Are we seeking knowledge and willing to use our intuition and understanding of human nature? Or smugly relying on some hyper-legalistic definition of “inconsistent”? In the former case, you might want to read the linked NYTimes article.
I’m quite curious. Have you used up your monthly quota of NYTimes reading? Or just using an excuse to avoid that “hyper-liberal” rag? Giving you the doubt’s benefit, and since PCs often come with three different browsers installed, do you realize you get the monthly NYTimes quota per browser, i.e. 3x for three browsers. (That’s even without – gasp – “illegal” cookie deletions.)
ETA: One of the Swiftboaters had, earlier, campaigned for Kerry for Senator, praising him strongly. Is it your view that that guy thought Kerry would make a great Senator but a lousy President?
Yes, I’m aware that sometimes there are ways around those pay to play splash pages. However, given that the first two cites provided were a complete joke I didn’t feel like investing too much effort into the third.
I clicked the link, got the payment request and gave up. shrug
It’s possible that many of Kerry’s accusers did “flip flop” on him and have been inconsistent. Budget Player Cadet brought this up, though, so I’m suspicious. I requested a cite. It’s not my job to prove it. If he wanted to, he could. But as I expected, he gave up and took his ball and went home.
I think I was the only one to bring up his “ready for duty” line, so I guess this is directed at me.
I agree with your timeline. The swift boat attacks didn’t originate from Kerry’s silly performance at the convention. I never meant to imply that, if you feel that I did.
My friend Hypothetical Ed is an excellent chef, but a bad driver so I didn’t recommend him when he applied to be a bus driver at school. Is this “completely inconsistent”? It’s possible to have different opinions about different aspects of people. It doesn’t have to be black and white.
That’s the stereotype, sure, one cemented by MA being the only state smart enough to go against Nixon in '72, and it does work on the incurious who are susceptible to viewing “the enemy” as a monolith. A string of governors from Weld to Romney, and Sargent not much earlier, might take issue with that, though, as would Sen. Brooke and Sen. Brown. Reagan took the state twice, too. In statewide elections, the Republican candidate is almost assured of getting around 45% of the vote, even if his ceiling is only slightly higher.
The same way I measure the fairness of anything else: I make a value judgment based on my personal morals and experience. To the extent that the Swiftboaters were saying things that were demonstrably untrue, I think we can all agree that’s “unfair”. In fact, it’s slander. Where they were just expressing opinions, well, that’s their prerogative. Even those who weren’t expressing their actual opinions (see discussion of Adrian Lonsdale’s flip-flops above).
[QUOTE=Dostoyevsky] Really Not All That Bright, I’ve enjoyed your exchange with John Mace on fairness in politics. You said:
I think there’s a difference between what’s fair and what’s ethical. Fair, to me, just means an eye for an eye approach, or identical reciprocation if you prefer. But that still doesn’t mean an eye for an eye approach is ethical, fair as it is. So, if it’s the case that Dems were “just as bad” about spreading shit about Pubs (and I realize how controversial that “if” is), then yeah I’d say that this smear campaign was fair. But it would still be unethical, because it’s a smear campaign. That’s just my take on fairness, and to each their own.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I enjoyed it too. For me, the tipping point was when he said, “well, you can’t do anything about it,” in so many words. Thing is, we can do something about it: we can reject candidates who engage in unfair tactics, call them out, and so on.
I’m not sure I buy the distinction you make here. You seem to be defining “fair” as “equitable”, but ISTM that’s not really how fairness works.
How fortunate for you that other people in this thread who are on your side actually post cites and add information.
The NY Times article might talk about someone who backed Kerry for Senate but not president. If true, this is likely an example of flip flopping. But is this the same person we were actually discussing? (Londsdale)
Here’s my claim again:
It’s entirely possible that he (Londsdale) is simply telling the truth. He feels Kerry did serve honorably and led his men well. Yet due to his actions after the war he feels Kerry isn’t fit for command of the military. That’s entirely possible without being a lie.
Do you still maintain that this is inconsistent or “flailing away” on my part? Is the problem just that you can’t follow what’s being said, or that you don’t care to?
Fairness does *not *derive from an assumption that both sides do it and are equally bad, as some seem to believe, including much of the media as well as a few posters here. That is very rarely true, and lazily pretending that it is *promulgates *rather than fights ignorance.
I understand that the book (which no one, even here in this den of political junkies has read) does have some statements about Kerry’s service. But let’s focus on the ads, which were what people actually saw.
As has been pointed out in this thread, three out of the four ads focused on Kerry’s statements and actions after the war. So right off the bat, we’ve got 75% of their material is true and demonstrably true.
In the ad that did focus on his service, it was vague. Vets who served in the same unit as Kerry (but mostly not directly on his ship) they made statements about him being unworthy of serving as commander in chief. You might disagree with this, but is it “demonstrably untrue”? If so, which part?
We still haven’t had a cite of anything other than things that are true (Kerry’s actions after the war) and things that are he said/they said regarding his service.
There are any number of claims by the Swiftboaters which are demonstrably untrue. I don’t know why you’d only focus on the ads, since lots of people saw interviews with SVBT members by the news media (probably more than saw the ads, in fact; I never saw one.) To pick one example:
There seems to be some dispute about how much the ads focus on Kerry’s post-war activities, too.
You claim that there is an inconsistency, yet you refuse to explain what it is or what you are talking about. I’ve made my simple point twice now and it’s in no way inconsistent. Unless you want to actually type out how or why you think it’s inconsistent I fail to see what else there is to discuss.
I’m glad you brought that up, because I sure as hell wasn’t. I think here we have an example of Republicans’ smear campaign actually working. They painted the man as some wacko liberal/commie McGovernik who’s running mate endured electro-shock therapy. 49 states voted for a crook and a liar instead.
I’d focus on the ads because they are easy to cite and discuss. There are over a hundred members of the SBV’s. If you want to find something that any of them have ever said that’s demonstrably untrue, I think you probably could. This is true of any group of a hundred people. Some of them are going to go to far or exaggerate, I’m sure.
That’s why I suggest the ads. Or better yet the letter they all signed. Anything untrue in that?
As to your specific example: Larry Thurlow says he never heard a shot, yet he got an award that says shots were fired. This isn’t proof of a lie. Maybe the citation he got was incorrect and he’s telling the truth now. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle IMO. But that’s all it is: An opinion. This is another he said/they said. If anything, more people are disagreeing with Kerry than agreeing with him, making him more likely the liar. But I wouldn’t go that far, since as I’ve stated, I think the real anger from the vets comes from Kerry’s actions after the war.
Sigh. Wrong. But it’s obviously futile to keep trying.
It’s an assertion, not a point, and its inconsistency has been explained quite adequately. However, since you think merely repeating it constitutes supporting it, there is indeed no point in further attempts at engaging you on it.
There’s no evidence at all that Kerry’s first Purple Heart was for a self-inflicted wound. There’s pretty extensive discussion of the incident in the Wiki link.
Jim Rassmann seems pretty confident that Kerry did exactly as he claimed to have done.
The letter is phrased as a series of questions (or demands, rather), so in that sense nothing about it is “untrue”, but I think the inferences are pretty clear.
Thanks, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean. McGovern was indeed a McGovernik, and his original running mate did in fact undergo psychiatric treatment (as if it would have been better if he hadn’t. ).
You’re right about the smear campaign being effective - McGovern was a real war hero, a B-24 captain with 35 missions over German-held territory and a DFC. Nixon spent his war running a poker game in the supply hut (very well, incidentally, that’s how he paid for law school later). But the Republican strategy was to paint McGovern as a pansy wacko, as you say, who wanted to “surrender” in Vietnam instead of balling it out as the Real He-Man Nixon was doing, and the lazy-ass media kept trying to be “fair” about the “controversy”.
Rove didn’t invent the strategy of going after the opponent’s greatest strength to try to make it his greatest weakness. I don’t know who did, but it was probably in ancient Athens.
I don’t want to sound too snarky, but I already told you how to access NYTimes with about 3 extra mouse clicks. That’s much less effort than composing posts about how you refuse to access NYTimes.
I access SDMB to discuss ideas. Apparently you’re in the group that thinks of it as a debating game – you’re not here to learn but to play one-upmanship with other Dopers. That’s my cue to disengage.
).