“How are the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” any different than moveon.org?”
They are quite different, despite what certain phonily even-handed members of the fifth estate may pretend.
An exchange in Slate shows the contrast; JM Marshall summarizes:
One is George Herbert Walker Bush. One is George Walker Bush. They don’t have the same name.
I only point this out because this is an absurd conversation. Measure For Measure, you were incorrect, and no amount of cites will change their names, so you’ll never be correct. milroyj, you’re being obtuse. Geez.
So? Even if, according to the rules, he’s not a junior, nobody is confused by the term “George Bush Jr,” any more than they are by ‘Shrub’ or ‘Dubya’ or ‘George the Second.’
So take your thread hijaking elsewhere, kay?
Nah, MFM is being obtuse. I’m betting he’s a college student who doesn’t know any better. Oh well.
Did you know who he was referring to? Of course you did. You gave your rightful objection, and now it’s just petty and obtuse. MFM is referring to the current President of the United States, George Wlker Bush, father of Jenna and Barbara and husband of Laura. That’s who he is referring to. So perhaps you would be willing to get past this and address the issue.
I had understood that middle names were ignored when generational titles were applied.
According to Dr. Dee and Dave (whomever they are), I was mistaken.
If I direct the mods to substitute “George Bush Jr.” with “George Walker Bush” in the title to this thread, would that be appropriate? Personally, I prefer bright lines when discussing cowardice, but perhaps others disagree.
Although the elder George H. Bush’s father is deceased, he continues to use the designation George H. Bush, Jr.. (He probably uses it less now to avoid confusion.) So there is a George Bush, Jr. in the family. But he is not the one whose courage has been called into question in the OP.
I don’t think that cowardice is the right word. There is no way to know what his feelings really are. But I don’t mind giving my opinion based on his words and deeds and the scrutiny of others that I trust.
I doubt that he feels much of a sense of shame. He has indicated that he doesn’t spend a lot of time questioning why he does what he does. (I used to have the quote as part of my signature.) I think he probably leads the unexamined life.
His moral standards are similar to that of many adolescents: “I don’t have to tell the whole truth as long as I don’t lie. If people get the wrong impression, I don’t have to correct them. And if I do have to lie sometimes, it’s for good reasons. I’ll think about those reasons another day."”
To me his biggest problem is shallowness.
----- Sorry, both do “unsolicited” attack ads, and both are “disavowed” by the candidates they favor.
Not wholly accurate. White House spokesperson McClellan evaded the question regarding the specific charges made by the Swift Boat group, changing to the subject to all those 527s.
In contrast, Kerry has disavowed the particular ad campaign by Move-on.org, which made rather firmer charges. “I agree with Senator McCain that the ad is inappropriate. This should be a campaign of issues, not insults.”
There are clear distinctions here, ones that, IMHO, are not trivial though they do require some inspection.
Wait a second. Barbara Bush’s husband had a father whose name was Prescott Bush. Did George HW Bush really refer to himself as Junior?
(Also, the 2nd etiquette site I linked to noted that if the eldest who passes away has some public prominence, then the surviving member may continue to call himself “Junior”: there is no upgrade. So I think I misinterpretted Miss Manners.)
MODS: Provided you deem it appropriate and a prudent use of time, please change the title to the following:
Is sitting President George W. Bush a Coward Who Lacks a Sense of Shame?
I think that should cover the objections raised in this thread.
after several years and 2000 posts you expect something different?
You could take a panel…er…clue from Doonesbury and call him Asterisk. That might do an even better job of sending milly around the bend. 
OK then, let me ask you a question. Have any of the moveon.org ads been about John Kerry, or are they only about what a chump Bush is? If they say nothing about the candidate they are purportedly for, they are attack ads, honest or not, and none of the ads I have seen or heard have anything positive to say about either candidate.
And as for Kerry saying that the ads are inappropriate…So, he’s going to ask them to stop making them and take the higher ground? Ummm…thought not. They both depend on these clowns making these attack ads so they can take the moral high ground and yet still have these ads going out. You know it and I know it, so stop fooling yourself. That’s the way the business is done.
My understanding of the law governing organizations like moveon and the swifties is that they cannot promote a candidate, lest they fall under rules limiting campaign finance laws.
and John Kerry has already condemned the moveon ads attacking Shrub’s “service” in the National Guard:
Yikes! Measure for Measure, I stand corrected. I found several links tht referred to “41” as George H. Bush, Jr. When I explored them further, I realized that all of the uses were based on one apparent misuage. This is an example, and certainly not a reliable source. I should have noticed:
http://www.heartswithsoul.com/eugenics.htm
I had forgotten about Prescott Bush altogether. Thanks for catching my error.
Milroyj, my apologies for “correcting” you. I’m going to slink off now. :smack:
When I write a post that refers to both men (or even just the father, since I wouldn’t want him or his presidency confused with his son’s) I call them Bush41 and Bush43, common journalistic practice when both men are cited in an article. It’s simple and emotionally neutral.
Right. The problem is only one candidate has taken the moral high ground, (however prefunctorily?) as MadMonk pointed out.
It would be easy for Bush (or his spokeperson) to denounce the phony claims of the Swift Boat ad campaign, which I’ve argued is far far less honest than what MoveOn does. So far, Bush has refused to do so.
And, no, all attacks are most definitely not equivalent. Pointing out that, yes, somebody will have to pay for sitting President Bush’s deficits is not a smear.
Making claims in direct conflict with 30 year old military reports is.
Pointing out that indeed WMDs have not been found in Iraq is not a smear.
Making claims about Kerry’s integrity - in flat contradiction to statements made earlier by these same Swift Boat characters- is.
Now granted, when MoveOn says that George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard that is most definitely a personal attack. But let’s remember that it was launched only after the Swift Boat front group --backed by Bob J. Perry, longtime associate of Karl Rove and Harlan Crow, Trustee of the foundation of the George Bush Library-- launched their shameless campaign.
If it’s one thing we’ve learned over the past 20 years, is that when the opposition starts smearing, the right thing to do is hit back. Hard. Dukkakis didn’t get this in 1992. By now, I think the Democrats have learned the lesson: whether they’ve sufficiently mastered the necessary smear skills is separate matter.
The only caveat I’d add is that either label taken in isolation is apt to be confusing. So I’d have to say something like, “Bush43, in contrast with Bush41, never felt constrained by a sense of noblesse oblige.”
Quibbles aside, thanks for the tip.
…or in 1988 for that matter. :smack:
We could call him George Bush the Lesser but considering his father that might create confusion.