web page
And of course Bush does nothing to deal with McCain's request........classy.
[Thread title modified for clarity. - Outsports moderator]
[ August 24, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: m1 ]
Full Version: McCain upset with anti-Kerry "Swift Boat" ads
You can see the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad here.
Now that's a great ad.... 
Bush pulled the same thing on McCain, a certified war hero who spent 5 years in a POW camp: there is nothing so low, dispicable, underhanded or dihonest that the Bush campaign will not do. The Bush's have even rigged election results.
Is there a single question about this?
The Bush Admin has to be the most corrupt since Teapot Dome. They have consistantly lied about every major and minor issue. Their standard is if nobady tells, nobody sees.
We need change.
Is there a single question about this?
The Bush Admin has to be the most corrupt since Teapot Dome. They have consistantly lied about every major and minor issue. Their standard is if nobady tells, nobody sees.
We need change.
Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda. Our entire political process and every bit of debate should by all means revolve around John McCain's sensitivities. Perhaps instead of individual candidates announcing their authorization of their political ads, each TV and radio spot should end with the disclaimer: "I'm John McCain, and I approved this ad."
QUOTE
William1865:
Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda. Our entire political process and every bit of debate should by all means revolve around John McCain's sensitivities.
No...the ads should revolve around HONESTY and INTEGRITY. Moron.
Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda. Our entire political process and every bit of debate should by all means revolve around John McCain's sensitivities.
QUOTE
ITJock:
Bush pulled the same thing on McCain, a certified war hero who spent 5 years in a POW camp: there is nothing so low, dispicable, underhanded or dihonest that the Bush campaign will not do. The Bush's have even rigged election results.
Is this an ad from the Bush campaign? Honestly, I haven't seen it yet, don't have time for all the crap to download.Bush pulled the same thing on McCain, a certified war hero who spent 5 years in a POW camp: there is nothing so low, dispicable, underhanded or dihonest that the Bush campaign will not do. The Bush's have even rigged election results.
[ August 05, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
QUOTE
bobby78751:
Moron.
Now Bobby, I don't think John McCain would approve of such a response.
Moron.
Now that the name calling between Bobby and William is out of the way...
I think this story involving McCain begs a much broader issue -- that is, Kerry's war service (and that he is widely considered to be a war hero)creates a real problem for the Bush/Cheney campaign. Their instincts are to go for the jugular and it has worked in the past (rewind to the South Carolina primary in 2000). However, that was before the W AWOL charge was widely publicized and his service records were "lost" and then partially found.
George Bush attacks John Kerry on this issue at great peril. And the playing field is so small --this is the type of thing where there might be a considerable backlash among independents. Not to mention that negative politics is not exactly held in high regard by the electorate in 2004.
I think this story involving McCain begs a much broader issue -- that is, Kerry's war service (and that he is widely considered to be a war hero)creates a real problem for the Bush/Cheney campaign. Their instincts are to go for the jugular and it has worked in the past (rewind to the South Carolina primary in 2000). However, that was before the W AWOL charge was widely publicized and his service records were "lost" and then partially found.
George Bush attacks John Kerry on this issue at great peril. And the playing field is so small --this is the type of thing where there might be a considerable backlash among independents. Not to mention that negative politics is not exactly held in high regard by the electorate in 2004.
QUOTE
William1865:
Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Banned? No. (And yes, I realize you're being sarcastic.)Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda.
But neither should it be somehow immune to criticism.
Although I think the ad is a below-the-belt smear (and that, if anyone lives in the proverbial "glass house" it's the Ghost Guardsman in Chief), the First Amendment protects both it and McCain's criticism of it (especially when it hits a personal nerve with him). New York Times v. Sullivan, AP v. Walker et al.
I'll take our system over, say, Singapore's any day. eek!
QUOTE
danimal:
But neither should it be somehow immune to criticism.
And fortunately I didn't say it should be (nor do I, unlike some people here apparently, think that John Kerry's war service should be immune from criticism, question, investigation, analysis, etc.). I've been exasperated for quite some time with this bizarre John McCain worship, the sufferers of which are primarily Democrats who seem to think McCain hates Republicans as much as they do (he doesn't). QUOTE
William1865:
Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Banned? No. (And yes, I realize you're being sarcastic.)Well, if John McCain is upset the ad should by all means be censored, banished, yadda-yadda-yadda.
But neither should it be somehow immune to criticism.
At any rate, I'm still not clear: Is this a Bush campaign ad? Is George Bush personally making these accusastions? Does the ad come with the tagline "I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this ad"? If it's an ad from his campaign, it has to. If this ad is put out by an independent group, are you guys suggesting there has been direct contact and/or coordination between the Bush campaign and this group? That could be illegal, depending on what type of group this is, just as it would be illegal for the Kerry campaign to coordinate in any way any of its activities with a 527 group like Moveon.org.
(I pity the fool who understands campaign finance law, what a sad life that must be.)
QUOTE
mdphl:
Now that the name calling between Bobby and William is out of the way...
I didn't call Bobby any names, at least not in a negative sense. I did call him "Bobby," which is in fact a name. But I didn't mean it in an insulting way. If calling a guy whose screen name is "Bobby78751" "Bobby" is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Now that the name calling between Bobby and William is out of the way...
>>"I've been exasperated for quite some time with this bizarre John McCain worship, the sufferers of which are primarily Democrats who seem to think McCain hates Republicans as much as they do (he doesn't). "
Oh no, I am fully aware of McCains politics, and his idealogical stands. What people see in McCain ( and also in H Dean IMHO) is Honesty and Integrity. Someone who is more than a hack politician because he/she has failed at everything else.
The problem is that we see it so little today people have difficulty believing what they see.
Oh no, I am fully aware of McCains politics, and his idealogical stands. What people see in McCain ( and also in H Dean IMHO) is Honesty and Integrity. Someone who is more than a hack politician because he/she has failed at everything else.
The problem is that we see it so little today people have difficulty believing what they see.
ITJock, you hit the nail right on the head. Great post.
John McCain is a breath of fresh air in our current, stagnant political environment.
John McCain is a breath of fresh air in our current, stagnant political environment.
The vets had the right to create and air the ad. McCain had the right to criticize the ad. William had the right to question the criticism. Bobby had the right to call William a moron (though by doing so, tacitly accepts Williams right, which he abrogated, to do the same). Everyone here has the right to express support or condemnation for the ad, McCain, William and Bobby. Does that cover everything?
However, to address the "real issue" that William brought up, every ad put out in a political campaign either in support of a particular candidate ro against a particular opponent is going to be perceived as reflecting on the candidate it was designed to support, or not condemn. It isn't fair. It doesn't reflect reality. It is possible to distance ones self from the ad, but it is impossible to completely sever it from your campaign. Particularly in the current political climate where the House Majority Leader is under investigation for making it possible to air attack ads under the control of political campaigns, but financially distanced by bad campaing finance reporting. The public is cynical and attack ads, even those the candidates have nothting to do with, will be seen as their responsibility.
However, to address the "real issue" that William brought up, every ad put out in a political campaign either in support of a particular candidate ro against a particular opponent is going to be perceived as reflecting on the candidate it was designed to support, or not condemn. It isn't fair. It doesn't reflect reality. It is possible to distance ones self from the ad, but it is impossible to completely sever it from your campaign. Particularly in the current political climate where the House Majority Leader is under investigation for making it possible to air attack ads under the control of political campaigns, but financially distanced by bad campaing finance reporting. The public is cynical and attack ads, even those the candidates have nothting to do with, will be seen as their responsibility.
I think the ads are the responsibility of the Candidates. I think it is naive to believe that:
>Someone in the Bush campaign did not vet the ad prior to airing
>If Bush publicly condemned the ad, or told his managers he did not like or want the ad, that it would continue to run.
In some part you are who you associate with.
Associate with men/women of honesty, integrity and good will and you get the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and the Roosevelts; associate with self serving men/women of poor repute, dishonesty, and avarice then you end up with Teapot Dome, Iran/Contra, Florida electioneering, and oil drilling in the ANWR.
It does not suprise me at all that J Carter and J McCain profess to be great admirers of each other.
[ August 05, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
>Someone in the Bush campaign did not vet the ad prior to airing
>If Bush publicly condemned the ad, or told his managers he did not like or want the ad, that it would continue to run.
In some part you are who you associate with.
Associate with men/women of honesty, integrity and good will and you get the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and the Roosevelts; associate with self serving men/women of poor repute, dishonesty, and avarice then you end up with Teapot Dome, Iran/Contra, Florida electioneering, and oil drilling in the ANWR.
It does not suprise me at all that J Carter and J McCain profess to be great admirers of each other.
[ August 05, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
Thats one big thing I like about McCain, he calls it as he sees it. How refreshing! Too bad more Dems. and Republicans aren't like that.
As with moveon.org, whose ads reflect the Democratic platform but are not financed by the Democratic party, the anti-Kerry ad by these particular swiftboat veterans was produced with the ever-popular soft money. There has been an explosion of these ads this election, ironically, because of the McCain-Feingold bill that reformed (and I use that term loosely) campaign financing. Bush's tepid response to this ad, in part calling for a "cessation of all soft money expenditures" sounded to me like a warning to Kerry: rein in moveon.org or you'll be seeing a whole lot more of these sleazy things. Interesting that at least one point in this ad has already been proven to be "incorrect" (I'd call it a lie): The veteran who claims to have treated John Kerry for his injury never treated him--Kerry's medical records from the time show signatures of all physicians who treated him.
And to think, the fall campaign (when it gets really nasty) has yet to begin.
~Adam
And to think, the fall campaign (when it gets really nasty) has yet to begin.
~Adam
Well, wait now. This ad is bad and should be pulled?
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run? The nazi comparisons? Those are all fine?
Funny, Latest i heard more than 50% of vets still support W over Kerry.
But really, if Kerry is going to play up his Hero status... he can take some heat and let people make up their minds.
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run? The nazi comparisons? Those are all fine?
Funny, Latest i heard more than 50% of vets still support W over Kerry.
But really, if Kerry is going to play up his Hero status... he can take some heat and let people make up their minds.
DNC/Kerry campaign letter to television stations in target markets is posted here.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run?
Living in Texas, I may be out of touch with what ads are running, but it was my understanding that the only time they actually tried to run a moveon.org ad was during the Super Bowl and it was rejected by CBS.
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run?
Phillyfan, the "Nazi" ad was on their website for less than a day. It was never on network television. The only ad of theirs I've seen on TV is the one with the kid about the future. It was hardly anything 'edgy'. I don't really give a crap what the Republicans send out via e-mail to their contributers and such. But an ad on television is something that is not supposed to be misleading. Now, many political ads made by candidates are misleading to some extent, but this is flat out lying. If they wanted to, the Kerry campaign could probably file a lawsuit.
>"Funny, Latest i heard more than 50% of vets still support W over Kerry. "
I think you will find that studies have shown that the members of our military have grown increasingly conservative in recent years - or maybe it simply attracts more members of conservative ideology - studies - including a major one for ABC News last summer have shown that military personal are increasingly outside the mainstream. It has actually been recognised by the military themselves in a 1999 study (in which some 82% of those surveyed described themselves as 'very conservative' and 57% 'highly identified' with the Rep Party.)
I would assume the same would be true of recent Vets.
Although I am a vet, I am a fluke(Flake? wink )in that I am fairly liberal in most of my views. eek!
[ August 05, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
I think you will find that studies have shown that the members of our military have grown increasingly conservative in recent years - or maybe it simply attracts more members of conservative ideology - studies - including a major one for ABC News last summer have shown that military personal are increasingly outside the mainstream. It has actually been recognised by the military themselves in a 1999 study (in which some 82% of those surveyed described themselves as 'very conservative' and 57% 'highly identified' with the Rep Party.)
I would assume the same would be true of recent Vets.
Although I am a vet, I am a fluke(Flake? wink )in that I am fairly liberal in most of my views. eek!
[ August 05, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]
I used to hate that it was assumed that I should be Republican when I was serving. I remember when Clinton was running against Bush, my superiors would go on and on about how we would all lose our jobs if a Dem was elected. Since thier belief was that Dems were weak on defense, but the fact is we got the highest pay raises in history under Clinton.
It also pissed me off that the Armed Forces Radio Network carries Limbaugh. This should be a nutral forum since it is paid for by tax dollars.
[ August 05, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]
It also pissed me off that the Armed Forces Radio Network carries Limbaugh. This should be a nutral forum since it is paid for by tax dollars.
[ August 05, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]
This is just bubkus, you guys dont like the ad because it puts lurch in a bad light. You'd be hailing this at truth justice and the american way if it was against W.
Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
NICE. As usual, great "logic" from the left.
Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
NICE. As usual, great "logic" from the left.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
No, it's not ok for a major mainstream political organization to compare a candidate to Hitler, which is why, under pressure from the Kerry campaign among others, moveon.org removed the offending ad after it had been on their site less than a day.Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
If Kerry or his supporters were putting out an ad that contravened the official records of Bush's military service, it would be equally offensive, but they don't have to question the official records, those make the President look bad enough.
QUOTE
jqueer:
Living in Texas, I may be out of touch with what ads are running, but it was my understanding that the only time they actually tried to run a moveon.org ad was during the Super Bowl and it was rejected by CBS.
Actually, Moveon.org has been running tons of ads in many areas of the country for months. the 527 ads are out of control.Living in Texas, I may be out of touch with what ads are running, but it was my understanding that the only time they actually tried to run a moveon.org ad was during the Super Bowl and it was rejected by CBS.
And people screamed at me nuts when I blasted this so-called campaign finance "reform" legislation. See what it has reaped.
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Well, wait now. This ad is bad and should be pulled?
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run? The nazi comparisons? Those are all fine?
Funny, Latest i heard more than 50% of vets still support W over Kerry.
But really, if Kerry is going to play up his Hero status... he can take some heat and let people make up their minds.
PF, this ad IS ridiculous. While the left has been running far more of these type ads than the right has, this ad itself is just plain bad. There is no connection to the Bush campaign with this, but it should be yanked anyway, if for no other reason than it gives people the impression that it's implicitly condoned by the Bush campaign.
Well, wait now. This ad is bad and should be pulled?
What about all the nasty moveon.org ads that they were running? Continue to run? The nazi comparisons? Those are all fine?
Funny, Latest i heard more than 50% of vets still support W over Kerry.
But really, if Kerry is going to play up his Hero status... he can take some heat and let people make up their minds.
QUOTE
MIB:
Actually, Moveon.org has been running tons of ads in many areas of the country for months. the 527 ads are out of control.
And people screamed at me nuts when I blasted this so-called campaign finance \"reform\" legislation. See what it has reaped.
I guess for once I'm glad I'm living in Texas. If it means I don't have to watch endless campaign ads, it's worth living in a state dominated by Republicans, at least during the election season. I don't recall calling you nuts when you blasted "this so-called campaign finance "reform" legislation." I'm with you entirely on this one. There will be no meaningful reform until the purse strings are controlled by the government. It will make for relatively boring campaigns, but I consider that a good thing.
Actually, Moveon.org has been running tons of ads in many areas of the country for months. the 527 ads are out of control.
And people screamed at me nuts when I blasted this so-called campaign finance \"reform\" legislation. See what it has reaped.
Anyone else notice that chickenhawks dont seem to care for war heros too much?
I think its a damn shame!! Its an insult to verterans everywhere, questions about a man that has won 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star and has the praise of every man under his command. They should all be very ashamed of their actions on this ad. No excuse for this at all.
QUOTE
MIB:
PF, this ad IS ridiculous. While the left has been running far more of these type ads than the right has, this ad itself is just plain bad. There is no connection to the Bush campaign with this, but it should be yanked anyway, if for no other reason than it gives people the impression that it's implicitly condoned by the Bush campaign.
Actually the GOP has run ads comparing the Democrats to Hitler and Osama bin Laden, etc. This is nothing new. They've called people who opposed their lies and shenanigans to have W's revenge war in Iraq "appeasers." Even people on this board have done so. They've morphed Tom Daschle (who served this country) and Max Cleland (a war hero) into Osama bin Laden, while the pathetic, lousy chickenhawk scumbags DeLay, Lott, Chambliss, Psychocheney, etc., were too cowardly to enlist or serve their country. SCUMBAGS.PF, this ad IS ridiculous. While the left has been running far more of these type ads than the right has, this ad itself is just plain bad. There is no connection to the Bush campaign with this, but it should be yanked anyway, if for no other reason than it gives people the impression that it's implicitly condoned by the Bush campaign.
Also, none of these swiftboat people SERVED WITH KERRY! The men who served with John Kerry uniformly PRAISE him. He received exceptional commendations from his superiors. Other veterans, like John McCain, praise his record. AND, It's undeniable that, whatever you can say about him, and there's much to criticize, as with ANY human being, he SAVED A FELLOW VETERAN'S LIFE. I'll repeat this: HE SAVED A FELLOW SOLDIER'S LIFE.
Did W do this? Did Cheney? Did any of the cowardly GOP chickenhawks, or Zell Miller, or anyone else who's criticizing Kerry's heroism? Did they? The answer is quite clear.
And my opinion on the subject, considering I'm just a person from "Soviet Canukistan" as Buchanan said.
Attack ads are rare up here, and are normally not tolerated. Voters tend to vote AGAINST the party's that use them. This past Federal Election saw the Liberals use them, and it cost them some votes, but the ads were kindergarten stuff when compared to the US ads.
My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
But I do find one thing perplexing. If Senator Kerrys' record was THAT bad, and THAT false, I would think that sometime over the past 20 years it would have come to light, and blown him out of a re-election fight.
The timing of the ad is pure politics, and I smell Rove ALL over this one.
And I think that if Kerry comes back with what he said at the convention, that they will NOT stoop to negativity, but will take the high road, it could really have an impact with voters.
I'm sure that most voters see the negative ads by the 527's on both sides, as well as the negative ads by the parties themselves, and say "enough of this crap. Tell us what you're gonna do"
Attack ads are rare up here, and are normally not tolerated. Voters tend to vote AGAINST the party's that use them. This past Federal Election saw the Liberals use them, and it cost them some votes, but the ads were kindergarten stuff when compared to the US ads.
My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
But I do find one thing perplexing. If Senator Kerrys' record was THAT bad, and THAT false, I would think that sometime over the past 20 years it would have come to light, and blown him out of a re-election fight.
The timing of the ad is pure politics, and I smell Rove ALL over this one.
And I think that if Kerry comes back with what he said at the convention, that they will NOT stoop to negativity, but will take the high road, it could really have an impact with voters.
I'm sure that most voters see the negative ads by the 527's on both sides, as well as the negative ads by the parties themselves, and say "enough of this crap. Tell us what you're gonna do"
Yeah, yeah, both sides, etc. The GOP is all up in this sleazy crap, and the leader has longstanding ties to some of the worst in the Republican party, including none other than the late, infamous Richard Milhous Nixon...from the Salon.com truth squad:
[ August 06, 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
Different decade, same dirty tricks
With a little bit of help from the Drudge Report, and an ad buy that got their nasty claims in the newspapers, the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are getting more than their share of publicity today. And they'll likely get even more in some quarters (like, say, Fox News) as the group's leader, Nixon-anointed Kerry detractor Houston attorney John O'Neill, publishes his book \"Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,\" coming soon from the conservative publishing house Regnery Publishing.
Hopefully the media will do their job in exposing O'Neill's longtime ties to the GOP and the fact that, as they admit, none of the men who appear in the ads that will run in some markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin today, actually served on Kerry's boat. So how did Larry Thurlow, a vet who appears in the Kerry-bashing ad know, as he claims, \"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry?\" Does he know this better than Jim Rassman, who when the chips were down, counted on Kerry to save his life? Or how about James Wasser, a radar man on one of Kerry's swift boats, who says that if Kerry called his band of brothers for one last mission and said they were going to hell, \"he'd have a full crew.\"
The facts of Kerry's service don't really matter to O'Neill, anyway. Attacking Kerry has been O'Neill's role since Nixon tapped him for the job in 1971, as Joe Conason reported in Salon in May, and his latest anti-Kerry effort is now funded and organized by Republicans:
\"Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as 'the classic body-count guy' who 'wanted hooches destroyed and people killed.'\"
\"Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his 'concerns about Sen. Kerry.' O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide.\"
Media Matters has more on O'Neill's GOP ties, dating back to Nixon:
\"During the CNN interview [with O'Neill], [Wolf] Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O'Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O'Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an 'articulate' and 'credible leader' of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore 'an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.' As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to 'create a counterfoil' to Kerry. Colson recounted, 'We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.' Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.\"
\"Beyond his role in the Nixon administration's strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O'Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O'Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O'Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.\"
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:03 PDT, Aug. 5, 2004]
With a little bit of help from the Drudge Report, and an ad buy that got their nasty claims in the newspapers, the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are getting more than their share of publicity today. And they'll likely get even more in some quarters (like, say, Fox News) as the group's leader, Nixon-anointed Kerry detractor Houston attorney John O'Neill, publishes his book \"Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,\" coming soon from the conservative publishing house Regnery Publishing.
Hopefully the media will do their job in exposing O'Neill's longtime ties to the GOP and the fact that, as they admit, none of the men who appear in the ads that will run in some markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin today, actually served on Kerry's boat. So how did Larry Thurlow, a vet who appears in the Kerry-bashing ad know, as he claims, \"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry?\" Does he know this better than Jim Rassman, who when the chips were down, counted on Kerry to save his life? Or how about James Wasser, a radar man on one of Kerry's swift boats, who says that if Kerry called his band of brothers for one last mission and said they were going to hell, \"he'd have a full crew.\"
The facts of Kerry's service don't really matter to O'Neill, anyway. Attacking Kerry has been O'Neill's role since Nixon tapped him for the job in 1971, as Joe Conason reported in Salon in May, and his latest anti-Kerry effort is now funded and organized by Republicans:
\"Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as 'the classic body-count guy' who 'wanted hooches destroyed and people killed.'\"
\"Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his 'concerns about Sen. Kerry.' O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide.\"
Media Matters has more on O'Neill's GOP ties, dating back to Nixon:
\"During the CNN interview [with O'Neill], [Wolf] Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O'Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O'Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an 'articulate' and 'credible leader' of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore 'an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.' As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to 'create a counterfoil' to Kerry. Colson recounted, 'We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.' Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.\"
\"Beyond his role in the Nixon administration's strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O'Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O'Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O'Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.\"
-- Geraldine Sealey
[09:03 PDT, Aug. 5, 2004]
[ August 06, 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
ITJock:
Oh no, I am fully aware of McCains politics, and his idealogical stands. What people see in McCain ( and also in H Dean IMHO) is Honesty and Integrity.
Yeah, not like McCain has ever been involved in anything dishonest or corrupt. If Dean and McC are both so great and "people" in general saw so much virtue in both of them, it's odd that both failed so miserably in national politics. Perhaps they're just too good.
Oh no, I am fully aware of McCains politics, and his idealogical stands. What people see in McCain ( and also in H Dean IMHO) is Honesty and Integrity.
QUOTE
William1865:
I've been exasperated for quite some time with this bizarre John McCain worship, the sufferers of which are primarily Democrats who seem to think McCain hates Republicans as much as they do (he doesn't).
I don't like McCain. He's a right-winger on too many issues and is extremely loyal to his party. I think in that way he's a lot like Arlen Specter, except I don't know if McCain flip-flops on things like Specter does. Plus, McCain had a much more impressive presidential campaign effort than Specter did. wink
I've been exasperated for quite some time with this bizarre John McCain worship, the sufferers of which are primarily Democrats who seem to think McCain hates Republicans as much as they do (he doesn't).
QUOTE
bobby78751:
The Story
The very last comment by Elliot may be the most telling. He suggest that the veterans now criticizing John Kerry may actually be upset that he came home to criticize the war.The Story
No one likes to admit a mistake. Kerry did that.
The reason it's significant that it is McCain upset is that the Bush campaign has made a large effort using McCain as some huge Bush supporter. If you remember, McCain was the complete focus of an ad praising Bush.
If it was some random Democratic senator, it wouldn't be much of a story. But when it's the guy helping you with your re-election campaign, it's probably something you should listen to. Obviously Bush didn't see it that way.
If it was some random Democratic senator, it wouldn't be much of a story. But when it's the guy helping you with your re-election campaign, it's probably something you should listen to. Obviously Bush didn't see it that way.
QUOTE
ITJock:
I think you will find that studies have shown that the members of our military have grown increasingly conservative in recent years - or maybe it simply attracts more members of conservative ideology - studies - including a major one for ABC News last summer have shown that military personal are increasingly outside the mainstream. It has actually been recognised by the military themselves in a 1999 study (in which some 82% of those surveyed described themselves as 'very conservative' and 57% 'highly identified' with the Rep Party.)
I would assume the same would be true of recent Vets.
That's one of the unintended consequences of the all-volunteer military. Well-off families whose kids have better options for careers or for college funding aren't the only ones who \"opt out\" of serving when allowed to do so. (Disclosure: By accident of birth, I turned 18 after the end of the Nam draft and before the start of the Carter registration. So I escaped by dumb luck.) WWII (and maybe Korea) vets were more of a cross-section of society because they had to be.I think you will find that studies have shown that the members of our military have grown increasingly conservative in recent years - or maybe it simply attracts more members of conservative ideology - studies - including a major one for ABC News last summer have shown that military personal are increasingly outside the mainstream. It has actually been recognised by the military themselves in a 1999 study (in which some 82% of those surveyed described themselves as 'very conservative' and 57% 'highly identified' with the Rep Party.)
I would assume the same would be true of recent Vets.
I'm not in favor of restoring the draft (although it would kill \"don't ask, don't tell\" for reasons stated by the author of that policy), but I'd consider supporting some form of national service with a Peace Corps/Americorps option -- if there were no student or \"family\" deferments or exemptions.
Also, officers (especially \"lifers\" as opposed to \"short-timers\") tend to be more hawkish because it's a career to them. They have a personal vested interest in defense spending (not that any of them ever sees much of that money).
Interestingly, those with the most hawkish reputation (deserved or otherwise) are Air Force officers, from whose ranks most of the Vietnam POWs (including McCain) came. I remember the shocked reactions of those who came home in '73 to a country they hadn't seen since well before Woodstock (one thought Simon and Garfunkel's \"Cecilia\" was practically porn).
QUOTE
MIB:
And people screamed at me nuts when I blasted this so-called campaign finance \"reform\" legislation. See what it has reaped.
McCain-Feingold was weak and full of holes, and you were right to point that out. But it's the only attempt at "reform" that's gotten through Congress in almost 30 years. It's better than nothing, though I admit that's not saying much. And I'm with jqueer on public funding (and with the advocates of requiring free airtime as a condition of broadcast licenses).
And people screamed at me nuts when I blasted this so-called campaign finance \"reform\" legislation. See what it has reaped.
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
Careful. Fantomas will stroll in here and deny that, because, you see, the Left can do no wrong in his eyes. Their actions are always saintly and acceptable, but those of the Right are not. He'll excuse his hypocrisy by claiming "it's different," "the Right started it," etc.My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
Oh, wait. He already did stroll in here. He must've had his post prewritten and approved by Moveon.org or something.
QUOTE
MIB:
He must've had his post prewritten and approved by Moveon.org or something.
Well, even if Fantomas did have a pre-written, pre-approved message, at least he can read it correctly unlike W who hates our freedom and misspoke yesterday that his adminstration is looking for ways to destroy America. Oh, wait...sorry...he didn't misspeak. He must've had his post prewritten and approved by Moveon.org or something.
QUOTE
MIB:
What a crockpot of cracked pottery--but is anyone surprised, given that it's coming from the right's diehard "advocate"? QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
Careful. Fantomas will stroll in here and deny that, because, you see, the Left can do no wrong in his eyes. Their actions are always saintly and acceptable, but those of the Right are not. He'll excuse his hypocrisy by claiming \"it's different,\" \"the Right started it,\" etc.My point is that BOTH parties are doing the negative thing too much.
Screw saintly, I wouldn't use that term about anyone or anything. (Well, except maybe Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, etc.)
Fantomas isn't "denying" anything. Let's see, how many negative, factually UNTRUE commercials have the Democrats or their allies run versus the GOP and its proxies? You tell me. Is it even close? NO. Is this newest packet of sleaze against a decorated war veteran matched ANYWHERE by the Democrats? NO. I mean, I'd love to see even ONE of W's associates from his National Guard days come forward for a POSITIVE ATTESTATION to his service during those months when he was... AWOL. Gee, where are those people? Those fellow guardsmen? There've got to be some, right? Right?
The "Left" does quite a bit that's wrong. We've both agreed about how awful the Dictator Daley is. He's on the Left, and growing more socialistic by the day. I've also talked about New Jersey's leftist governor, Jim McGreevey, who can't seem to associate with anyone who isn't tainted by scandal. And I've spoken in the past about quite a few other leftists, including those on the FAR left, like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Erich Honecker, and others, whose actions are nothing less than horrific, and should be condemned. Oh, let me not forget the government of China--Communist China, that is!
BTW, I do give money (and time) to Moveon.org. Love 'em! Somebody's got to tell the truth all the time!
QUOTE
danimal
[QB] Interestingly, those with the most hawkish reputation (deserved or otherwise) are Air Force officers, from whose ranks most of the Vietnam POWs (including McCain) came.
Senator McCain did not serve in the Air Force. [QB] Interestingly, those with the most hawkish reputation (deserved or otherwise) are Air Force officers, from whose ranks most of the Vietnam POWs (including McCain) came.
He was a Naval Aviator and is a 1958 Naval Academy graduate, retiring as a Captain (that's 0-6 for you Army/USAF people) in 1981. Both his father and grandfather retired from the Navy with the rank of Admiral.
An interesting side-note if you're a fan of Naval history -- for those that remember the devastating 1967 fire aboard the USS Forrestal, it was after an errant missile launched on deck, striking the fuel tanks of McCain's aircraft with him in the cockpit, that 134 sailors died during a fire, fed by ordnance and jet fuel, that raged for 24-hours.
[ August 06, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: PennState4Ever ]
QUOTE
PennState4Ever:
Senator McCain did not serve in the Air Force.
He was a Naval Aviator and is a 1958 Naval Academy graduate, retiring as a Captain (that's 0-6 for you Army/USAF people) in 1981. Both his father and grandfather retired from the Navy with the rank of Admiral.
Good catch. I stand corrected (and should've known better). Senator McCain did not serve in the Air Force.
He was a Naval Aviator and is a 1958 Naval Academy graduate, retiring as a Captain (that's 0-6 for you Army/USAF people) in 1981. Both his father and grandfather retired from the Navy with the rank of Admiral.
I'd guess that naval aviators (especially the pilots, who I assume are officers) are as conservative as their colleagues from the Wild Blue Yonder. As are airline pilots, or at least the ones who learned to fly in the service. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a "lens" that colors their world view in many ways.
Fantomas
I tend to agree with you that the majority of the shit is coming from the GOP, but up here, the press tends to publish BOTH parties action/reaction, and to me it seems like kids fighting.
You know the kind of fight, where one kid says something, the other kid says something back, and the first kid then either goes Nyah, Nyah, or "Mommy, he's being mean to me".
I also agree that Kerry and Edwards are trying to project a positive tone to their campaign, but the negative ads, even though it's by the soft money people, still reflect DIRECTLY on the partys, and I beleive most Americans are tired of it.
Hopefully Kerry's message of optimism will get through. Most of the ads that I see are GOP ads. Not a lot of Democrat ads, but then it's on satellite.
I tend to agree with you that the majority of the shit is coming from the GOP, but up here, the press tends to publish BOTH parties action/reaction, and to me it seems like kids fighting.
You know the kind of fight, where one kid says something, the other kid says something back, and the first kid then either goes Nyah, Nyah, or "Mommy, he's being mean to me".
I also agree that Kerry and Edwards are trying to project a positive tone to their campaign, but the negative ads, even though it's by the soft money people, still reflect DIRECTLY on the partys, and I beleive most Americans are tired of it.
Hopefully Kerry's message of optimism will get through. Most of the ads that I see are GOP ads. Not a lot of Democrat ads, but then it's on satellite.
QUOTE
bobby78751:
The spokes are beginning to fall off of the wheel! Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry.
The Story
Or maybe not, who knows. The spokes are beginning to fall off of the wheel! Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry.
The Story
Apparently the "reporter" who did this story is writing the foreword to the Kerry-Edwards campaign book. Fair and balanced!
I found this interesting, particularly since Snopes doesn't have a partisan axe to grind.
[ August 06, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]
[ August 06, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: jqueer ]
QUOTE
PhillyFan:
Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
NICE. As usual, great \"logic\" from the left.
Puh-leez Muffy.... you wouldn't know logic if it bit you.
Let's see, so it's ok to compare W to a nazi online, but it's not OK to give vets a view on TV.
NICE. As usual, great \"logic\" from the left.
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
You know the kind of fight, where one kid says something, the other kid says something back, and the first kid then either goes Nyah, Nyah, or \"Mommy, he's being mean to me\".
No, that would be the P&R topics on this board. You know the kind of fight, where one kid says something, the other kid says something back, and the first kid then either goes Nyah, Nyah, or \"Mommy, he's being mean to me\".
Actually, you've pretty well summed up Stateside politics for the past 10-15 years. Got any spiked maple syrup for me?
[ August 09, 2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.