One reason may be
it isn’t on the newstands yet, or just hit them. Or because the MSM is still willing to give the hometown (DC) hero a pass. Or because some people in the MSM aren’t willing to kick a man when he’s down in the polls. I, personally, am not better than that. McCain is not worthy of winning, and I’ll stomp his rotten corpse into his grave as much as I need to just to make sure.
Kerry is still waiting for T. Boone to pay up on his wager.
John Kerry’s Swift Boat pals to T. Boone: Cough up $1 million
After slogging through, appears to me most of the quotes are from McCain himself. And, when not him, other men whose credibility has not been called into question, who served and suffered with McCain
If you have anything to offer aside from simple insinuation, now might be a good time to offer it.
Of course it’s not. When they’re on your side, it’s always different. I don’t really have a beef here with anybody who just thinks this is kosher - I think it’s disgusting, but it’s a difference of opinion. Anybody who thinks this is great and complained about how Kerry was treated basically has to twist himself in knots to justify it.
By the way, Kerry accepted the 2004 nomination by saluting and saying “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.” He had virtually no platform except for “I’m tough enough to lead the war on terror because I’m a veteran with three purple hearts.” That’s why he was Swiftboated: without the military record he had nothing to recommend him.
Rolling Stone has pretty good articles, really. Great journalism. But there is clear and obvious bias.
I love this “fair and balanced” shit tighty-righties like to demand when someone bugs them. The guy wrote an article with an anti-McCain argument, which he amply supported with quotes galore. You want to go “Cindy says some nice things about him”? Fine, that adds balance to the mix, which I feel free to dismiss, just as you feel free to dismiss the sources he includes. But he’s in no way required to fill his story with pro-McCain BS that undercuts his theme just to make you feel all warm and gooshy inside.
You disagree with that theme? Then figure out what’s wrong with his evidence. But criticizing the magazine in which it appeared? And questioning the legitimacy of the piece because no one else has printed this story within 24 hours of its publication? That’s called a scoop.
So essentially, you are given the reason why people lied to prevent him from gaining the Presidency?
You’re sure not twisting your self into a know when you say that John Kerry got the nomination of his party to run against a sitting President without a platform.
Get back to me when you get a chance to read the link in post#42
This is not some organized effort by Obama supporters with a grudge, financed by wealthy Obama supporters. This is not a bunch of BS by people who were not there. If you think something in the article is untrue then say what it is and support your claim. But this is, IF TRUE, a legitimate discussion. Truth is always a valid argument. The Swiftboaters have been proven liars by the people who were there. McCains claims can and should be held up to scrutiny. Just as Kerry’s should have. The difference is the claims against Kerry were false made by proven liars. You don’t really want to suggest that the claims of Kerry’s cowardice were true, do you? Even though the men who actually served with him say they are not.
Okay, I get it! “Loathsome” may not have been the correct word, without loading it up with conditions. I’ll stick with “not what a guy who wants to convince us that he’s honorable would do.” And I’ll refer to the guys who sacrificed their integrity the same way, but didn’t see fit to use it as the cornerstone of their run for President.
Look, squealing to save your own ass is perfectly understandable under those conditions. Placing yourself above other Joe Six-Packs who would do the same is not only inappropriate but, for other respects, obscene. John McCain did NOT perform honorably, and I cannot understand those who claim he did. He talked, and there is no greater sin for a POW.
dropzone, son of a POW who fuckin’ ESCAPED before he blabbed. NEITHER of which McCain did, or even tried.
ETA: BECAUSE, by God, I LEARNED how a MAN BEHAVES!!! (note the six exclamation points. I was raised better than McCain. Period.)
Are you sure you understood what Luci posted?
It’s a frame up, I’m telling you! You got the wrong guy! Look, here, in my wallet - a couple of ticket stubs from the Trotskyist Ball! Look call** Red Fury**, or Diogenes, they’ll vouch for me! Not, repeat not! a tighty righty, I’m 'luci, the lefty! I took all the uppers! Wanna hear me rap? I saw the best minds of my generation…
I quoted **'luci **to agree with him, not to accuse him of spouting right-wing batshit.
I’m not excusing what they did, it was repugnant. They made up a lot of bullshit. But askeptic said “Kerry did not use his service mythos like the Hammer of Heroism to beat critics into submission.” To which I say, well… that’s true, but military service was a HUGE part of Kerry’s candidacy. That’s why the SBVT crowd went after his record.
I didn’t say he had no platform. The party comes up with the platform. I said he had little to recommend him as a candidate, which I think is true. He was the best of a weak field, almost as weak as the GOP in 2008. He was long winded, couldn’t connect with voters or display much personality, wasn’t the author or inspiration of any important legislation… the thing he had to recommend him was that he was a decorated veteran and - so people thought - as a result he couldn’t be accused of being too weak to fight terrorism. So the Swiftboaters came out of the woodwork to attack his service. That and the flip-flopper charge kileld his candidacy.
If you think I’m suggesting the Swiftboaters were right, you’re way off. They engaged in some terrible crap. But to hear some people tell it, the only problem is that they did it to the wrong guy.
No, that would be the naive thing to do.
Look, when McCain and Obama won the nominations of their parties, I thought that this will be a great election, focusing on the issues and the differences in positions of the two candidates.
But, McCain hired the goons that smeared him in South Carolina in 2000, and in general made the tone of his campaign nasty (making fun of Obama, comparing him to Paris Hilton, etc). And now, according to a thread in the Pit, his team is even doing “push-polling” and smearing Obama (which is no surprise, since the assholes he just hired are specialists at that).
So, for the Democrats to continue to play by the rules is noble, but naive. They have not won a single presidential election since 1968, unless the Republicans had some major fuckup or major issue was affecting the country (Carter after Watergate, and Clinton after the recession of the early 90’s)
Republicans win because they know that the best way to win is by discrediting your opponent, making him seem like a totally unacceptable choice.
McCain’s own campaign manager publicly stated that this election will not be won by the candidates’ positions on the issues, but by how the people feel about the two candidates, how much they like them, etc.
So, the Republicans are doing all they can to make Obama look ridiculous (constantly calling him “The Chosen One”, implying he is a Musilm, etc) so they can win.
Fortunately for Obama, the country is going through a tough time, and has experienced major fuckups from the Republican side, so, if history is any guide he will get elected.
Nevertheless, nothing is guaranteed, and if the Democrats just sit there and play nice and by the rules, and allow the Republicans to mock Obama, make him look ridiculous and unacceptable as a candidate, they may see another election slip through their fingers.
Why is it hypocritical?
If you are in a boxing ring with someone who punches below the belt, at first you can complain about it to the referee. You complain once, you complain twice, but the punching below the belt continues. The referee does nothing. You get your ass kicked in several rounds.
Finally, in the last round, you’re pissed and you start hitting below the belt and beat the crap out of the guy.
Why is that hypocritical? Yes, ideally, we want to fight by the rules, but if the other side continually does not follow the rules, it is perfectly ethical to disobey the rules also.
Agreed. But for Democrats, should they prefer the Republicans ‘doing wrong’ and winning elections and enacting right-wing policies, or should they prefer their own doing equivalent amounts of ‘wrong’ and winning elections and enacting left-wing policies? Preferring to lose elections in the name of some noble ideal is wrong, especially when the result is policies you think are bad for the country, and especially when the other side has no such moral compunction.
I know what you said, but the facts are that they went after his Military service record with lies and nothing more, so why even raise the subject as a counter?
As I recall it, despite the swiftboating, George Bush did not wing in a landslide, did he? Many Americans thought that Kerry had a platform worthy of consideration and ideas and character required of a President.
The Swiftboaters were hired guns and liars. That has been proven. Kerry would have been a better President than the pretender we have now in the Whitehouse. He has integrity and honor.
I’ll grant you that his time being tortured shouldn’t be questioned.
What else in this story isn’t true? That McCain was a terrible soldier and a spoiled brat? That he cheated on his wife? That he has a bad temper? That he flip-flopped on a number of his core issues? That he took money from big companies in exchange for political favors? The he peddled the lies of the Iraq war before it was popular to do so?
There is evidence for all this. From his voting record, to videos of him lying about Iraq, to witnesses in the Senate Chamber. With the Kerry ad the people who said they served with him didn’t. This story is different.
Because I think McCain’s record is being smeared like Kerry’s was. It’s not exactly a huge reach.
If you say so. He’s a Democrat, so about half the electorate agreed with his views, and he wasn’t George Bush. Other than that, in hindsight he wasn’t a very appealing candidate and ran a bad campaign.
Yes, they were.
Oh yes it is. Who is doing the smearing and how 'bout a cite please?
Attack any part of his record you like, or even his personal life (although I think that’s a waste of time, since it’s old news that he’s already confessed to, so electorally it won’t help). Once you start going after the military record, it’s in Swiftboat territory.
You either did not understand my question or are avoiding it.
I didn’t ask you if you thought the article was accurately quoting people. I asked which of these people quoted in the article are not credible, in your eyes.