’t actually serve in Vietnam did he?” or “Is it true he protested while in Vietnam by refusing to fight and going AWOL?” or “I can’t believe he shot himself for a stupid medal!” or “What was the name of the fellow serviceman he killed and what’s the story on those babies?” Tragically, Kerry’s failure lies in being unable to anticipate the apparent power of Media Inertia to mix separate values into an overall impression. In retrospect we might say, “Kerry should have fired back immediately and with equal force!” Though desperately logical, this would lead us to see the real genius of the SwiftBoat Ad. I propose the Ad was intentionally constructed to be over the top in order to provoke an equally nasty reaction from the other side, which would’ve induced several effects: 1.) It would allow arguments over the perceived scandal to achieve the state of hyper-drama, more thoroughly filibustering the focus of time/coverage away from the stances/records of the actual election issues. I’ve forgotten (or never knew) what they were, how about you? 2.) It would officially initiate a mud wrestling event in complicity, where both sides become so equally soiled that public perception averages out in overall apathy and disgust, resulting in swiftBoat Vets and the Kerry record both being emotional disqualified ( during which Bush somehow assumes the role of Ref ). 3.) Which brings us to the crowning achievement and arguably the primary objective… That by virtue of an Over-the-Top Ad/Scandal and the following public disdain of everything in its associative fog, there is born a movement/sentiment to cancel out or at least disregard all 527 organizational speech. OF COURSE… 527’s for Kerry far outnumber those that sympathize with Bush and more importantly many of those 527’s that have beef with Bush do so on legitimate grounds such as; fiscal record, corporate cronyism connections, investment/business violations, imperialistic agendas, terrorist sponsorship record, and a range of anti-environmental records to name a few. A panorama of forces that would collectively show the Administration for what they are. BushTeam was doing everything possible to avert these impending hammers and the MultiNationalLobbyInfestedGovernmentSponsoredPoliticallyGearedCorporateOwnedCommerciallyPlaguedMilitaryEntertainmentIndustrialEnergyMediaComplex seems to do ANYTHING it can to help the guy out. You didn’t actually think the public ABCNNBCBS networks were by and for “We the People” did you? Ah yes, here we have a classic illustration of the PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION method of manipulation. Here, this method is performed out of the BushTeam’s need to discount, disregard, disable by any means the looming cornucopia of grassroots organizations that could cost him the election or worse. So in this case the PROBLEM constructed is not simply the actual SwiftVet Ad, but the nastiness of the accusatory match and general political turmoil that arises from the Ad. The REACTION is naturally the public apathy, disgust, anger over how mired the election has become thanks to mudslinging between political organizations and the candidates. And last but not least the SOLUTION: Bush somehow (after taking his sweet time) “steps in” as the “let’s cut out all the negative campaigning” bi-partisan moral voice, condemning all 527 ads as “Bad for the System” and calling out to stop “these activities of the 527s”. How gracious this was of the man who signed the McCain-Feingold Act, yet loosened the restrictions of religious organizations (in his right pocket) to become more involved in campaigns. All of this reminds me of a diabolic aspect of BushTeam strategy: the best defense is a seemingly simplistic offense. In other words, put your redneck out there and they will suspect that it’s the neck of a dummy. Dummy or not, people then will tend not to suspect that it is just a tentacle of a much more complicated, desperate beast.

By: Russkie

Russkie — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:07:03 +0000

dsquared wrote:

I would strongly suspect that the position of the Oregon Grocers? Committee would be directly inimical to the public interest, and so I for one would support banning their advertisements.

Dsquared, maybe I’m missing some dry sarcasm or something .. but if you are being serious, can you explain how to determine whose speech is inimical to the public interest?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:02:23 +0000

Geeno wrote: “No more that 20 of the 250 SBVT’s even knew John Kerry existed when they in Viet Nam around the same time.” Once one edits your statement so that it parses, it appears to me that it becomes demonstrably false, or is this another of your “slight exag[g]eration[s]”? “ALL documentation and contemporaneous accounts agree with Kerry’s version of events.” Does that include Kerry’s own contemporaneous journal entries that put him outside Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 and that, 9 days after the events that won him his first bronze star, have him saying that he’d yet to come under enemy fire? “Kerry says only that he doesn’t remember for certain if he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, and may have confused that night with another incident a month or so later.” The similar event that really did occur on Christmas Eve 1968 being what? “OOOOOOO! He may have confused similar events from 30 years ago!” Honey, I’m sorry I’m a month late getting you your present, but I assure you that our anniversary is seared—SEARED—in my memory. “The Bush=Hitler ad was a likewise an indefensible abuse of the first amendment, perhaps even libelous; that’s why MoveOn yanked it off their site as soon as it was pointed out to them.” MoveOn’s apology for the Bush-Hitler ads said: “We . . . regret that they slipped through our screening process”. What did this screening process involve that allowed the screeners to be ignorant of the content of the ads? Computation of a checksum?