"Swiftboating"

I keep seeing people here call just about any criticism of their chosen candidates swiftboating. Criticism is NOT swiftboating, no matter how trivial the issue being criticized, no matter how much the issue plays into right wing talking points. If there are facts involved, it's not swiftboating.

The swiftboaters made shit up about Kerry. They told out and out lies about Kerry. Things that had no basis in truth or reality. They didn't just criticize him about stupid things. They KNOWINGLY LIED about him. That's so different than so many of the things being called swiftboating in this forum.

Do so many here really not know what the swiftboaters did? Or is the use of the word 'swiftboat' just an attempt to stop any conversation or discussion that might involve anything that casts their chosen one in a bad light of any sort?

New York Magazine called VoteVets.org a left-leaning swiftboat type group earlier this week. That was dead wrong. As Jon Soltz said, they are attacking but they are not swiftboating because they're telling the truth. A lot of people here seem to be just as wrong about the use of the term swiftboat as New York Magazine was.

it's amazing how some people bring up accusations of "swiftboating" when whoever they support is criticized.

even when it comes to the attacks on Kerry i think there is a difference between the attacks on him for windsurfing, what he says etc and the attacks on his military service.

it's one thing to make fun of him going hunting and totally another level when you attack his war wounds .

but i have a problem with the ridicule that Republicans do also on the other stuff.

this is not to say that people can argue back or take issue with the criticism, but to claim it's swiftboating is totally different.

In 2004, the term was restricted even further to mean just lies about Kerry's service.

In 2004, there were other lies to distort who he was and they were not called swiftboating.
A few were:

- That Kerry used Botox. Their proof a photo of Kerry from the time he was being treated for cancer - he went back to the Senate very quickly and started campaigning within about 6 weeks. He lost 20 pounds and looked haggard. They compared that photo to a more current photo where he was healthier, heavier and smiling.

- That Kerry said "Who among us is not a NASCAR fan?" He never said this, Maureen Dowd made it up and then her paper and others quoted it.

- Drudge turned a routine $75 haircut into a $1000 styling, highlighting etc complete with fabricated quotes from hair stylists. Harris (ABC) actually praised Drudge because this was effective - rather than condemning it as a lie.

- Fox's Cameron, the man assigned to cover Kerry, fabricated quotes and filed a report on Kerry as a metrosexual (note same word in today's Dowd column on Edwards) who "said" he would win because he has manicures.

It seems we may need a word that means fabricated reports on candidates. These were all things the media should have been ashamed to repeat, but they carried with them none of the pain that swiftboating did. The pain was not just to Senator Kerry. It really hurt the men who really did serve with him - many of whom were far more vulnerable than the Senator. It also hurt many Vietnam veterans including many who came home to oppose the war. There was a diary by one of them on Dkos and he spoke of how hurt he was by them. John Kerry actually responded to him saying how sad it was that the name of the boats that got them through the war ended up being used to mean this type of political nastiness.

Here's a link to the DU post that had the original diary, Kerry's response and the diaryist response to Kerry. Before using that word to say that TRUE stories on Edwards haircuts (or other similar examples) were swiftboating consider that doing that causes the word to not only tarnish something that was noble, but to lose the value of the word to mean an unfair, untrue despicable campaign to mean simply any charge. Although the entire post is interesting, the part relevent to this is from John Kerry's comment.

" No Iraq War vet should go through that, especally not those like Patrick Murphy putting themselves on the line running for Congress this year. They're doing what's right because they know it's wrong for old men to send young men to die for a strategy that isn't working.

We still havent mastered the job of separating the warriors from the war. We have a ways to go. It pains me to see the boats I loved, which got us through all kinds of danger alive and in one piece, reduced to a verb associated with political attack. But that's why we each need to step up, stand by those who have the guts to speak the truth, and remember the true meaning of love of country."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=102787&mesg_id=102951

That swiftboating in 2004 really was totally despicable and you're right, more than just Senator Kerry were hurt by it.

The one sister works for a rep senator and apparently he is supposed to be running for president, so they started to do an in-depth back ground check on him, so nothing would surprise them. She (the sister) then said that they didn't want to take a chance that her senator could be swiftboated.

I think the word swiftboat is going to end up in the dictionary, with an additional meaning.

zalinda

These attempts to shut down unflattering discussions about certain candidates are pretty apparent. Lots of name calling, insinuations that DU'ers are paid operatives or worse, trolls.

It's not swiftboating if the discussion is based on the truth, and only right-wing nutcases march in lockstep.

Watching the attempt to squash all discussion of certain people, even legitimate questions, by bullying and name calling and insinuation the last couple of days...and watching those who come out to cheerlead it...has been eye opening to say the least. As I said in another thread, there's definitely no shortage of hypocrisy on DU. I feel like I walked in on some meeting in the White House where someone's attempting to suggest that maybe the fearless leader isn't a god after all. All the suggestions of 'giving comfort to the enemy' and all... :crazy:

And, in the meantime, people labeling anything that sounds like anything less than adoration of the chosen candidate as swiftboating, even if it is factual, totally dilutes the enormity of what the real swiftboaters did to John Kerry and the rest of the country.

I have tried to make that distinction in the past, to no avail. Not all criticism, even if it's really petty, is swiftboating.

It upsets me to see what Kerry was put through trivialized by these inapt comparisons.

And the continual trivializing of what actually happened in the 2004 campaign in a frantic attempt to shut down any and all discussion goes a lot further toward 'giving comfort to the enemy' than anything said here about John Edwards' hair, if you ask me.

J17's comparison of the wind-surfing crap vs. the real swiftboating is spot on.

Day after day, week after week, Democrats are attacked here with all manner of exaggerations, fabrications, and fake outrage. Why would ANYONE express shock and surprise when their candidate is treated the same way?

What goes around, comes around.

It's what we should be doing as Democrats, considering where our support will go. It's what we have primaries for. It's the lies I can't take and it's the lies I consider "swiftboating." But your point is taken that the hypocrisy shown daily by DUers who will say any amount of shit about one Democratic candidate and throw childish tantrums when their own gets it too, is something to behold.

...although I guess by now it shouldn't be unexpected.

I was under the assumption it had to do with military (vets against vets) Purple Heart Bandaids and all. Yes it was about Lying about and smearing a candidate. Smearing is probably the key word. They smear with LIES and whatever else they can use. I would say it was about any group that's sole purpose was to smear another person, by any means necessary. Their sole purpose of being was to SMEAR...

Criticism when factually based, or opinion based on personal experience, are both legitimate forms of discourse on a political discussion forum. I am often amazed that some believe only positive comments should be expressed. A sure path to narrow visions.

That depends on what you mean.

If people post things from questionable sources here that may contain a fact or two, but may not, and it denigrates any of our candidates, I think that is problematic. It may not be swiftboating but it should not be done. What is accomplished by being in a rush to post such things, which often are shown later not to be true? It's pretty Drudge-like.

If people post things from reliable sources that contain some facts but are misleading and negative about our candidates, because they or the source leaves out other pertinent facts, I would call that swiftboating.

If people post things from reliable sources that are factual, complete, and accurate, I see nothing wrong with that, even if negative about one of our candidates.

Not lies, not "swiftboating".

Aside from "swiftboating" we also have "bashing", "sniping", "attacking" and of course "legitimate criticism".

As another mentioned "swiftboating" will be a permanent part of the lexicon. The only question remaining is, will it outlive "truthiness"? ;-)

Julie

THANKYOU so much for seizing this issue, Carol.

what they have done that angers me as a citizen. If it bothers you, that's your call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Your inability to discern that which is obvious is due to blindness caused by hypocrisy.

But it is always entertaining watching you turn yourself into a pretzel pretending otherwise. Do go on ...

Yeah, I first saw that piece in the NY Post and posted it here, blaming the Post for characterizing VoteVets that way. I expected as much from the Post, a right wing rag that's about a half step above tabloids like Star and The National Enquirer...and that's on a good day. But then I saw the Post piece was a direct quote from New York.

Jon Soltz of VoteVets expects the comparison, I guess. When he introduced Wes Clark at a politcal event here in NYC and was talking about his organization, he made a point of saying that they were holding politicians who say they support the troops but really don't accountable but they weren't swiftboating because they were telling the truth.

Thanks again for keeping this distinction front and center.

sometimes things need to be discussed to air things out. no candidate is perfect. They are humans and politicians and all are going to have pretty similar positions.
it is not swiftboating to look at a candidates warts.
Swiftboating is the total destruction of a candidate with lies. if someone sees something negative and posts, they may just ask if it is true or if it is, make people aware so they can do something. that is not swiftboating.