In the last election, John Kerry thought going in that he would have credibility among pro-defense voters because he had been a war hero. However, most pro-defense voters had serious questions about Kerry’s votes on military budgets, and they didn’t like his conduct during the antiwar protests, where he did some things most antiwar protesters did not do (like throw medals and give testimony implying that most soldiers were war criminals.)
Therefore, when the Swift Boat controversy and others like it happened, Kerry was caught totally flat-footed, because he never dreamed that people would look past the war hero at what the war hero actually said.
He was caught flat-footed because he (and anyone else with an ounce of morals or ethics) never dreamed that human beings would sink so low and behave as despicably as the Swift-boaters.
My father was a decorated veteran and protested the Vietnam war too. What’s the point in dragging up his statments? There was nothing more vile than the lies told by the Swift-boaters and repeated by their supporters. Most of whom sat on their lazy butts or hid behind deferrments only to criticize someone who did serve. I’m frankly surprised you’d even bring that particular episode which was an embarrasment to you party up.
But if the message was presented by Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, imagine the impact!
I’m curious, by the way. I know people who like Moore and despise Coulter; and people who like Coulter and despise Moore. I find them both despicable. Are there any people who like both of them, perhaps just for their entertainment value?
OK, so John Kerry “keep[s] getting burned by it time and time again” and “will often seek “perfect” spokespeople for their causes with such scrubbed personal histories or characteristics that they are somehow unimpeachable.” That perfect spokesperson being himself, I guess.
I rather doubt that Kerry insinuated that most Vietnam soldiers were war criminals. I have no doubt that some Vietnam soldiers were war criminals, just as some present-day servicemen in Iraq are war criminals. A small minority to be sure, but I think to ignore that they exist is to ignore reality. Kerry’s opposition to the war was mainstream opinion at the time. The success that the Swift Boat Liars For Bush achieved was to give those people an excuse to vote against Kerry to those that needed one. In the end, the election result was much more to do with fraud in Ohio than anything Kerry did 40 years ago. If you just can’t get over someone throwing pieces of metal away 40 years ago, then I’m afraid you weren’t inclined to vote for him anyway.
Exactly why does Cindy Sheehan inspire such venom? She started her anti-war activities long before it became mainstream and during the time that the mainstream media were still reveling in the glorious victories of the Reich. Now that the majority of Americans have reached the same conclusions as her, why is she such a lightning rod?
I see it as analagous to the legal question as to the admissibility of testimony as opposed to the weight.
A witness might be telling a perfectly true and reasonable account but if that witness has been a habitual liar in the past, the jury might not give it much weight.
Someone who has made many predictions about the course of a project, such as the adventure in Iraq, and all have been wrong can’t expect their pronouncements to be given much credence any more.
Whether the messenger’s characteristics should affect how the message is received depends upon whether or not the characteristics in question are relevant to the message. Discounting a message about an accident on the basis that the messenger is left handed isn’t the same as discounting it because the messenger can’t see past the end of his nose.
Because it happens? Not always, mind you, but frequently enough to lay the “liberal media” canard to rest. Or have you conveniently forgotten incidents like:
[ul]
[li]Sinclair Broadcasting forcing its affiliates to carry an anti-Kerry documentary right before the election[/li][li]ABC and the whole kit-n-kaboodle behind “The Path to 9/11”[/li][li]Last week’s “Barak Obama was educated in a radical Muslim madrassa” meme (and the associated “It’s all Hillary Clinton’s fault” co-smear)[/li][li]The one-sided hiring of radical conservative commentators at major media publications such as Time.[/li][li]Anything and everything to do with Fox News[/li][/ul]
At least when I grouse about the conservative media olgiarchy, I support it with more than a vague “Anything that gets reported which I disagree with must be a partisan smear job”.
Moore and Coulter. They really aren’t that different. They each have a message they believe in fervently, and they lie and distort facts to try and push that message. Whether their abrasive personalities are artificial constructs to raise the entertainment value of their message or whether they’re real, I find them both disgusting.
I’m sure this has been debated endlessly in other threads, but I don’t see how there’s much of a comparison between one and the other. Admittedly, my complete exposure to Moore has been Roger and Me and Fahrenheit 9/11. The former was a long time ago, but what distortions there were in the latter were pretty minimal, IMHO. Hell, I could probably put together footnotes for most of it myself in fairly short order.
Coulter, OTOH, puts her irrational shrillness on the cover of each book she writes: Godless, Slander, Treason!!
At least Moore’s claims in Fahrenheit 9/11 could be verified, whereas Coulter’s “references” are either sketchy at best (“I couldn’t find it on Lexis/Nexis!”) or flat-out nonexistent.