Oh. My. God. This defies description. Bush/Cheney says that Kerry=Hitler.

[Apos]

I don’t blame Bush/Cheney for being furious over some of the bitterest slam tactics.

Like comparing Democrat Cleland to Saddam? Yeah, I could see why having to resort to stuff like that could make you bitter.

[Apos]

They’ve changed it to make it more obvious the ads were statements made by MoveOn.org, which is itself pretty big fucking distortion of reality.

[Maeglin]

Morning, manhattan.

See, here’s the thing. If the DNC invites Gore to the convention, it will be an endorsement of his Nazi-baiting.

I do not believe that this is strictly true. There are two premises:

Al Gore opened his big fat rot and made an offhand Nazi comment.
Suppose the DNC invites Al Gore to the convention.

There are several possible ways in which the latter premise can be related to the former.

Yes, the DNC might endorse Nazi-baiting.

Alternatively, the DNC might feel that Gore’s positive presence at the convention outweighs reprehensible Nazi-baiting.

It could also reason that not including Al Gore would have greater negative political fallout than including him.

The DNC could also command Al Gore’s presence at the convention because Barbara Streisand feels that John Kerry needs to eat the former VP’s brain in order to revitalize his campaign.

Any one of a myriad of other possible explanations, none of which carry any more weight than any other, are possible and utterly unfalsifiable. The DNC’s potential extension of an invitation to Al Gore does not signal any particular state of the world. It carries very little information at all. To privilege one explanation over any other is just assertion.

On the contrary, inclusion of Nazi footage in the GW Bush campaign video carries rather more information. I’d rather be elliptical than pedantic in my old age, so I won’t lay out my argument unless someone actually wants me to.

[PatriotX]

@K. Mehlman

We Agree, It’s Disgusting
Dear Simon,
On Thursday, the campaign launched a web video titled Kerry’s Coalition of the Wild-eyed. The video featured Democrats who support John Kerry making negative and baseless attacks against the President. Interspersed in the video were segments of two ads that appeared on a website sponsored by MoveOn.org - a group campaigning for Kerry - in January.
On Friday night, John Kerry’s campaign denounced our use of these ads, and called that use “disgusting.”
The Kerry campaign says, “The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”
We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry’s coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting.
Where was John Kerry’s disgust when he hired Zack Exley - the man responsible for encouraging the production of these ads as part of a MoveOn contest - to run the Kerry campaign’s internet operation?
Where was John Kerry’s sense of outrage when Al Gore, just yesterday afternoon, compared the Bush Administration to the Nazis saying, “The Administration works closely with a network of ‘rapid response’ digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for ‘undermining support for our troops.’”
Where was John Kerry’s anger when Al Gore in May spoke of “Bush’s Gulag”?
Why has John Kerry not denounced billionaire and Democrat Party donor George Soros for comparing the Bush Administration to Nazis. Soros stated, “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (‘The enemy is listening’).”
Why has Kerry not spoken out against filmmaker Michael Moore who last October compared the Patriot Act to Mein Kampf. “The Patriot Act is the first step. ‘Mein Kampf’ - ‘Mein Kampf’ was written long before Hitler came to power.”
We created this web video to show the depths to which these Kerry supporters will sink to win in November.
Is this the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who reassured his countrymen we have nothing to fear but fear itself?
No. This is John Kerry’s Coalition of the Wild-eyed, who have nothing to offer but fear-mongering.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

Ken Mehlman = december?

[elucidator]

@manhattan

…That said, I was apparently in error. MsRobyn apparently only believes that Nazi-baiting “defies description” and rates an email from her when it is Republicans who are doing it. Alternatively, she’s used to it from Democrats at this point and is inured to the tactic when it comes from them. I’m confident she can speak on her own behalf in this regard…

I am confident she can tear you a new one “in this regard”. In the unlikely event that she cannot, she will have an ample array of volunteers to call upon. Not that she needs such, but who could resist?

Is the Annual SDMB Tighty-Righty Curmudgeon award ceremony impending? Is this why the last-minute flurry to establish bone fides?

Or is it that the Good Ship George has taken two torpedoes amidships, and a hasty count of lifeboats has come up short?

[El_Kabong]

Don’t be getting all flustered when someone responds in kind to shit like that.

So I guess that’s a Yes for “marginalized as a bile-spewing asshat”, then.

[Otto]

@TVeblen

I take your point but honorably disagree on the “possible claim” part. IME neither party has the remotest claim for occupying a nebulous high ground. I’m speaking from a slightly extended historical perspective, mainly because there’s no political grudge too old to be left unanswered–wisely or not. It truly is a matter of perspective.

I’m not necessarily saying that the Dems are in general more entitled to the moral hgh ground but on the matter of political ads and all-out sleazy campaign tricks I kind of feel like they are. I can’t remember any ads from a Democrat that sink to the level of a Willie Horton or “Max Cleland is unpatriotic” or tactics along the lines of push polling (“would you be less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he had an illegitimate half-black baby?”). Perhaps that’s my lack of historical perspective showing as I only first remember ads as early as the 1984 election (the truly bizarre “Bear in the Woods” ad from Reagan II). I don’t like negative campaigning from either side but I don’t recall anything from the Dems which has given rise to the sort of disgust that some of the shit coming out of Republicans kicks up.

[Liberal]

It goes all the way back to Indian Hater Jackson, who called John Quincy Adams a pimp. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3493277.stm

[Jonathan_Chance]

Oh, it goes much farther back than that (though that’s a good one).

Presidential Tricks

I particularly like the first one against Jefferson. Nice to know the French have been a policital liability for more than 200 years.

[John_Mace]

@Coldfire

What a bad show. Suggesting Kerry had anything to do with a bunch of dumb Hitler-using ads…

The Bush ad starts out by **explicitly saying ** Kerry denounced the moveon.org Hitler ad.

[Jonathan_Chance]

That’s a little disingenuous, isn’t it, John? The original, which I viewed when the thread first got posted, didn’t contain those disclaimers at the beginning of the ad. It began with the ‘Coalition of the Wild-eyed’ bit and moved straight in.

[Apos]

It is always amazuing when people long for the good ole days of civil politics. Like back when the politician that handed out the most liquor won? Like when politicians would hire mobs to break up rallies for their opponents? Like when counties that didn’t vote for the winning candidate ended up getting punished via laws explicitly designed to hurt them?

@K. Mehlman

Where was John Kerry’s disgust when he hired Zack Exley - the man responsible for encouraging the production of these ads as part of a MoveOn contest - to run the Kerry campaign’s internet operation?

Man, what a slimeball. “Encouraging” the production of these ads? By holding an open competition for everyone’s ads, and then disqualifying them automatically from consideration after being told about them and apologizing for them? And he portrays that as akin to encouraging and supporting people making Hitler ads, and then implying that the man never denounced them?

[Boyo_Jim]

If anyone cares, here is a press story with comments by campaign officials of both parties.

[John_Mace]

@Jonathan Chance

That’s a little disingenuous, isn’t it, John? The original, which I viewed when the thread first got posted, didn’t contain those disclaimers at the beginning of the ad. It began with the ‘Coalition of the Wild-eyed’ bit and moved straight in.

I didn’t see the original-- watched it yesterday for the first time. When was it changed?

[MsRobyn]

@manhattan

That said, I was apparently in error. MsRobyn apparently only believes that Nazi-baiting “defies description” and rates an email from her when it is Republicans who are doing it. Alternatively, she’s used to it from Democrats at this point and is inured to the tactic when it comes from them. I’m confident she can speak on her own behalf in this regard.

Damn right I can speak for myself.

What pissed me off is not where the ad came from. What pissed me off was the a) lack of any identification as to source (i.e. what the ad was referring to in the first place); b) that it seemed to contradict the Bush/Cheney claim of optimism and raising the tone of politics; and c) that it appeared on Bush/Cheney’s official website, and not on the site of some non-affiliated group.

Had I seen this ad on Kerry’s or the DNC’s website, I’d’ve fired off the same e-mail.

Robin

[leander]

Nice to see the old manhattan’s back again…

[chique]

@John Mace

I didn’t see the original-- watched it yesterday for the first time. When was it changed?

I would assume it changed shortly after the Bush campaign started receiving emails with “Are you on crack?” in the subject line.

[PatriotX]

@chique

I would assume it changed shortly after the Bush campaign started receiving emails with “Are you on crack?” in the subject line.

First, we hid the pipes…

[Bill_H]

MsRobyn wrote

What pissed me off was the a) lack of any identification as to source (i.e. what the ad was referring to in the first place);

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.

b) that it seemed to contradict the Bush/Cheney claim of optimism and raising the tone of politics;

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.

and c) that it appeared on Bush/Cheney’s official website, and not on the site of some non-affiliated group.

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.

Had I seen this ad on Kerry’s or the DNC’s website, I’d’ve fired off the same e-mail.

I literally almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. Do you really believe these things you say? I.e. are you lying for my benefit, or your own?

Leaders of the DNC who are key supporters of Kerry have done the exact thing you were enraged about. Bush did not. Where is your outrage for Kerry that you promised in that last sentence?

[MsRobyn]

@Bill H.

MsRobyn wrote

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.

No it wasn’t. Have you already lost your original letter? You were pissed off because President Bush’s campaign suggested (and I quote) “that Senator Kerry has committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level”. That’s the only reason you were pissed off.
I literally almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one. Do you really believe these things you say? I.e. are you lying for my benefit, or your own?

Leaders of the DNC who are key supporters of Kerry have done the exact thing you were enraged about. Bush did not. Where is your outrage for Kerry that you promised in that last sentence?

No, I have my original e-mail right here in front of me. Perhaps you missed my third sentence:

I am horrified to think that the President of the United States, who claims to stand for optimism and who campaigned in 2000 on the platform of raising the level of civility in American politics is willing (and eager, it seems) to engage in such slimy campaign tactics.

Truth be told, the reason I can’t get upset at the Dems’ similar tactics is because I did not see them. I don’t watch much TV, and only rarely do I watch commercial TV. Besides, when the story broke about the Democrats and Nazi-baiting, I was in the midst of a semester from hell. I wouldn’t have seen it if I’d been staring it right in the face.

Robin