When it’s a hijack, or merely a distraction, useless, or demands the ridiculously obvious, then yes, yes it certainly does. You did all of the above.
What made that a hijack was the response to his simple request for a cite, not the request itself.
If you loathe hijacks so much, you should have just given the cite and ended it with that.
No, that would only encourage him to do it again. Did you miss the part about “ridiculously obvious”? Would you also concur with a demand for a cite that water is wet, or that the sky is blue? John’s demand was on that level.
Have you got anything for us to consider on Kerry and swiftboating, speaking of hijacks? The thread topic, remember?
As to Kerry: Where the Swift Boat Veteran attacks on him fair? Maybe. Maybe not.
But he made his service a central focus of his campaign. He shouldn’t have been surprised that it would blow up in his face given that many if not most of the swift boat vets that served with him didn’t think highly of him and were vocal about it.
For me, the high water mark of Kerry’s campaign was his line about Bush “outsourcing” the capture of Bin Laden at Torra Borra. The lowest, and most ridiculous moment was his initial appearance at the Democratic Convention with a podium shaped like the bow of a boat and his silly salute and “reporting for duty” line. It was as bad as Dukakis in the tank.
Calm yourself. I was typing.
Nope. It was none of those things.
Stuff the other side wouldn’t do (or hasn’t done). Unless there is a formal agreement between the parties about where the boundaries are, or unless the action is against the law.
How do you determine what is “fair”?
The same way I determine how anything else is fair. Have you got kids? Is it alright for one son to punch the other in the eye if the other one hit him last week?
How so? Lies are fair in your philosophy?
So it’s *his *fault he was lied about? Remarkable.
If *that *was the worst thing he did, how do you think it compares to the campaign of lies that was so much a part of the Bush campaign? Or do you have an example of Kerry’s lies about Bush you could bring to our attention?
He shouldn’t have brought it up, maybe? Yeah, that would work.
How long do you think it would have been before the Rove machine was blathering on about how he was “ashamed” of his service and doesn’t want to talk about it? Measured in microseconds.
Precisely what approach could he have taken to measure up to your standards?
Politicians aren’t kids. Politics is the art of gaining and maintaining power. I wish our political atmosphere was more civil, but short of making certain behaviors illegal, I don’t see any way of changing it. So, if one side does X, then it should expect the other side to do X as well.
The primary complaint of the Swift Boat Veterans was Kerry’s behavior after the war. That was their gripe. They weren’t lying about that. Kerry was responsible for his actions which really angered many vets.
From wikipedia
Mostly because of his actions after the war, many of the people who served with him really hated the guy. That’s no lie. That’s an honest truth.
That’s basically where he ended up. By the end of the campaign he wasn’t talking up his service in Vietnam anywhere near as much as he was in the beginning.
Even if you take the Swift Boat Vets out of the picture I think it was safe to say he was overplaying his hand with the whole Vietnam Vet image.
John: So Kerry was just being stupid by not telling comparable lies about Bush, is that it?
There *is *a way to change bad behavior in politics, despite your handwringing: Don’t *reward *it. *Drop *this cherished but groundless pretense that both sides are equally bad, or at least should be if they were smart. Take the trouble to assess factuality and relevance of claims, and expose and denounce the false and irrelevant ones while supporting and proclaiming the true and relevant ones. Be part of the process instead of fancying yourself above it.
*Fight *ignorance.
How do you determine that? Not all the Swifties were as vocal as others were. I’d hate to wade back through all their TV commercials and see which ones were aimed at his service during the war vs what he did afterwards.
So, even if “most” were more concerned with his post-war behavior, it’s not at all clear that “most” of what was used in the campaign against Kerry fit that description.
Oddly enough, most of the actual coverage was about what he did *in *it, and lies about what he said he did there, wasn’t it?
Don’t lecture me about what I need to do. You have NO idea what I do IRL.
I do, but you make it very hard sometimes.
Think he didn’t know that? John Kerry wanted to keep breathing more than he wanted to run for office, but that’s just about it. Truth be told, I strongly suspect he pulled strings to get himself assigned to some sort of combat duty, “punch his ticket”, in the vernacular of the time. Resume gold, protects from challenges on the right, shuts up the chicken hawks.
But something changed him, something made him risk his personal ambitions. You think he didn’t know what kind of reaction he was going to get? I think he did something astonishing, I think he took the risk because it was the right thing to do, it was his duty.
I won’t argue that the elder Kerry wasn’t a lesser man than the younger. Politics corrupts, its what happens. But he did it, and many a man would not have.
Remember Hugh Thompson? The helicopter pilot who saved innocent lives at My Lai by threatening to open fire on American troops? Think he was widely admired in the ranks for his courage? Think again.
No. Most of their message was general statements about Kerry: Unfit to lead, dishonest, etc. But the specifics focused mostly on his testimony and statements after the war. They did question some of his actions in the war, but that wasn’t the primary focus because it wasn’t what they were angry about.
If the views you express here are *not *what you genuinely believe, well, that would be a remarkable admission indeed. The default assumption we work on here is that a poster means what s/he posts.
In what way do you think you have fought, rather than promulgated, ignorance here, with this latest display of False Equivalence?