Swift Boat Vets ad vs NAACP James Bryd ad

[ScreamingEagle]

Remember the NAACP ad during the Bush-Gore campaign? It was when Bush was accused of being indirectly responsible for victims like the Texas dragging death victim James Byrd. The black and white ad showed a truck pulling a chain while the daughter spoke declaring "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again."

Was this a nasty campaign ad or what? Republicans sure thought so. But evidently the Democrats thought NOTHING of it. Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather said not a thing about it. Even Joe Lieberman thought it was fine on "Meet The Press".

But NOW the Democrats are up I arms about the Swift Boat ad. Do we sense a dichotomy here? It's OK to smear Bush but not OK to smear Kerry? (assuming that both ads are smears)

To compound matters there are even some on the Right who are starting to decry the Swift Boat Vets ad saying that we shouldn't stoop to their level, etc. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks the Vets ad is not good. Many think the Vets ad is just nasty campaigning much like the Bryd ad was considered to be.

I am so tired of Republicans backing away due to the accusations of the Left! It is time to decimate them! :firing: Personally I fully support the Vet ad because I see it as a first person indictment of Kerry (these guys were witnesses) whereas the Byrd ad was trying to imply that Bush was directly responsible for the death of those like James Byrd just because he did not support some hate-crime legislation (we already have laws against murder).

What are some of the opinions here? Do you think these two ads are equal or comparable? Do you think such ads should be banned? Do you think both are just dirty campaign tactics as many claim them to be? Do you think Republicans should back off?

 

[winston churchi]

That ad is put out by these vets and has nothing to do with the republican party...
It is a free country - if those persons wish to spend their money on speaking their mind against Kerry based on their past with him than they have a right to...the same right as moron Michael Moore has about putting out a fictional film as his version of the truth of 911....he has that right also.
It upsets the democrats because Kerrys whole camp. is based on Vietnam - and Bush bashing - when he isn't talking about his past in Nam he is Bush bashing and vice versa....pretty much all he has done...I guess it hurts a little to find some of his Nam comrads against him...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That ad is put out by these vets and has nothing to do with the republican party...
It is a free country - if those persons wish to spend their money on speaking their mind against Kerry based on their past with him than they have a right to...the same right as moron Michael Moore has about putting out a fictional film as his version of the truth of 911....he has that right also.
It upsets the democrats because Kerrys whole camp. is based on Vietnam - and Bush bashing - when he isn't talking about his past in Nam he is Bush bashing and vice versa....pretty much all he has done...I guess it hurts a little to find some of his Nam comrads against him...

I'm glad it's upsetting the Democrats. As it should.

What bothers me is that some on the right are putting the Vets ad in the same category as the Bryd ad or probably even Michael Moore's stuff.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm glad it's upsetting the Democrats. As it should.

What bothers me is that some on the right are putting the Vets ad in the same category as the Bryd ad or probably even Michael Moore's stuff.

We try to be "too nice" all the fucking time.

 

[insein]

I'm glad it's upsetting the Democrats. As it should.

What bothers me is that some on the right are putting the Vets ad in the same category as the Bryd ad or probably even Michael Moore's stuff.

Im just steering clear of it. They can tell their story but then its just he said, he said BS. It doesn't solve anything.

With that said, its absolutely their right to tell their side of the story. I just don't want people getting carried away and start calling Kerry a murderer for his actions in War. If they are going to speak, then speak of the lieing and fabricating he did during that time. Don't revel that he shot a kid in the back.

No one on here has said this, but i have heard others saying it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Here's the problem.....

We on the right try to take the "high" road all the time. So when stuff like this comes out, we try to distance ourselves because we don't want to appear, rightly so, like we are playing dirty. We don't like to play dirty, because we know that when the people get our message, they tend to support our beliefs. But what happens is that the "masses" see the few conservatives that are on TV saying, "hey, this ain't right" and so they agree. Even if there is truth, we don't want to look "bad" so we downplay the reports. Well, when the shoe is turned, the libs suck it up. I mean, look at MM movie. NOBODY on the left or even in the media, distanced themselves from that movie or MM. They hailed it as being the "gospels". So the masses see Kerry being hit with TRUTHS and the conservatives on TV saying, "this isn't right" and then they see LIES about Bush but hardly anybody coming to his defense and so what are they to think?

They will think, "I gotta vote for Kerry".

So let the ad run. As the libs say, in every lie there is a bit of truth. Let the masses decide what is a lie and what is the truth.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here's the problem.....

We on the right try to take the "high" road all the time. So when stuff like this comes out, we try to distance ourselves because we don't want to appear, rightly so, like we are playing dirty. We don't like to play dirty, because we know that when the people get our message, they tend to support our beliefs. But what happens is that the "masses" see the few conservatives that are on TV saying, "hey, this ain't right" and so they agree. Even if there is truth, we don't want to look "bad" so we downplay the reports. Well, when the shoe is turned, the libs suck it up. I mean, look at MM movie. NOBODY on the left or even in the media, distanced themselves from that movie or MM. They hailed it as being the "gospels". So the masses see Kerry being hit with TRUTHS and the conservatives on TV saying, "this isn't right" and then they see LIES about Bush but hardly anybody coming to his defense and so what are they to think?

They will think, "I gotta vote for Kerry".

So let the ad run. As the libs say, in every lie there is a bit of truth. Let the masses decide what is a lie and what is the truth.

Right, I see how we try to take the high road and not play dirty like the liberals do.

But in this case, just exactly how is an ad by a group of vets telling their side of the story considered to be taking the "low road"?

Of course the Democrats consider it to be a dirty "trick" and a dirty campaign ad and want everybody to think the same.

Is that why "fair and balanced" commentators like Bill O'Reilly became hands- off on this ad? I don't see how he can put it in the same category as MM so-called documentary which was a manipulated movie. The vet's ad refers to plain-speaking people people and their actual observations.

Also why is it that the few vets on Kerry's platform supporting Kerry are the ONLY vets that we should listen to? Couldn't you say that they are also politically biased?

 

[Avatar4321]

Since when is being honest playing dirty?

Seriously I dont understand that. If its true how is it dirty?

Its not like the GOP is hiring men to go out and bad mouth Kerry based on lies. These are freakin eye witness accounts. Kerry made his vietnam service relevant so those who served with him are telling the people about him. which is exactly what Kerry and Edwards wanted when they invited people to ask those who served with them.

 

[freeandfun1]

Right, I see how we try to take the high road and not play dirty like the liberals do.

But in this case, just exactly how is an ad by a group of vets telling their side of the story considered to be taking the "low road"?

Of course the Democrats consider it to be a dirty "trick" and a dirty campaign ad and want everybody to think the same.

Is that why "fair and balanced" commentators like Bill O'Reilly became hands- off on this ad? I don't see how he can put it in the same category as MM so-called documentary which was a manipulated movie. The vet's ad refers to plain-speaking people people and their actual observations.

Also why is it that the few vets on Kerry's platform supporting Kerry are the ONLY vets that we should listen to? Couldn't you say that they are also politically biased?

You missed my points slightly.....

O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. are steering clear of this and it is giving Kerry's camp more legitimacy in their actions. I think the ad should be shown. I believe the ad. I think the media should be asking questions....

I was just pointing out OUR problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

You missed my points slightly.....

O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. are steering clear of this and it is giving Kerry's camp more legitimacy in their actions. I think the ad should be shown. I believe the ad. I think the media should be asking questions....

I was just pointing out OUR problem.

I couldnt care less what Oreilly and Scarborough do. Ive also doubted the sincerity of OReilly's support for conservatives, he is too inconsistant on a few things. as for scaborough, dont know enough about him to make a statement. So i dont really care what he thinks.

Either way, i dont think either is a clear representative of Conservative media. Rush and Hannity are all over this, not to mention the local radio hosts some of which are libertarians. This is obviously a big story.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You missed my points slightly.....

O'Reilly, Scarborough, etc. are steering clear of this and it is giving Kerry's camp more legitimacy in their actions. I think the ad should be shown. I believe the ad. I think the media should be asking questions....

I was just pointing out OUR problem.

What is the thinking behind the likes of O'Reilly?
Why do they want to steer clear of the ad?

I see what you mean by "our" problem.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Also why is it that the few vets on Kerry's platform supporting Kerry are the ONLY vets that we should listen to? Couldn't you say that they are also politically biased?

That's what pisses me off about the comments made about the swift boat veterans being politically biased, but little is said about the biases of the veterans who support Kerry.

Another thing that pisses me off is how liberals said that it didn't matter that Clinton dodged the draft and that we shouldn't dwell on what someone did 25+ years ago, and then when Bush was running in 2000, here came the stuff about a DUI from about 30 years ago. And now we're hearing about how he was "AWOL" and how wonderful Kerry is for serving for 4 months (and, of course, nothing is said about how he accused veterans of atrocities and claimed to have committed them himself). Hmmmmmmm. I thought military service and what people did back then didn't matter? I guess it depends on whether they have a (D) or an (R) next to their name.

 

[007]

Not to diss you freeandfun1 but, take the high road, shmy road. Screw all that. What conservative Republicans need to do is get MEAN! MAD DOG MEAN! And give these sons a bitchin radical liberals a taste of their own fucking medicine!!!

Ta hell with being nice. The gloves should come off.

 

[freeandfun1]

Not to diss you freeandfun1 but, take the high road, shmy road. Screw all that. What conservative Republicans need to do is MEAN! MAD DOG MEAN! And give these sons a bitchin radical liberals a taste of their own fucking medicine!!!

Ta hell with being nice. The gloves should come off.

Everybody has missed my point.

I AGREE! What I am saying, is that so far, we haven't taken off the gloves. And even with this ad, too many "conservatives" are backing off. To me, the administration took the high road. They shoulda said, "let the Americans decide for themselves" instead of shit like, "we don't like this kind of stuff" and crap like that. When they do that, the masses, who are not paying very close attention, say to themselves, "wow, maybe THEY ARE lying". If the admin would say, let everybody decide based on what is out there, it would not automatically discredit the ad. To me, the admin's response gave Kerry a free pass and IMPLIED that the Swiftboat vets MIGHT just be up to no good.

There are some conservative radio talk show guys talking about this, but the admin has let it die and therefore, the media has let it die. Perhaps a different response from the admin would have created more dialog and debate on the matter in the media.

 

[UsaPride]

To me, the admin's response gave Kerry a free pass and IMPLIED that the Swiftboat vets MIGHT just be up to no good.

I totally agree with you Free!!

 

[musicman]

Thank you, Avatar. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has doubts about O'Reilly's sincerity. I've seen him go soft and start backpedaling at too many critical times. Wishy-washy conservatives don't have a prayer against liberals, who are past masters at the manipulation game. Better to speak the truth unflinchingly, and suffer cheerfully the hysterical accusations which must follow. When the racket dies down, you've still got the truth.

 

[007]

Everybody has missed my point.

I AGREE! What I am saying, is that so far, we haven't taken off the gloves. And even with this ad, too many "conservatives" are backing off. To me, the administration took the high road. They shoulda said, "let the Americans decide for themselves" instead of shit like, "we don't like this kind of stuff" and crap like that. When they do that, the masses, who are not paying very close attention, say to themselves, "wow, maybe THEY ARE lying". If the admin would say, let everybody decide based on what is out there, it would not automatically discredit the ad. To me, the admin's response gave Kerry a free pass and IMPLIED that the Swiftboat vets MIGHT just be up to no good.

There are some conservative radio talk show guys talking about this, but the admin has let it die and therefore, the media has let it die. Perhaps a different response from the admin would have created more dialog and debate on the matter in the media.

I got it free. We're on the same page. I just think that it's high time Republicans start fighting fire with fire. The left gets away with having their cake and eating it too far too much, and it's basically because the conservatives LET them.

We need to break out the big guns and get them on the run. God knows there's PLENTY of ammo.

 

[freeandfun1]

I got it free. We're on the same page. I just think that it's high time Republicans start fighting fire with fire. The left gets away with having their cake and eating it too far too much, and it's basically because the conservatives LET them.

We need to break out the big guns and get them on the run. God knows there's PLENTY of ammo.

Have you read "The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits" by David Horowitz? It is a great book and it clearly points out why the GOP loses. We don't play dirty! Horowitz is a former radical liberal turned conservative and he writes some excellent books.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thank you, Avatar. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has doubts about O'Reilly's sincerity. I've seen him go soft and start backpedaling at too many critical times. Wishy-washy conservatives don't have a prayer against liberals, who are past masters at the manipulation game. Better to speak the truth unflinchingly, and suffer cheerfully the hysterical accusations which must follow. When the racket dies down, you've still got the truth.

Well not only that. Ive heard hannity mention there are some conservative hosts out there that are just playing to the audience who dont really believe it but Sean doesnt name names. I think he may have been talking about ORielly. I mean Sean works with him enough to have an opinion and ORielly just doesnt come off as sincere.

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's back up just a minute and define our terms. A "dirty" ad (IMHO) is one that is either entirely or substantially untrue or misleading. A dirty ad is one which seeks simply to assassinate the character of an opponent AND has no relation to the issues.

The NAACP ad comes close to qualifying as dirty politics in that it's primary purpose was to paint GWB as a racist. The ad never explained WHY the NAACP felt that the so-called "hate crimes" legislation merited becoming law. The ad never stated what adverse effects were created by GWB's refusal to support the hate crimes legislation. The ad ignored the fact that hate crime laws perform no function whatever and that the perpetrators of the crime cited in the ad had received a sentence of death under the provisions of existing law. Hate crime legislation is supported by the NAACP simply as a means of flexing their muscle and wielding power among the leftist politicians who kneel before the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.

I don't believe that the Swift Boat Vets ad is dirty politics because it seeks to refute two points claimed by the kerry campaign. Democrats claim kerry to be morally superior to George Bush and kerry points to his niggardly 3 1/2 month tour in the RVN and attempts to paint himself as a hero. Kerry and the Democrats took us down this road. Somehow they seem to think that we are obliged to accept their assertions without question. Somehow they think that challenging their arguments with truth is "dirty" politics. They are wrong on both counts. So long as the Swift Boat Vets group does not inject any falsehoods into their statements, their ad is not only legitimate, but a public service.