|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 24, 2004 13:39:32 GMT -5
But there is another portion to that DED, and that's that along with not allowing the criticism to sway Bush's convictions, he's also not changed on those convictions.
To say that Bush hasn't condemned the ad is false. He's condemened it as part of condemning ALL of the 527 ads. Why exactly should he treat this ad as being anything special that deserves an extra condeming? Because it's not against him? Because John Kerry said so? That's just silly. Further, as I said before, what exactly does condeming it do? It won't take it off the air. It won't persuade the people who hate Kerry to not believe it, nor will it persuade the people who love Kerry to believe it. What does it accomplish? As far as I can see it, it's nothing more than grandstanding and talk with nothing behind it. And while we're making hte list of things that Bush's supporters typically love about him, one would have to be that he usually doesn't get caught up in empty talk that doesn't / won't have any action behind it. So again what exactly is accoplished by George W Bush reading off the script of exactly HOW Kerry and Edwards want him to condemn this ad? And more importantly, how is the election process advanced by his doing so?
And FWIW -- since I get accused all the time of blindly accepting anything Bush does, and never criticizing him -- I'll highlight again that this is an area where I stronly disagree with him. I never would have signed McCain Feingold. I never would have filed suit to stop 527s. I never would have told a single reporter that I didn't want any of the 527s on the air. When the first amendment is used to protect things like porn, it's annoying, but it's the way it goes. When the first amendment can't even be used to stop the silencing of people or groups from speaking up about their thoughts on the government, and/or the men/women who serve in that government ... that's just pathetic and sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 24, 2004 13:41:22 GMT -5
The fact is that if Bush had spoken out agaisnt the swift boat ads, (I mean if the campaign supports Kerry's record as much as they claim would it really have been that hard?) I think it would have been veiwed as integrity by everyone except those would damn Bush for everything anyway I have to pull out this comment specifically. How is / would speaking out against a specific group or ad a demonstration of integrity? |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 24, 2004 14:34:25 GMT -5
Well number one it would back his claims that they are "proud" of Kerry's record...and two it would've been the opposite of what we have now, which him being accused of allowing the ads to gain acceptence and let them do his dirty work...and possibly of being invovled at the ground level. Where as if as soon as the ads began and Kerry first complained he'd said "He's right the ads are inapropriate" that likely would have been the end of it. Instead he let them run their course and only now is he coming out against them. .."I thought we'd ended all this when I signed blah blah blah"...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 24, 2004 14:37:38 GMT -5
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Bush's goal in all of this is that on November 3, John Kerry wakes up a loser, and not a president-elect. He's been kind and said that he repsects John Kerry's military record. IMO, to expect him to continually bolster that is asking way too much ... especially given the things that have been said by Kerry and his camp regarding Bush's military record.
Further, do you not see that if Bush came out right away and called for the ads to stop, that Kerry supporters would have jumped on that and said "See that, he's breaking the law! He's coordinating with the 527s!" He is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 24, 2004 14:47:55 GMT -5
They'll say those things no matter what. It's not as though Bush is leaving out miliatry records out of respect...it's that he can't fight on that level. If he allowed Kerry's record come into play he'd get trounced on his own, it's not being kind.and I'm not saying he should bolster his record but he could have asked for other to respect his record as he claims to...but I think we all know why he didn't. One of Kerry'y mistakes is that he's been trying to play his military record against Bush's and this is how bush playing the game. He IS using the ads whether he a hand in them or not...I guess that's fair game though. It still seems abit below the belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 24, 2004 14:57:09 GMT -5
metrosexuals! omg!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Aug 24, 2004 18:17:23 GMT -5
Seems to sum up the issue aptly.
-------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL
These Charges Are False ...
It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication.
The Los Angeles Times
August 24, 2004
The technique President Bush is using against John F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128 times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the State Department." But make sure the supporting details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent easy refutation.
Then sit back and let the media do your work for you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of the profession prevent most journalists from saying outright: These charges are false. As a result, the voters are left with a general sense that there is some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from thinking about real issues (like the war going on now) by these laboratory concoctions.
It must be infuriating to the victims of this process to be given conflicting advice about how to deal with it from the same campaign press corps that keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a) Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the turf.
At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice (a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's failure to strike back said about whether he had the backbone for the job of president - and even when he did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use of this issue say about whether he has the simple decency for the job of president?
Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question. The ridiculously named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world in various ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.
More important, either man could shut down the groups working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ads, with what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday - finally - called for all ads by independent groups on both sides to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an invitation to condemn the Swift boat effort.
In both cases, the candidates are the reason the groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false.
No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word.
Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he were a man of principle, would say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 24, 2004 19:19:00 GMT -5
They'll say those things no matter what. It's not as though Bush is leaving out miliatry records out of respect...it's that he can't fight on that level. If he allowed Kerry's record come into play he'd get trounced on his own, it's not being kind.and I'm not saying he should bolster his record but he could have asked for other to respect his record as he claims to...but I think we all know why he didn't. One of Kerry'y mistakes is that he's been trying to play his military record against Bush's and this is how bush playing the game. He IS using the ads whether he a hand in them or not...I guess that's fair game though. It still seems abit below the belt. DED, I disagree with the notion that Bush can't compete with Kerry when it comes to military record for a couple of reasons. First, Bush's military record cannot honestly be limited to his guard service. Why is any presidential candidate's military service or lack thereof reviewed? To get an idea of how he'll handle the role of commander-in-chief. So why on earth would you look at Bush's guard record over and above his actual record as commander-in-chief? After all, isn't that why Kerry is making his Vietnam service such a major aspect of his campaign -- to try to convince the American voters that a Democrat CAN be strong on the issue of defense? Strat raised the question earlier as to why Kerry is not running on his Senate record, speculating that it would make him look too liberal to get elected. Perhaps the real reason is that the military aspects of that record don't make him look so hot as commander-in-chief. As far as whether or not it is below the belt? I guess that in all honesty,the majority of politics is below the belt, so you have a point. But is this any more below the belt than normal? I really don't htink so. I mean, is it normal to try to STOP the hot water that makes your opponet look bad? Again, let's not lose sight of the fact that the goal for these two men is not winning Mr Congeniality ... it's winning an election. Drum, did you read the Post article I posted? Given that it actually looks at both sides of the issue, I'd have to argue that it sums things up MUCH better than the Times piece. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 24, 2004 22:50:49 GMT -5
I hate to admit it but...you're right...in a sense anyway. I think we're on the same boat we're just fishing off different sides. So I have a question for you. Why does Bush look like a the good guy calling for an end to these ads when Kerry has denouced a couple ads that attack Bush several weeks ago? Why is it that Kerry has done what you say isn't to be expected in an election (standing up to his supporters for going below the belt) Bush hasn't and yet somehow he still looks like he's being the bad guy? Part of it is timing and I got to hand it to him Bush has got timing. I read an article in The Atlantic comaparing their debating styles it said that Bush's strongest asset is underestimation and I think that's true. Kerry has underestimated Bush's power to appeal to people just when he thinks he's got him on something Bush slips out of it...and Kerry is getting visibly frustrated by it. I don't think it's because Bush is honest or a good president, I don't think because he does what he says he will...he sets the bar low and anything he gets done looks great because he says it's all part of the big picture.
I think it's because he's great liar. As good if not better then Clinton. Clinton couldn't pull off dumb, asking the meaning of "is" just made him look like an asshole but Bush could've gotten away with it. He has his faux Texas charm and his puppy dog dumb eyes...he'd make alittle joke, cock an eye brow and say "Now, I want to help here But I'm alittle confused on what you mean by "is"...is that litra-lee or metraforical"? He a genius, nothing sticks to this guy. He hasn't pronouced Abu Ghraib correctly yet and any other president would look like they just didn't give a shit but it makes him look kinda lovable. This adminstration is the most double talking blowing smoke bunch I've ever seen in office and it works becuase they've got a fucking idiot savant at the mic. Rice appearently doesn't know shit about anything and everyone else was "out of the loop" it seems. Iraq is a huge mess but as long as he keeps repeating "safer America" we'll jump in behind anything he says...Bush is that guy at work and you know he's skimming the registers and he doesn't do damn thing when you're not around but you just can't catch him...all the customers love him, his sales are good but you just know he's up to something...people are telling you left and right but you just can't catch him. Kerry is trying his damnest to catch him with his pants down but he's always five minutes too late...
I don't blame Kerry for exagerating his record, everyone wants to be thought of as a hero and politicians are rarely described as humble. The fact is he went into war when Bush wouldn't, Bush has no problem sending your sons a daughters to war though.
One last thing and I'm suprised that the Dems aren't all over this. When Bush was on Larry King he said even if he'd know all the intelligence was faulty, even if he'd known there were no WMDs he still would've done the same thing. From his own mouth, he would've lied to us if hasn't. He would've started this war one way or another...no matter how big a tax cut he'll give me I can't support that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 25, 2004 6:29:23 GMT -5
Chris, I just read that Washington Post piece when I got home from work this morning. Very good, and even handed article I thought, especially given that the Post is such a liberal paper. The L.A. Times piece that Drum posted, I thought played to the Times' well known left wing bias. This whole affair is a pretty sorry thing, IMO. The candidates need to be talking about what is relevant today.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 25, 2004 6:31:05 GMT -5
One last thing and I'm suprised that the Dems aren't all over this. When Bush was on Larry King he said even if he'd know all the intelligence was faulty, even if he'd known there were no WMDs he still would've done the same thing.
The Dems aren't all over this because Kerry has basically said the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 25, 2004 6:31:49 GMT -5
On the first question of why Bush looks like a hero for denouncing, but Kerry has done thie "same thing" and isn't looked at as a hero ... First, I'm not so sure I agree with you that Bush looks like a hero. I for one strongly disagree with his calling for the ads to be pulled. I don't call such a block of free speech heroic. And if you look at the way the media is handling this, he isn't exactly being heralded as a hero. Just this morning on GMA, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolus were lamenting the fact that Bush STILL hasn't denounced the swift boat ad. So if he's still getting heat for supposedly not doing it, how do you see that he's being viewed as heroic. Secondly, I disagree with your asessment that Kerry has done "the same thing as Bush" in regards to denouncing. The pressure was put on Bush to denounce as soon as the anti-Kerry ads hit the air. John Kerry virtually ignored the anti-Bush ads for months while they were running. He even declared Bush-bashing to be "the heart and soul of America' after the Radio City event. So if the guy ignores it / endorses it / participates in it for months, and then suddenly denounces it because everyone else is, how is that doing the same thing?
On the war ... you and I are not going to see eye to eye on it, because I've never believed that the WMDs or the inteligence about WMDs were the real reason for going into Iraq, nor do I believe that they'd be the best reason. I believe that there were strategic, political, and anti-terror reasons for going into Iraq, which from a State Department standpoint, the administration could never truly verbalize. We knew we had to get out of Saudi Arabia. We knew we had to maintain a presence in the middle east (not just for oil, remember that little ally called Israel too). We knew that it is opressive tyranical middle east governments that produce terrorists ... not the more "open" (recognizing this is a subjective word here) governments of the Arab world. Going into Iraq allowed us to deal with these issues / objectives. It is NOT a war that we are going to see the benefits from in the next couple of years. We are only truly going to understand the effects of this war 20 years or more from now. That's why politically it was a stupid move ... you're hard pressed to find a politician who is willing to take ANY action for long term rewards (which is why so many things in Washington are FUBAR). I don't have the crystal ball, and I have no way of telling you without question that 20 years from now, we'll look at George W Bush and Tony Blair as visionaries, who recognized what the world needed even when most people thought they were nuts. History may prove that they were two of the biggest baffoons of all time. But I truly in my heart of hearts believe that they'll be viewed as geniuses for taking the action they did. Who knows ... maybe we'll still be posting at that point to discuss it.
Finally, I must take you to task for the disgusting reciting of empty rhetoric in this statement: "The fact is he went into war when Bush wouldn't, Bush has no problem sending your sons a daughters to war though." Can you HONESTLY say in your heart of hearts that you believe this? Do you TRULY believe that Bush is that much of a monster? Think about what you're saying here. Throw out ideology. Throw out politics. Throw out rhetoric. Think about what you are saying about another human being. You're making the claim here that George W Bush looks at war as little more than a really cool video game. If you truly beleive that, then I've lost A LOT of respect for you. I don't care for Bill Clinton. I don't have a lot of respect for the man, I don't like a lot of his policies or the way he conducts his life. But I would NEVER make such a comment about him ... or any other president for that matter. To make a flip comment saying that ANY president would send our troops off to war on a whim without any concern is absolutely pathetic. And when you look at the time that this president has spent with families who've lost soldiers, paying his respects, showing enough respect for those families to not bring the camera along ... I have to say that his actions directly contradict your words. I have to be honest DED ... if you truly believe that, if you truly stand behind it, then I don't think I can continue this discussion at this point. I will have lost so much respect for anything that you've said, that as much as I've enjoyed out exchange over the past day, I'd have to walk way with very deep anger.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 25, 2004 6:35:42 GMT -5
I started building a raft, but I realized there's no way I'll have it built before the harbour freezes, so I guess I'm kinda fucked. Will you guys be alright down there without me?
That's cool Riley, but you could just jump on a Zamboni, I think you'd be much safer than trying to fly a plane in, given your admitted lack of flying skills (as well as your status as a UFC leaving you wide open for shoot down). If you drive the Zamboni to Michigan, I can reasonably guarantee safe passage. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 25, 2004 6:46:09 GMT -5
looks like mark thatcher got arrested for planning to overthrow the equatorial guinea government (if i read that right). ... whoops!
i heard in england that there's a lot of hate for margaret thatcher now... dunno why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 25, 2004 6:59:57 GMT -5
Well, I hate for it end this way but I believe this war is stupid, unnescesary and based on lies. While I'm not prepared to say he doesn't care about the lives of these soldiers, I will say he feels like his agenda is worth it. The reasons for this war have changed so many times but one thing there has never been is actual acheivable goal. I guess if you take his reasons at face value it's arguably justified. I don't and I think there's alot of good reasons to question his motives. I'm sorry if you can't respect that.
|
|
