The latest Bush meme: "the Dem 527s are accusing us of poisining pregnant women"

I don’t know what a “blind site” is, but I gave a paper by Daniel Aaronson, senior economist and economic advisor, and Sara Christopher, associate economist, writing for the Chicago Federal Reserve as a cite for contradicting Moveon.org’s claim about jobs which, as I proved, they gleaned from AFL-CIO propoganda that is more than a year old. Is there something about that that isn’t good enough for you?

The idea that the two parties would both maintain the same level of duplicity and unscrupulousness at all times is absrdly improbable. They would have a difficult time doing it even if it were their primary reason for existence.

Just as a theoretical exercise, let’s look at it this way: does Party A maintain a constant level of dishonesty and unscrupulousness over time, or does its moral behavior fluctuate? The latter, of course. But if that’s so, then does Party A’s fluctuations in (im)moral behavior always match up with Party B’s? Of course not. End of story.

At any rate, let’s look at the two real, actual parties. Did John Kerry disavow the MoveOn ad about Bush and the SwiftLiars? He sure did, even though it was pretty mild stuff, and basically fact-based. Did George Bush disavow the SwiftLiars ad, which was nothing but lies from top to bottom? No, he’s refused to do so over and over. Did John Kerry take the McCain ad off the air when McCain asked? Yes, despite the fact that McCain’s decided to keep on campaigning for Bush, no matter whether Bush condemns the SwiftLiars or not. And in that situation, Kerry had every right to say to McCain, “Look, buddy, if you’re not going to stand up for me on this one, why should I do you any favors?” By the standards of today’s politics, that’s downright gentlemanly. Hell, *absurdly * gentlemanly.

No, the problem with today’s Democrats is not that they’re as dirty as the Republicans; the problem is, they’re wimps. When the GOP pulls out its switchblades, the Dems still act as if they’re playing Putt-Putt Golf or something. But at any rate, if anyone disagrees, I’m sure they can find Democratic attacks as vicious and dishonest as the ones leveled at McCain in 2000, Cleland in 2002, and Kerry just lately. If anyone wants to put evidence on the table, go for it. Otherwise, there ain’t nothing to show, here.

It was good enough for me–my opinion of moveon.org has fallen quite a bit. I still think they smell better then the Swift Boat vets, though…

From your lips past the cotton Liberal is vigorously stuffing in his ears.

First of all, I’m very disappointed in moveon.org that they are using misleading and contextually incorrect statistics, which is certainly not far short of lying, if at all.
But to claim that makes them equivalent to SBVT is nonsense.

If some party produces an ad with a lie in it, there are two possible explanations:
(a) They deliberately set out to lie
(b) They lied accidentally

In my mind, (a) is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than (b). And I’m 100% certain that SBVT fall into category (a). And I strongly suspect, although I’m not certain of it, that moveon.org falls into category (b). Like I said, that’s not GOOD. But there’s a huge difference between “well, we have no morals or standards or respect for honesty. Let’s find something we can take way out of context and use it to smear Bush, no matter how misleading it is” and “we’re rushing to get this ad put together and used the first statistic we found, without really double checking”.

(I can’t prove that my analysis of moveon.org is correct… and if someone can show a continued and reckless disregard for the truth, feel free.)

And in general, I agree with RTFirefly’s most recent post. The fact that that both parties have done, and continue to do, bad things, and the fact that there are dishonest and skeezy people in both parties, does not mean that both parties have always waded precisely the same distance into the Big Pool of Muck. And when the difference in wading-distance is great enough, as I believe it to be here, it becomes relevant.

A thoughtful and compelling post. I agree with you that there is no one-to-one correspondence between lie points on the two hypothetical lie lines. That is, it is not necessarily the case, and obviously was not what I was claiming, that the two parties always lie with equal hubris at correspondingly identical points in space-time. But whether it is Clinton attempting to destroy the reputation of an intern or Bush attempting to destroy the reputation of a political opponent, both sides clearly have equal capability for meanness. If listening to Lyndon Johnson’s White House tapes doesn’t make your skin crawl, then I don’t know what will. Of course, what we find is that lately the Republicans are running the show, and so they have at their disposal the kind of pulpit that Johnson and Clinton had in their heyday. Youngsters, owing to their dearth of life experience, might perceive a heavier weight on the Republican side, but oldsters know better. You’re right, though, that the Democrats are wimps, but they have only themselves to blame for that. It stems from their mindset of every possible utterance being somehow offensive to someone somewhere, their bleeding-heart empathy for hurt feelings as a justification to escape social culpability, and their general fear of violent confrontation of enemies. But that is a fairly recent development. It was Democrats who bravely led marches and protests in the 1960s, who took to the streets and risked their lives for what they believed was right. My advice is to expunge your party of its “life owes me” mentality. It makes people lazy and causes them to lose their vigilance.

And ultra-right wing libertarian loonies know nothing of any use to anyone at all.

You didn’t actually understand that line you were replying to, did you?

I was actually replying to the whole post, but if you think there was some special, hidden meaning in that particular line, please enlighten me.

The Chihuahua does have a point.

I’m so right-wing that I advocate repealing all laws of prohibition, including laws against drugs, prostitution, and gambling. I favor releasing all federal prisoners who are not convicted for treason. I favor opening the borders to anyone who wants to come in to trade peacefully and honestly. I favor an end to all recognition of corporations as rights-bearing entities. I favor the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from foreign soil, the closing of all American embassies, an end to all foreign aid, and repeal of the Logan act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign states. I favor an end to all government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion. I favor the elimination of all occupational licensure. I favor repeal of the War Powers Act. I favor the unconditional exoneration of all people who have violated selective service laws and the immediate dismantling of all agencies associated with military conscription. I favor a strict separation of church and state, including an end to all government subsidies of faith-based organizations.

As you can see, I’m a regular Jerry Falwell.

Ya, but you aren’t ultra-right wing, see? :slight_smile:

:smack: Oh, okay. Got it. :stuck_out_tongue:

There’s a regular Jerry Falwell now?

Yes. The light version (40% less bullshit) wasn’t selling, so the shelves are once again being stocked with Falwell Regular.

Yeah, he’s started including more bran in his diet.

I prefer mine extra crispy.

Liberal, while you did manage to destroy the moveon ad that you attacked, I believe that the context of the OP was more specifically focussed on the the point-counterpoint of “Bush poisens unborn childred and babies” V. “SWVfT”. In that case, moveon did indeed present a factually accurate case for their position, while the swifties lied through their teeth.

And Bush is now, apparently, saying that since certain groups lied (while never coming out and saying "the swifties lied, never mentioning them by name) you, Joe American Voter, can not trust anything that any of these groups say in their ads. And casually dismisses the link between his EPA policy and the potential to increase the amount of mercury in fish.

It’s a freaken brilliant manuver to counter a group that just got a bunch of major-name talent to direct and star in new spots. It scares me into thinking that this was the secondary objective of the swifties from the beginning, to diseminate their misinformation and then, when discredited, allow Bush to lump them in with MoveOn.

-lv

Yes, but the federal government has been possibly the nation’s biggest polluter for quite some time now, according to a four-part investigative report by the Boston Globe five years ago. Here’s a summary. It is disingenuous to tie slack regulation to George Bush when the the EPA’s superfund had already been squandered, and thousands upon thousands of chemical dumps remained untouched. What that has to do with mercury is that it is the same-old same-old. MoveOn could just as easily, if it wished, produce a piece condemning Bill Clinton for pretty much the same thing, including when the EPA building itself was investigated for “sick building syndrom” after 60 of its employees became too sick to work — 10 of them hospitalized. Understanding the public relations disaster that surely would follow, a massive amount of money was spent on litigation to establish basically that those people were mentally and emotionally unstable. Whenever bureaucratic bumbling is tied to a particular president, it means that there is a turtle on the fence post.

In case you don’t review the link, one of the findings by the Globe was that the “Environmental Protection Agency’s laboratories in Lexington, Massachusetts were discovered leaking mercury into ground water.” Where is MoveOn’s ad suggesting that Clinton was responsible for sick babies?

Do you have an alternate cite for that assertion, Liberal? Maybe a link to the actual Boston Globe article so that we can check the characterization you have given us?

You have the same resources I have. The series was titled THE NATION’S DIRTY, BIG SECRET, was written by David Armstrong, and was published November 14, 1999, and is available from the Boston Globes archives for a nominal fee. But they give you the first few words free: