Irony? I thought I was merely stating a well-known fact. 
Unless you think that calling a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs in the war a “coward” who supports Osama bin Laden does not constitute a smear…
Yeah, that canard against Cleland was really sick stuff. All Republicans with any self-respect should hang their hands in shame over it. I don’t know where people get the gall to call themselves Republicans sometimes.
I wish I could remember back to then. I traded with SBC at the time, but if you say it went to the top then I believe it. Still, you had a 10 yard position? I’m certainly not saying that Soros broke the BOE but his position lended credibility to many others who subsequently went short. While he may not have been the most purely exposed short, his influence was much larger than his position.
And this just in…
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/106863320599611.xml
"Lewis pledges $12 million to oust Bush for presidential race "
Rich people as good guys. Gonna take some getting used to.
It could be wonderful. If GeeDubya comes out with his multi-million dollar advantage (gonna be at least $100 million more than the Dem) and loses…
What a stunning victory for democracy that would be!
Yes, the Cleland stuff was terrible. But how do you get from “Chambliss put out a terrible attack ad” to “Republicans always resort to smear campaigns”? Especially since your cite says this:
Also, I didn’t see anywhere in the ad that it called Cleeland “a ‘coward’ who supports Osama bin Laden.” The ad did say Cleeland “lacked the courage to lead” and put pictures of Cleeland next to pics of ObL and Saddam Hussein (which is terrible), but slamming Republican misrepresentations with misrepresentations of your own is exactly the kind of irony I was talking about before.
According to the 11/13 edition of USA Today, the Bush campaign has raised about $100 million so far. So I guess his “war chest” is half empty. 
The announced Bush campaign fundraising goal is $170 million, which is obscene enough.
Ever wonder what a really inspirational candidate could do with far less money and hordes of eager volunteers? I read today that with Howard Dean’s new labor union endorsements, he has 3 million motivated, trained campaign volunteers added to his repertoire. Does this mean that in addition to Jehovah’s Witnesses and high school band fundraisers knocking at my door, I can expect to be harangued by members of AFSCME? 
Well, the first cite I linked to (the Spinsanity article) listed five examples of politicizing terrorists – one from a Democrat (Jean Carnahan) and four from Republicans (Dick Armey, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Thune, and Rush Limbaugh). That appears to indicate a preponderance among Republicans to use terrorist-based smears against their foes, IMO.
And to nitpick, I never said “Republicans always resort to smear campaigns.” I do think it’s an overused tool in their arsenal, however.
This is like saying George W. Bush never claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States because he never uttered the exact phrase, “imminent threat,” eh? Or maybe I’m just not creative enough, because I’m hard-pressed to think of a legitimate purpose for putting pictures of Cleeland next to Osama and Saddam…
I hope the Justice Dept. starts investigating Soros-this bum has gotten rich through currency manipulation and stock-pumping fraud! If I were Mr. Soros, I’d be careful-I think the IRS will be conducting a VERY thorough audit of Mr,. Soros’ income tax returns…it will be intetresting ro see what kind of racketeering this guy has been in toio!
Soros is really mad because he took a major position AGAINST the US dollar two years aGO_AND WATCHED AS HIS OPTIONS BECAME WORTHLESS (as the US dollar continued to rise. I have no pity for Soros-he’s a worthless parasite like Marc Rich.
4 Republicans are a preponderance? Do you think there are only 7 Republicans total?
4 instances of politicizing terror and terroristic threats is a preponderance? Have there only been 7 political statements ever made?
This point is beneath you. Surely you don’t actually think the 4 examples given are enough to generalize about all Republicans, do you? Or can I make broad generalizations about the Democratic party based on statements made by Carolyn Mosely-Braun, Noam Chomsky, Martha Burke, and ElvisL1ves?
A fair point. And I totally agree that it’s an overused tool.
The purpose is to show the threat that Cleeland allegedly couldn’t defend the country against. Merely putting two pictures side by side does not indicate that one picture supports the other. But this point is so obvious that I have to assume that you already knew it.
The actual message was ridiculous enough. You don’t have to exaggerate for effect. Both parties have actually done enough bad stuff that there’s really no reason to misrepresent things that actually happened. And putting the word “coward” in quotes – as if to indicate that it was a direct quote from the ad – is clearly misrepresenting what happened.
More bluster to mask a lack of facts. You’ve failed to provide any examples of these alleged “Democratic lies”, and are reduced to complaining that paraphrases are automatically dishonest, and that ads that put 2 pictures together aren’t necessarily intended to imply connections. Knock off the weaseling and try supporting your own assertions with a few choice examples of your own. If you can’t, perhaps you’ll have learned something despite yourself.
Oh please. You betray your ignorance of finance with lines like “gotten rich through currency manipulation and stock-pumping fraud.” Soros and his ilk
are constantly monitored by the IRS. Hell, we had a nearly half a floor dedicated to the IRS people who were constantly auditing us.
Good ol’ Elvis, the one trick pony.
I never made any allegation of “Democratic lies.” Nor did I ever say that ads that put 2 pictures together aren’t necessarily intended to imply connections. I merely said that the Chambliss ad didn’t necessarily imply the connection asserted by rjung. In fact, I pointed out a more likely connection between the pictures.
Quit making stuff up.
No, my reasoning is this –
- Spinsanity documented five examples of using terrorism to smear political opponents, and 4 out of 5 examples were from Republicans.
- Either Spinsanity documented those five because those were the only five examples available, or Spinsanity documented those five as a representative example of the kind of spin going on.
- In either scenario, you end up with a 4:1 ratio of Republicans using extreme smear campaigns vs. Democrat efforts.
- Ergo, Republicans are more likely to use extreme smear campaigns against their opponents than Democrats do. QED.
Now, you could argue that Spinsanity is biased against the Republicans, but that’s an argument you’ll need to make first.
Uh, right. So if I had a picture of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and George W. Bush, that’d be okay, then? After all, I’m just pointing out that Bush never faced off against the first two guys, right? :rolleyes:
Aw, geez, not the “He never used that exact word” defense again…
Age, I did not make this up: “Both parties have actually done enough bad stuff …” Not only do you not read OP-linked stories, you clearly don’t even read your own posts.
Now explain what the hell you meant by that, with examples if you please. You may drop the personal insults meanwhile, too; until you accept responsibility for your own statements that stuff will just further cripple your credbility.
What rjung has just said, too.
This is a joke, right? I doubt very seriously that you believe you can extrapolate from the examples used in a single article to the American political scene at large, especially since the article made no pretense of providing a representative sample. I won’t take this argument seriously because to do so would insult your intelligence.
In fact, I repeatedly said that the Chambliss ad was not fine. I called it terrible (twice). I called it ridiculous. I never called it okay.
Please, please, please don’t do this. I realize that others use this tactic with alarming frequency, but I’m begging you not to mischaracterize other’s arguments.
As for whether your placement of Hitler and Stalin next to Bush would be fine, that would depend on the context and the intended message. Once again, that’s an answer that’s so obvious I’m surprised I have to give it.
If it’s not a quote, then why did you use quotation marks?
First of all, you still haven’t provided any support for your assertion that I alleged “Democratic lies.” And I’ve noticed that you’ve just ignored the fact that I never said “that ads that put 2 pictures together aren’t necessarily intended to imply connections.” I’ll assume that you’re conceding these points.
The first step to understanding what I meant is to read the entire sentence. The entire sentence reads, “Both parties have actually done enough bad stuff that there’s really no reason to misrepresent things that actually happened.” If that’s not clear enough, I think you can see my point if you combine that sentence with the preceding one: “You don’t have to exaggerate for effect.” If that still doesn’t work, try reading the entire paragraph. If you still don’t recognize the point I’m trying to make, then maybe you can struggle through the entire post. If that doesn’t work, I’d invite you to ask me specifically what you don’t understand.
I wouldn’t have thought I’d need to provide examples showing that both parties have done bad stuff, but since you’ve asked, you could find examples in the cites provided by rjung, and which were discussed in other posts. 1) “Both sides ran attack ads . . . .”; 2) Rush Limbaugh’s comparison of Democrats to terrorists; 3) this, from the Spinsanity link:
There. Now can we agree that both parties have done bad stuff and that there’s no need to exaggerate what’s actually happened?
Just thought I’d share my email from bushcheney04@georgewbush.com:
and so forth.
What is a real puzzle is how I ended up on their spam list…
It’s coming from inside your house, Stoid! Run!
Reported
Let’s extend a big Thank You to the spam-bumper for reminding us of, and leaving us yearning for, our halcyon days when the re-election Bush & Cheney was America’s biggest worry.