Or perhaps a softball umpire - language being a rather imprecise tool.
Well, looks like luci got the timing pretty much pefect.
Maybe they should have put Rove in charge of Iraq? Then it might have actually been, you know, planned out.
-Joe
Okay, everybody who guessed that the Fox interview signaled “lost cause and rightists are about to bail” gets a thousand points a la WLIIA.
Meanwhile, Edwards’ comment was a mite shuddersome: “Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air.”
Oh, fuck you very much, John. “Congress shall make no law” and whatnot. Bush is a bad enough dictator as it is. Don’t plant in his mind that he could order the thing off the air.
Steady up, there, Lib. Ease on down. Here, have a nice cup chamomile tea, and some aromatherapy.
No one is suggesting that GeeBubbya can, or should, order the ads off the air. We simply suggest that if he were to expressly and unequivocally condemn the Swifties ads for what they are, they would take the hint.
Now, I suppose it is possible that they wouldn’t. I suppose maybe, just maybe they would defy the will of The Leader and go ahead anyway. Considering their visceral hatred for John Kerry, that may even be. But the money men would pull the plug, and that would be that.
A public denunciation from GW Bush, citizen, would be quite sufficient. If that fails, then he could order in the Black Helicopters.
Liberal, John Edwards is calling out Bush, saying that, if Bush is not condemning the Swift Boat ads, then the Swift Boat ads would be more accurate if they were prefaced with, “I am George Bush, and I approve this commercial”.
Presidents do have a right, at times an obligation, to their positions of power as a pulpit with influence. Billy Clinton denounced the ‘heroin chic’ ads a while back as president, and right after that the people photographed in the maagzine ads all of a sudden got plumper and healthier.
But he did denunciate it, diddle he? 
Sometimes the ripostes just write themselves. 
:rolleyes:
Lib, I followed your link and was bewildered to see Dave Kopel’s name at the head of the column. No wonder you didn’t name your source. Neither did he on the part that was of interest to me in your post. He did not name specific sources nor specific programs. Saying that a spokesperson from the Kerry campaign on ABC or NBC said something or other is not specific enough for me – especially given Kopel’s reputation for being careless with the facts. (59 attacks on MM’s F-911 will serve as a reminder to those who have seen the entire movie and read Kopel’s comments on it.)
I promise not to put “Moveon.org” under a link as a cite if you will get serious about an unbiased source.
On second thought, no more blind links for me.
Excuse me. I hear your grandmother, the hermaphrodite, calling.
Easy to believe shills for policitians in mid-campaign when thy’re shilling for Kerry. But not the ones who shill for Bush. Easy to believe Fox when they’re attacking SBV for T. Hard to believe Fox when they’re attacking V for K. Is that about the size of it? Here’s an MSNBC link. Not that you won’t find fault with it, and not that you couldn’t find this stuff yourself if you cared to.
Well, yeah, I could find a lot of fault with it, Lib, but thats neither here nor there. That is clearly an opinion piece, not a matter of reportage. It isn’t a question of belief, I have no reason to believe the author believes anything different from what he’s saying. But that’s an opinion piece, as such, it doesn’t have a lot bearing on this discussion.
His viewpoint, in my less than humble opinion, is crap. But that’s another discussion entire.
Okay, so fill me in since I don’t get the memos. Who is on the “believable” list, and does it happen to include Kerry’s campaign people but exclude all people who might contradict what they say? I ask this so I can dig up a cite suitable for left-leaning consumption. If you don’t mind, while you’re at it, save me a step by giving me now the pre-emptory disqualification that will cause me to have to go find yet a fourth.
Lib, with all sincerity, why are you wasting your time with this? You’ve said many times before that you think “we” should focus on the important stuff, eg the eroding of our civil rights, the rise of tyranny, etc. Why now are you bothering with such petty issues?
You certainly know that I think you’re a bit of an ass ( ), but your dedication to the serious causes are at the very least a noble gesture. Stick with the big problems, and leave the petty squabbling to us little folks…
I’m not so sure about all this. I’m not so naive as to think that the Swift Boat Guys cranked all this up out of concern for the historical record nor am I so naive as not to think that somebody in the President’s camp might have suggested to some big money GOPer and some hot shot GOPer PR firm that a good shot of the Swift Boat Guys on TV in a few carefully selected TV markets might just possibly do the President some good. By the same token one might think that if the word was passed that the Swift Boat Guys had become a liability the GOPer’ money guys and the GOPer PR firm might just possibly find some better place for their efforts. This pretense of sanctimonious opposition to free lance advertising in a closely contested election is just a little much.
Surely the principals can’t think that we don’t pretty strongly suspect that either of them can turn their partisan running dogs on and off at will?
More than half of the American populace still thinks Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Against overwhelming ignorance of that nature, the principals seem to have a well-justified confidence that they can pull off all sorts of bullstuff and the public will fall for it.
I’ll lay $50 that the Swift Boat guys are still around on election eve. These guys are on a mission. They’ve been waiting 35 years to settle this score with Kerry, and they don’t need ‘money men’ any more, if they ever did. They have raised about a million bucks in the past few days, and they’re going to raise a lot more. They don’t care about Bush. They won’t listen to him if he tells them to stop.
Sucker bet. Anyone with half a brain for political mudslinging knows that rich Republicans have deep pockets.
Your theory would have promise, if it wasn’t for the fact that many of the Swifties were also praising Kerry and helping him advance his political career in the past, some as recently as a year ago.
“The fact that he [Kerry] chased an armed enemy down is not something to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage.” --George Elliot, 1996
“It took guts, and I admired that.” --Roy Hoffman, regarding the actions leading to Kerry’s Silver Star, Boston Globe, June 2003
“[I admire] the bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift Boats… Senator Kerry was no exception. He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.” --Adrian Lonsdale, 1996
Doesn’t sound like a group of guys who were waiting 35 years to settle a score, does it?
Winnah, winnah, winnah! Dude- you’re cyncical, but likely right. 
The 'swift boat veterans…" have a teeny bit of truth behind their rants. My dad was a decorated WWII vet- he got a couple of “band-aid” wounds, and did some shit that today would get him a Silver star at least. But if the medic could fix it, or if you didn’t do something awesomely brave- they didn’t hand out medals quite like they did in Vietnam. My Dad’s WAG was if you earned a Bronze or Silver Star in WWII, that’t be a CMH in Vietnam (or at the very least Bronze in WWII woudl be Silver in 'nam). But then again- that war was so much better recorded than WWII. I have a freind with two bronze and one silver star from VN, and he more or less agrees. (Note- my dad’s decoration was issued to his whole unit- he had no personal medals for bravery). he describes how a sniper bullet went thru his unifrom shirt, and nicked a bit of the flesh of hs arm. Since he was in new Guinea, they were worried about infection, but the medic just dressed him up with lots of Sulfa, some pennecilling, and Dad went back to the war. You had to get hit pretty hard for a PH in WWII.
I am not saying this to denigrate Kerry- or Vietnam Veterans in general. He did brave shit for sure. But even he kinda downplayed at least one of those wounds.
But the hypocracy of that one guy who got a Bronze star in one of the incidents where Kerry did- which medal included “under enemy fire”- later on saying “oh,there was no enemy fire”- then why did HE accept HIS fucking medal? 
:mad:
You’re absolutely right. Deception, however, being the second leg of coercion (force being the first) is very important. This isn’t about Kerry being an insufferably boring speechmaker; it’s about being dishonest. It’s important to find out whether he is or isn’t. With Bush, same same, except that with Bush, we already know.