The Dan Rather thing was an incident of s***ty journalism, not a political smear campaign. Swiftboating is the far better term.

 

IIRC, the document was bogus, but that doesn't mean that the story was wrong. Just because one piece of corroborating evidence was false, doesn't mean the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

IIRC, the document was bogus, but that doesn't mean that the story was wrong. Just because one piece of corroborating evidence was false, doesn't mean the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

 

So some of, but not all, of the Swift Boat guys can't really back up what they allege because they didn't witness what they say they witnessed. That doesn't mean their claim that Kerry received medals without earning them, thanks to his social background, and general anti-American views as expressed after the war, are wrong.

 

I don't think that argument works, does it?

 

There was one guy who actually served with Kerry but IIRC wasn't actually present for any of the incidents Kerry received medals for. The rest had zero first-hand knowledge of the incidents. No independent source has ever corroborated their claims. It was a complete smear campaign from start to finish.

 

 

 

You were saying in several posts that you didn't think it was fair that it was a synonym for "smear campaign," that they were honest and legitimate ads, etc. They weren't. They would have made Lee Atwater proud.

 

I recall at least one guy was in the boat with Kerry and another officer was leading a group of boats on the night Kerry was shot. The point remains that they think one thing, other people disagree. Whether that's because they don't like Kerry or they think Kerry is anti-American is irrelevant. Clearly they didn't like his politics and they were rebutting his credibility. That's political ads 101. They were hardly the first group to do that, and they clearly haven't been the last.

So some of, but not all, of the Swift Boat guys can't really back up what they allege because they didn't witness what they say they witnessed. That doesn't mean their claim that Kerry received medals without earning them, thanks to his social background, and general anti-American views as expressed after the war, are wrong.

 

I don't think that argument works, does it?

 

Their claim was and remains completely unsubstantiated and contradicted by others who were actually there. The burden of proof is on them and they failed to provide any evidence.

 

edit: the thrust of their campaign wasn't that Kerry was critical of Vietnam later. It was to delegitimize his claims as a war hero by lying about how he received his medals. Do you remember the Purple Heart band-aids at the convention? That was the point: slander him as a coward and a phony.

Edited July 19, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

I recall at least one guy was in the boat with Kerry and another officer was leading a group of boats on the night Kerry was shot. The point remains that they think one thing, other people disagree. Whether that's because they don't like Kerry or they think Kerry is anti-American is irrelevant. Clearly they didn't like his politics and they were rebutting his credibility. That's political ads 101. They were hardly the first group to do that, and they clearly haven't been the last.

 

There's a reason why their campaign quickly became synonymous with 'smear campaign' by both dems and reps. They were on the same level as Secret Kenyan Muslim guys.

So some of, but not all, of the Swift Boat guys can't really back up what they allege because they didn't witness what they say they witnessed. That doesn't mean their claim that Kerry received medals without earning them, thanks to his social background, and general anti-American views as expressed after the war, are wrong.

 

I don't think that argument works, does it?

 

I wasn't arguing anything regarding the Swift Boat folks. I said that the forged document that Dan Rather uncovered doesn't make the rest of the story wrong.

I wasn't arguing anything regarding the Swift Boat folks. I said that the forged document that Dan Rather uncovered doesn't make the rest of the story wrong.

Considering the whole story was based ON the forged document, how is what you say true?

IIRC the story was based on speculation and his missing records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bus...ice_controversy

 

It was based a lot more than some discovered files that found its way to Dan Rather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bus...ice_controversy

 

It was based a lot more than some discovered files that found its way to Dan Rather.

This story really pissed me off, both at CBS and because this provided the perfect way to make sure no more questions were ever actually asked. It took 8 years to really cover what happened in a quality way. It's worth your time to register for this story if you want the backside description of what happened with that report.

Their claim was and remains completely unsubstantiated and contradicted by others who were actually there. The burden of proof is on them and they failed to provide any evidence.

There was more. They provided details in their book that didn't stand up to one iota of scrutiny. One of their claims was that Kerry was lying when he said he was ordered to go into Cambodia, because you couldn't get to Cambodia from Vietnam at the time since the U.S. had put a chain/warning sign across the Vietnam/Cambodia border on the Mekong river so that boats wouldn't accidentally cross into Cambodia. Of course, if you look at a map, the Mekong river in that area is a delta, which means that there were a half dozen or so migrating channels, so if the warning sign, it was a deliberate deception from the government to cover up boats going into Cambodia along the multitude of channels. But the most basic level of scrutiny was never applied to their claims...it was 100% "Horse race, how does this effect the race" coverage. No investigation of veracity.

 

(Running a blog as a geologist in 2004, when that book came out, the first thing you do is go to the maps. And then you say..."this is complete BS).

Mitt Romney's campaign doesn't believe that Obama is "Anglo-Saxon" enough.

I just read an article from a major news outlet about the impending landslide election. Don't you think the liberal media would do whatever it could to keep Romney from making this a race? I think Romney is disgracefully bad candidate, but still you can see how the liberal media would never let their man lose. Mention the world "landslide" enough and any Romney supporters out there will just stay home that day and not even bother to vote.

I just read an article from a major news outlet about the impending landslide election. Don't you think the liberal media would do whatever it could to keep Romney from making this a race? I think Romney is disgracefully bad candidate, but still you can see how the liberal media would never let their man lose. Mention the world "landslide" enough and any Romney supporters out there will just stay home that day and not even bother to vote.

The media is not liberal and they do not have an agenda to get Obama elected, and the fact that you just simply buy that because people repeat it is absolutely laughable. This will not be a landslide election.

 

For one example, Pew keeps track of what they consider positive and negative stories about each candidate. Romney's coverage has, for the last year, been much more positive and much less negative than Obama's.

 

Romney's coverage has been more positive than negative for almost the entire year save one stretch in early February when Santorum was coating everything, while Obama's coverage has been more negative than positive for the entire last year. This isn't unexpected for an incumbent, but it belies any concept that the liberal media is in the tank for Obama.

The media is not liberal and they do not have an agenda to get Obama elected, and the fact that you just simply buy that because people repeat it is absolutely laughable. This will not be a landslide election.

 

For one example, Pew keeps track of what they consider positive and negative stories about each candidate. Romney's coverage has, for the last year, been much more positive and much less negative than Obama's.

 

 

Over the past year, of course. The media had a vested interest to get the weakest candidate they could to run against the messiah.

 

Now, they will turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs.

Over the past year, of course. The media had a vested interest to get the weakest candidate they could to run against the messiah.

 

Now, they will turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs.

Which is why Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain are the nominee. Because Romney was so weak compared to them.

 

Funny.

Which is why Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain are the nominee. Because Romney was so weak compared to them.

 

Funny.

 

he is saying that the media gave Mittens preferential treatment in the primary, as he would be the easiest for Obama to defeat in the general. Now the media will go 100% attack mode on Romney, and praise Obama.

he is saying that the media gave Mittens preferential treatment in the primary, as he would be the easiest for Obama to defeat in the general. Now the media will go 100% attack mode on Romney, and praise Obama.

Yeah, great, I get that he's saying that. Which of the vaunted competitors for Romney in the primaries would have been this remarkably strong candidate? Rick "I forgot which cabinet department I want to get rid of" Perry? Michelle "McCarthy" Bachmann? Herman "hmmmm, Libya...Libya..." Cain? Rick "Google problem" Santorum? Newt "I don't need a funny name to tell you how bad he is of a candidate" Gingrich? Donald Trump? Ron Paul?

 

p.s. When the "Obama coverage" remains just about as negative through the end of the race, which it will except for the week of the convention because he is the incumbent, it won't even be worth noting, because you know in your heart the media want Obama and nothing can change that.

Romney was/is the easiest for the messiah to beat because health care (regardless of one Justice Roberts) is off the table with him and everyone knows it. That's 40% of the election issues that Romney cannot debate. Now Obama gets 50% of the remaining 60% of the welfare state handout recipients and he wins "in a landslide".

Romney was/is the easiest for the messiah to beat because health care (regardless of one Justice Roberts) is off the table with him and everyone knows it. That's 40% of the election issues that Romney cannot debate. Now Obama gets 50% of the remaining 60% of the welfare state handout recipients and he wins "in a landslide".

 

Every other candidate was insane, mentally disabled, or extremely hate-able. Romney was the best case scenario for Republicans.

Romney was/is the easiest for the messiah to beat because health care (regardless of one Justice Roberts) is off the table with him and everyone knows it. That's 40% of the election issues that Romney cannot debate. Now Obama gets 50% of the remaining 60% of the welfare state handout recipients and he wins "in a landslide".

You haven't answered my question. Which of the candidates opposing Romney in the primaries was even close to a reasonable contender?

 

Romney was the weakest candidate...except for all the other pathetic candidates.

The media is not liberal and they do not have an agenda to get Obama elected, and the fact that you just simply buy that because people repeat it is absolutely laughable. This will not be a landslide election.

 

For one example, Pew keeps track of what they consider positive and negative stories about each candidate. Romney's coverage has, for the last year, been much more positive and much less negative than Obama's.

 

Romney's coverage has been more positive than negative for almost the entire year save one stretch in early February when Santorum was coating everything, while Obama's coverage has been more negative than positive for the entire last year. This isn't unexpected for an incumbent, but it belies any concept that the liberal media is in the tank for Obama.

Balta you are way smarter about me than politics. But you think it will not be a landslide election? Come on. It is going to be the biggest rout in the history of elections. Will Romney win one state? Of course. Kansas always goes Republican, but that wlll basically be it.

 

Yeah, great, I get that he's saying that. Which of the vaunted competitors for Romney in the primaries would have been this remarkably strong candidate? Rick "I forgot which cabinet department I want to get rid of" Perry? Michelle "McCarthy" Bachmann? Herman "hmmmm, Libya...Libya..." Cain? Rick "Google problem" Santorum? Newt "I don't need a funny name to tell you how bad he is of a candidate" Gingrich? Donald Trump? Ron Paul?

 

p.s. When the "Obama coverage" remains just about as negative through the end of the race, which it will except for the week of the convention because he is the incumbent, it won't even be worth noting, because you know in your heart the media want Obama and nothing can change that.

By voting day, Romney will be considered a buffoon after the media is through with him compared to their beloved Obama. I tell you, the Republicans should have gone with a woman or African American candidate. It would have made it much tougher for the liberal media to attack them.

 

Balta you are way smarter about me than politics. But you think it will not be a landslide election? Come on. It is going to be the biggest rout in the history of elections. Will Romney win one state? Of course. Kansas always goes Republican, but that wlll basically be it.

 

LOL Obama has no hope in hell of just about any Southern state and certainly not Utah. This will not be a Reagan-Mondale repeat. I'd be surprised if Obama's Electoral College margin is wider than 2008.

You haven't answered my question. Which of the candidates opposing Romney in the primaries was even close to a reasonable contender?

 

Romney was the weakest candidate...except for all the other pathetic candidates.

 

Rick Perry may have worked if he didn't completely self-destruct.

http://news.yahoo.com/coming-obama-landslide-025409605.html