A Political Ad Filled With Holes

[nycflasher]

NICE BIPARTISAN ARTICLE? I liked it.

A Political Ad Filled With Holes
August 22, 2004

Americans should put the traumatic Vietnam experience of 30 years ago behind them and look to the future.

Obviously, we've not been able to do that yet. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president, decided to make his service in Vietnam a campaign metaphor for his ability to lead the nation in time of crisis, to counteract President Bush's leadership credentials forged in the crucible of 9/11.
Perhaps inevitably, Mr. Kerry's record is coming under fire from his Republican opponents. But let's be clear about the facts:

Mr. Kerry volunteered to serve with the U.S. Navy and was in Vietnam for several months in 1968 and 1969. He was awarded five medals - a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts - for wounds suffered and actions taken as a commander of a small Swift boat on river patrol. Navy records and first-person accounts of men who served on the boat with him back him up and validate claims of heroism. He carries shrapnel in his body to this day.
But that hasn't stopped a political group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from running television ads and publishing a book claiming that Mr. Kerry lied about the actions that won him the medals. The group, which has ties to the family and political associates of President Bush, asserts that the Democrat is unfit to lead the nation.

Their claims are animated mostly by anger over Mr. Kerry's anti-war statements made when he returned, disillusioned, from Vietnam. One ad shows Mr. Kerry testifying in 1971 about alleged brutality by Americans in Vietnam. However, the group's claims about Mr. Kerry's wartime actions are filled with holes. They are contradicted not only by Navy records and the accounts of crew members who served next to Mr. Kerry, but also by their own comments.

Some of the members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who in the heat of this presidential campaign say that the senator from Massachusetts lied more than 30 years ago and is unfit to lead, praised him in years past.
One former superior officer who is now accusing Mr. Kerry wrote in a 1969 fitness report that, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed ..." Another of today's critics praised Mr. Kerry in 1996 as "among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."
The many discrepancies make this campaign ad shameful. It is not the only one. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is one of the so-called 527 committees, which spend unlimited amounts of money on unregulated advertising independent of candidate or party committees. Some 527 committees have targeted Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry denounced such an ad recently that tore into the president's military record.

Mr. Bush says he honors Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, but he will not ask Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to remove their spurious ad from the air - as even Bush supporter Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, has asked him to do. The president is trying to have it both ways, and it's unseemly.
The simple truth is that both men served their country. Mr. Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and was honorably discharged. Mr. Kerry was a decorated Naval officer and Vietnam veteran. Voters can assess for themselves whether there's enough of a difference to matter.
*

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I'd hate to think of what you consider partisan

 

[nycflasher]

Mr. Bush says he honors Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, but he will not ask Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to remove their spurious ad from the air - as even Bush supporter Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, has asked him to do. The president is trying to have it both ways, and it's unseemly.
The simple truth is that both men served their country. Mr. Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and was honorably discharged. Mr. Kerry was a decorated Naval officer and Vietnam veteran. Voters can assess for themselves whether there's enough of a difference to matter.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Mr. Bush says he honors Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, but he will not ask Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to remove their spurious ad from the air - as even Bush supporter Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, has asked him to do. The president is trying to have it both ways, and it's unseemly.
The simple truth is that both men served their country. Mr. Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and was honorably discharged. Mr. Kerry was a decorated Naval officer and Vietnam veteran. Voters can assess for themselves whether there's enough of a difference to matter.

Uh.. Bush has asked them to remove the ad. Now where's those military records of Mr. Kerry's.

 

[CSM]

Mr. Bush says he honors Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, but he will not ask Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to remove their spurious ad from the air - as even Bush supporter Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, has asked him to do. The president is trying to have it both ways, and it's unseemly.
The simple truth is that both men served their country. Mr. Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and was honorably discharged. Mr. Kerry was a decorated Naval officer and Vietnam veteran. Voters can assess for themselves whether there's enough of a difference to matter.

OBJECTION! It has yet to be determined that the ad is indeed spurious!

 

[freeandfun1]

Mr. Bush says he honors Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, but he will not ask Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to remove their spurious ad from the air - as even Bush supporter Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, has asked him to do. The president is trying to have it both ways, and it's unseemly.
The simple truth is that both men served their country. Mr. Bush was a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard and was honorably discharged. Mr. Kerry was a decorated Naval officer and Vietnam veteran. Voters can assess for themselves whether there's enough of a difference to matter.

If Bush were to "tell" them to take it down and they did, that would show collusion between the 527 and the Bush campaign. That is ILLEGAL. The libs are just trying to entrap the president. Too bad for you guys, he is too SMART to fall for it.

 

[insein]

Instead Bush called for an end to ALL 527 ads. Kerry hadnt thought about that apparently. Otherwise he wouldnt have wasted $10 mil on ads to call for Bush to stop the SwiftVet ads.

You know for a blithering idiot, Bush sure makes Liberals look like asses.

 

[pegwinn]

I am starting a 527 called GUTLESSKERRY. Anyone who doesn't like my approach will get the same form letter.

Dear Sir/Maam,
AS I am a 527 I can say whatever I want. Telling me to stop is infringing on my 1st Amendment Rights. Oh BTW please send contributions to:

PEGWINN
STRAPD 4 CASH &
BROKEIN, TX 99999

 

[tpahl]

Instead Bush called for an end to ALL 527 ads. Kerry hadnt thought about that apparently. Otherwise he wouldnt have wasted $10 mil on ads to call for Bush to stop the SwiftVet ads.

You know for a blithering idiot, Bush sure makes Liberals look like asses.

Bush has called for an end to 527 ads? Was it made as a request that they ALL stop or as a implication that they should not have the right to do it? What is the context?

Either way it is wrong in my opinion for Bush to be asking or saying that 527's should not run ads.

Travis

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Bush has called for an end to 527 ads? Was it made as a request that they ALL stop or as a implication that they should not have the right to do it? What is the context?

Either way it is wrong in my opinion for Bush to be asking or saying that 527's should not run ads.

Travis

CRAWFORD, TX (AP) -- President Bush denounced TV ads by outside groups attacking both John Kerry and himself on Monday and called for a halt to all such political efforts.

"I think they're bad for the system," he said.

Which is essentially the same thing he said last week. I don't see anything wrong with him giving his opinion. Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, even the President of the United States.

 

[tpahl]

CRAWFORD, TX (AP) -- President Bush denounced TV ads by outside groups attacking both John Kerry and himself on Monday and called for a halt to all such political efforts.

"I think they're bad for the system," he said.

Which is essentially the same thing he said last week. I don't see anything wrong with him giving his opinion. Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, even the President of the United States.

I am not saying he can not say it. I am saying his opinion is wrong. His opinion basically can be summed as...

"I think organizations should not have say anything about public officials. Only the media and elected officials should have un limited political speech. Candidates for office that have not been elected to office yet should have severely limited political speech, and private citizens should not exerecise their right to association and free speech when dealing with elected officials."

He is a bad president with a lack of understanding about the importance of free speech and free association.

I urge everyone to not support his re-election.

Travis

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I am not saying he can not say it. I am saying his opinion is wrong. His opinion basically can be summed as...

"I think organizations should not have say anything about public officials. Only the media and elected officials should have un limited political speech. Candidates for office that have not been elected to office yet should have severely limited political speech, and private citizens should not exerecise their right to association and free speech when dealing with elected officials."

He is a bad president with a lack of understanding about the importance of free speech and free association.

I urge everyone to not support his re-election.

Travis

Well, once again, the quote by Patrick Moynihan applies. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

If this didn't essentially boil down to who has the most money, it might not be so bad. The image and message that a candidate wants to put out there should come from them, not some other organization. When ads like the ones from soft money organizations go on the air, they all to often give to much credit or lay to much blame on the candidate they benefit.

The 527 ads wouldn't be a problem if they were FOR a candidate instead of against one.

President Bush knows full well what free speech is. Unlike some, he understand that it goes both ways.

I FULLY support his re-election.

 

[tpahl]

Well, once again, the quote by Patrick Moynihan applies. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

I fail to see how that applies. Free speech does not mean that you have to be 100% correct 100% of the time. it means you are free to speak. If they are wrong about something, then others are free to respond. AS much as I think this whole swift vote thing is a waste of time, both sides are getting their stories out and people are listening and chosing which side they beleive. That is how free speech works.

If this didn't essentially boil down to who has the most money, it might not be so bad.

Money buys an audience. the side that has more money is the side that has more people with more money willing to spend more of it to buy an audience. What part of that do you object to? Shouldn't people have the right to tell others what they beleive? Shouldn't they have the right to buy time on radio or tv to say what they have on their mind?

The image and message that a candidate wants to put out there should come from them, not some other organization.

They used to do that more often before McCain Feingold act. This is the logical result of that horrible act. But what you and Bush are proposing is that organizations not be able to speak. Or at least not if the government finds them to be criticizing a candidate for public office. Do you not see the numerous problems with this?

When ads like the ones from soft money organizations go on the air, they all to often give to much credit or lay to much blame on the candidate they benefit.

Sorry, I am not following what you are saying here.

The 527 ads wouldn't be a problem if they were FOR a candidate instead of against one.

Why do you beleive that private organizations should not be able to critize a candidate for office?

Let us suppose there are two candidates A and B and common citizen C. Now lets suppose Candidate A did some horrible thing that citizen C saw. Citizen C wants everyone to know about this horrible thing. You and Bush are suggesting that the only way he should be able to do this is to give money to candiate B and hope that candidate B does something about it.

Now for the problems...

1. What if candidate B also did the same act and does not want to bring up the issue.
2. What if candidate B feels other issues are more important?
3. What if citizen C wants to give more money? He can't because of campaign finance laws.
4. What if citizen C does not like candidate B either and does not want to support his campaign?
5. What if Citizen C does not like the way candidate B runs the ads even though they are on the act that C is mad about?
6. What if bringing up the act by the opposing candidate makes it less beleiveable than if brought up by a seperate organization?

There are tons more problems, but i think my point is made... limiting speech is not the answer. The answer is removing restrictions on speeech already imposed by the government. Less government, not more. Bush however has yet to show me where he came up with a solution calling for less government. Therefor it does not surprise me that he is calling for more yet again. What does surprise me is that conservatives keep supporting him.

Travis

President Bush knows full well what free speech is. Unlike some, he understand that it goes both ways.

I FULLY support his re-election.

If he understood that it goes both ways, why is he trying to prevent private groups from stating their opinion on television? And why did he sign the McCain Feingold incumbant protection act?

 

[nycflasher]

I am starting a 527 called GUTLESSKERRY. Anyone who doesn't like my approach will get the same form letter.

Dear Sir/Maam,
AS I am a 527 I can say whatever I want. Telling me to stop is infringing on my 1st Amendment Rights. Oh BTW please send contributions to:

PEGWINN
STRAPD 4 CASH &
BROKEIN, TX 99999

John Kerry committed treason?
What an idiotic thing to say.
I guess you have little faith in your government.

 

[nycflasher]

I urge everyone to not support his re-election.

Travis

Well said.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Christ....

I fail to see how that applies. Free speech does not mean that you have to be 100% correct 100% of the time. it means you are free to speak. If they are wrong about something, then others are free to respond. AS much as I think this whole swift vote thing is a waste of time, both sides are getting their stories out and people are listening and chosing which side they beleive. That is how free speech works.

It comes as no shock that you totally miss the point of that quote. It means you have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to lie.

Money buys an audience. the side that has more money is the side that has more people with more money willing to spend more of it to buy an audience. What part of that do you object to? Shouldn't people have the right to tell others what they beleive? Shouldn't they have the right to buy time on radio or tv to say what they have on their mind?

What are you babbling about? The whole point in campaign finance reform was to level things out and give more power to the smaller donor. When someone pumps millions of dollars into one of these organizations, it defeats that purpose. Yes, people have a right to express their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the election should come down to who spends the most money.

They used to do that more often before McCain Feingold act. This is the logical result of that horrible act. But what you and Bush are proposing is that organizations not be able to speak. Or at least not if the government finds them to be criticizing a candidate for public office. Do you not see the numerous problems with this?

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? I didn't say they shouldn't be able to speak. Go back to the original post and read that quote again.

Sorry, I am not following what you are saying here.

For example, the swift boat ads could potentially hurt Bush as much as they help him. A lot of accusations flying around him for an ad he didn't finance. Same thing with MoveOn.org and Kerry.

Why do you beleive that private organizations should not be able to critize a candidate for office?

It's just a comment. If the swift boat ads came out with an ad praising Bush and MoveOn.org came out with ads praising Kerry, there wouldn't be all this bs flying around. All that ever comes from these groups are negative ads.

Let us suppose there are two candidates A and B and common citizen C. Now lets suppose Candidate A did some horrible thing that citizen C saw. Citizen C wants everyone to know about this horrible thing. You and Bush are suggesting that the only way he should be able to do this is to give money to candiate B and hope that candidate B does something about it.

I've just about held on for as long as I can....

First, if someone sees someone else do something horrible, why do they have to buy a tv ad?

Ok, I'm skipping the rest of this crap. Ya know, you took damn near everything I said and misinterpreted it or flat out got it wrong.

There is the old saying about freedom of speech, the exception that says you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire. The problem with a lot of the soft money ads is that they are running into a crowded theater and yelling fire. Now, the swift boat vets are a bit of a different story because it is all about Vietnam and they were there. That's probably one of the reasons they are getting 10 times the publicity with 1/10 the money.

 

[tpahl]

Christ....



It comes as no shock that you totally miss the point of that quote. It means you have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to lie.

I understand what the quote means. What I fail to see and you have still not pointed out is how that has anything to do with the issue we are discussing.

Bush is not calling for only false ads to be pulled. He is saying that these organizations should not be buying advertisements at all.

What are you babbling about? The whole point in campaign finance reform was to level things out and give more power to the smaller donor.

When someone pumps millions of dollars into one of these organizations, it defeats that purpose. Yes, people have a right to express their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the election should come down to who spends the most money.

I am babbling about your rights. You agree that people have a right to express their beleifs. That is a good start.

But from there you seem to claim that the election comes down to who spends the most money. And to that I agree as well. But so long as we are not selling the office to the highest bidder, there is no conflict with unrestricted campaign donations (to parties, candidates, and private organizations). People can donate to whomever they chose and express themselves as much or as little as they want. The people then vote and decide who wins. Both of the things you ask for are perserved.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? I didn't say they shouldn't be able to speak. Go back to the original post and read that quote again.

So you have no problem with unrestricted funding of priovate organization and unrestricted right for these organizations to buy as many advertisements about whatever political issue they want, even if it is to attack a political candidate? If so, then I apologize for assuming otherwise.

It's just a comment. If the swift boat ads came out with an ad praising Bush and MoveOn.org came out with ads praising Kerry, there wouldn't be all this bs flying around. All that ever comes from these groups are negative ads.

Yeah, that is true. Unfortunately people apparently respond to such ads. I feel the same way about telemarketing and spam. If people would stop responding to it, they would go away. Until then it is unfortunately a part of life. That is part of the reason I was suggesting earlier that conservatives should let the whole swiftboat vets thing go. It is just wasting airtime and print space for more important issues in my opinion. I am sick of hearing about it. The same goes for crap like the lacey peterson case. People should stop paying attention to the damn thing because it is taking up news time for other things that are actually news.

I've just about held on for as long as I can....

First, if someone sees someone else do something horrible, why do they have to buy a tv ad?

Ok, I'm skipping the rest of this crap. Ya know, you took damn near everything I said and misinterpreted it or flat out got it wrong.

You just flat out ignore the all the questions just like that? Just accuse me of misinterpretting and that is it? Wow, nice work!

There is the old saying about freedom of speech, the exception that says you can't run into a crowded theater and yell fire. The problem with a lot of the soft money ads is that they are running into a crowded theater and yelling fire. Now, the swift boat vets are a bit of a different story because it is all about Vietnam and they were there. That's probably one of the reasons they are getting 10 times the publicity with 1/10 the money.

As I said before, the point of free speech is not that it should only be allowed if you say 100% correct things 100% of the time. You seem to be suggesting that all free speech should be thrown out because sometimes it is not 100% accurate. Well who determines what is accurate? The government? I would rather it all be allowed and then let the public decide for themselves.

We still allow the freedom of press even though every newspaper in the country has a corrections section in their paper. newspapers are wrong, 527s are wrong and candidates themselves are wrong. No one is always 100% truthful and right 100% of the time. Why justify Bushs condemnation of 527's by saying that some of them are not always saying things that you find 100% truthful?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I ignored the questions because they are pointless considering you weren't right about what I said. If I have to go back and reexaplain everything after every paragraph, this is never going to end.

Bottom line: If people are going to run ads that makes claims, they should have to provide some kind of proof. Far to many are based on assumption and accusation and present these things as truth. Much like Michael Moore's movie.

The swift boat ads are a bit of a different creature because they involve people who were there. It basically comes down to their word against his, and there has been enough come out about Kerry and his claims to justify looking into some of it. My problem is with the other 99% of the ads out there.

What if an organization aired ads against Michael Badnarik. People in the organization were of the opinion that Michael Badnarik looks like a child molester. So, they gather some data, fluff it a bit, then runs ads saying Badnarik is a prime example of someone that like to anal rape 11 year old boys.

Now, is this freedom of speech, since it's their opinion, or is it a baseless attack?

 

[tpahl]

I ignored the questions because they are pointless considering you weren't right about what I said. If I have to go back and reexaplain everything after every paragraph, this is never going to end.

Bottom line: If people are going to run ads that makes claims, they should have to provide some kind of proof. Far to many are based on assumption and accusation and present these things as truth. Much like Michael Moore's movie.

The swift boat ads are a bit of a different creature because they involve people who were there. It basically comes down to their word against his, and there has been enough come out about Kerry and his claims to justify looking into some of it. My problem is with the other 99% of the ads out there.

What if an organization aired ads against Michael Badnarik. People in the organization were of the opinion that Michael Badnarik looks like a child molester. So, they gather some data, fluff it a bit, then runs ads saying Badnarik is a prime example of someone that like to anal rape 11 year old boys.

Now, is this freedom of speech, since it's their opinion, or is it a baseless attack?

I have not been argueing that people should not have the ability to sue someone for making false statements about someone. That is not what bush is proposing. he is not upset that 527s are making false statements about him and kerry. he is upset that they are making statements regardless of their accuracy.

IN your hypothetical badnarik would have the ability to take the group to court and try to sue for damages. kerry has that same right now with the swift vets group and Bush does with Fahrenheit 9/11 and Move on ads. However in trying to prove in court that the groups made false claims and did so knowingly will be very hard for both Bush and Kerry and they know it. I have a feeling that is why they are both opposed to 527s and political speech in general.

Travis

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I have not been argueing that people should not have the ability to sue someone for making false statements about someone. That is not what bush is proposing. he is not upset that 527s are making false statements about him and kerry. he is upset that they are making statements regardless of their accuracy.

IN your hypothetical badnarik would have the ability to take the group to court and try to sue for damages. kerry has that same right now with the swift vets group and Bush does with Fahrenheit 9/11 and Move on ads. However in trying to prove in court that the groups made false claims and did so knowingly will be very hard for both Bush and Kerry and they know it. I have a feeling that is why they are both opposed to 527s and political speech in general.

Travis

I think I've had enough with law suits being involved in presidential elections.

I just think campaign ads should come from the candidates themselves, or at least be publicly approved by them. There are plenty of ways to express freedom of speech other than tv ads.

And with that, I have had a very long and shitty night at work and am starting to hit the wrong keys as I type. I'm calling it a night.