Republicans claiming swift boat ads are fair tit for tat.

I'm sick of the latest talking point I've picked up.
Now, that it's clear the Swift Boat ads are connected to the GOP and that almost everything in the ad can be debunked or discredited; the new tact of the right wing is to say...
"hey, don't get upset. You guys have broadcast dozens of anti-bush ads. This is our only negative Kerry ad. The dems shouldn't be so upset"

this logic is completely broken. First off. The ads from MoveOn.Org and other mostly dem 527 groups have been based on fact. Secondly, the anti-bush ads have stuck to the current issues: economy, Iraq, health care, jobs.

The swift boat ad is digging up stuff from 3 decades ago and most (if not all) is simply untrue.

Am I wrong? Are there any examples of anti-Bush 527 ads that have been discredited to the extent of the Swift boat ad?

part in any situation. But hey, they have gotten away with it for so long now it seems to work for them. And they preach morality.

You know, just to show thes guys the difference between unsubstantiated lies and true statements about faults. It's certainly a slimey idea, but maybe they'll understand the difference then.

The Moveon.org ads have been about issues concerning the Bush administration. These have not been attack ads based on lies and misrepresentations prior to that, but how he has run this country we love.

The way I see it:
1) Bush is pissed that Dems have donated MORE to 527's than his 'base' and this absolutely scares the shit out of them...we have the power!
2) All ads to this point against Bush/Administration have been based on issues regarding how this administration has run the country.
3) Bush strategy to condemn 527 ads they see as a plus because of (see #2)

Frankly, I think it's time for moveon.org and others to take off the kid gloves. Go for the throat!!!

Why? Because Bush keeps trying to put the onus on Kerry and say 'let's be friends and join together to get rid of the negative attack ads'. BULLSHIT!!!!! If Bush doesn't want to openly condemn the ads, he's a leader don'tcha know!, concerning the John O'Neill front smear campaign he can take a flying leap off the cliff!

It's time for moveon and any others to play the game and get as nasty and dirty as the rest!

and there's plenty of them to be told about this administration. There's no need to make up shit! But hit them hard!!!

they have no come back on....look what they do , attack Kerry's war record , with hired slime....you have to trust people will see the difference.
If they don't , then this country is screwed , maybe rightfully so.

about bush that could be brought up!!!!! Personally I think
we need a cocaine ad on bush and find the people who partied with him.

They're dead or paid...lol

the ads are doing them more damage than good. :evilgrin:

from here on out should be excerpts from Bush's actual speeches. No need to take anything out of context. Just show the whole lame blabbering clip. No need to edit to make him look stupid. There is plently of current footage to do the trick just fine.

We don't need other people to tell us how wrong Bush is. Just show Bush doing his thing, babbling on.

MzPip
:dem:

misunderestimate him now....just ask him the definition of sovereignty...that ought to just about do it....

They make a complete mockery out of McCain- Feingold.

We fought for something for a decade and now it's all a sham.

after he's sworn in.

http://www.democrats.us/beta/forum/view_topic.php?id=1462&forum_id=12&jump_to=6554

Esquire:The Misunderestimation of John Kerry
Beware of this man. He's won every race that he was supposed to lose.

by Charles P. Pierce | Jun 01 '04

<snip>

This is something else people should know about John Kerry: When you lose to him, he finishes you. Which is why it should have been a caution to the president when an anonymous Kerry advisor replied that if the White House were to go after Kerry on his divorce, or his wife's money, or some other area that Kerry deemed out of bounds, then "everything is on the table."

This should be taken as a warning to George W. Bush not only for his own predilections for bunker government but also those of his father. In the 1980s, while John Kerry was involved in investigating the complicated and obscure scandals that kept popping up out of the renegade national-security apparatus, the elder George Bush ran between the raindrops. The scandals swirled all around him, but they never quite touched him. He campaigned for president in 1988 while claiming to be "out of the loop" on the Iran-contra affair. Four years later, after he was defeated by Bill Clinton for reelection, it was revealed that contemporary notes taken by some of the Iran-contra principal actors gave the lie to that claim. Bush pardoned everyone except Shoeless Joe Jackson on his way out of town.

In 2001, almost immediately after taking office, George W. Bush took a series of actions that seemed to complete his father's legacy in this regard. First, by executive order, he sealed documents from the administrations of both his father and of Ronald Reagan—Clinton's papers got sealed along with the deal—that were due to be released and for which historians of the period had long hungered. Then he hired back a number of Iran-contra's most memorable figures, including Elliott Abrams, whom his father had pardoned, and John Negroponte. Long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, gave it irresistible momentum, a movement toward a return to bunkered government was well under way, led by some of the people with connections to both Presidents Bush, and with whom Kerry was very familiar. Now, increasingly, it seems that this election will be fought out partly in the shadowy regions between a government with secrets and a secret government, with that difference squarely on the table. That's terrain on which John Kerry has fought—at one point, quite literally—his entire public life.

<snip>

Any of you Moveon people out there correct me if I get my facts wrong.

Moveon has existed since the Clinton Hunting days of Ken Starr. In fact the name originated from the idea that the Republicans should just censor him and move on. The issue was the impeachment.

Bush has raised numerous issues during his term. Moveon has made ads to express our disapproval of his policies. Maybe there is a larger contributer here and there, but for the most part the organization is sponsored by small donations from like minded citizens. Isn't this the whole definition of a 527?

Moveon was ABB until the Democrats nominated Kerry. It did not support a Democratic candidate. It recognizes that this is really just a two horse race. In order to get rid of Bush, Kerry has to win. There is not now, nor has there ever been a connection between the two other than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Swift Boat, on the other hand, exists for no other reason than to destroy Kerry any way they can. They are financed by Karl Rove and others tied to the administration who do not want to see Kerry win and they will do what ever it takes. Their issue with John Kerry is that he wants to remove George Bush* from office by constitutional methods. If he doesn't succeed, they will disband this band of Kerry haters. If he wins the White House, they will hang around like a sore Rush Limbaugh.

Moveon.org is an issue oriented organization. Swift Boat is a candidate oriented orgainization. One is legal and the other is an arm of the Bush campaign.

have they issued anything about this flyer from the campaign office in Florida?

Check out the New York Times front page story from Friday. The Times' aggressive expose on the 260 decorated Vietnam veterans who make up "Swift Boat Captains for Truth" came complete with a do-it-yourself Vast Right Wing Conspiracy chart. All that was missing was the suggestion that Karl Rove and Meryl Streep implanted chips in their brains while these war heroes were serving in Vietnam.

Funny how attack ads by left-wing groups likemoveon.org didn't provoke the same moral outrage as this vet ad.

I wonder why these high minded media types never drew charts connecting anti-Bush 527 groups to John Kerry. Oh wait. I know the answer. It's because 90 percent of the reporters and talking heads who work for national news outlets will be voting for John Kerry this fall. If you don't believe me then ask Newsweek's top political gun Evan Thomas, who admitted last month that the majority of reporters in America wanted Kerry elected president.

I don't mind these "journalists" professing profound shock at the Swift Boat ads. Because unlike them, I actually fought in the political arena as a candidate. That makes me skeptical of all political ads. But what is so maddening about the Swift Boat coverage is that these same attack dogs laid down like lap dogs when liberal attack ads filled the airwaves over the past year--all blasting George Bush. And why don't you check the transcripts of your favorite left-leaning talk show and see if these noble warriors of truth raised the slightest concern when a liberal ad ran in 2000 suggesting that George W. Bush committed an act as heinous as dragging an old black man to his death.

Look if you want, but don't expect to find the same shock and outrage being expressed over this Swift Boat ad.

Again, this is the first anti-Kerry ad that has hit the national stage after scores of inflammatory ads ran about George W. Bush over the year. Do these reporters and talking heads have no shame? Are they unable to see the contradictions in their own news articles? And why are they so offended by John O'Neill's book-- the contents of which may be true-- when they French-kissed Joe Wilson for writing a book that we now know is filled with lies?

One final thought on these Swift Boat vets. As a Congressman who represented more vets and military retirees than just about any other member of Congress, I know what makes most of these guys tick--and it sure as hell isn't partisan politics. They are about as cynical as me when it comes to politicians.

Instead, most of these aging vets are guided by a sense of justice. Any Northeast liberal reporter who suggests that 260 or so military heroes would spread malicious lies at the end of their lives simply to reelect a Republican president has no idea what drives retired military heroes. That is why it is so offensive to have reporters in New York and Washington (who never spent a day in Vietnam) passing judgment on these Vietnam vets.

By the way, it is just as offensive for reporters to pass judgment on John Kerry's military career when they have no idea how honorably he served his country in Vietnam.

This is a war between Vietnam vets who were there and know what really happened. The rest of us would be smart to sit back, ask tough questions, and see where the truth takes us.

And one more thing. It would probably be a good idea if media types at least tried to look like they were being fair to all sides.

Joe "Please don't ask about that dead intern" Scarborough, little Lord of Scarborough Country. Someone should tell Joe that the reason they didn't make a big chart about the ads that were out earlier this year weren't made by people that were in the pocket of the Kerry campaign. Unlike the (not so) Swifties.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.protestwarrior.com/

We must chat some time....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!

FACTS about Kerry? Kerry's military record is easily available. I believe it's right on his website. Substantiated FACTS about the evil things the current administration is doing NOW equals a bunch of half-baked lies about what Kerry did 30 years ago? I don't think so.

"Again, this is the first anti-Kerry ad that has hit the national stage after scores of inflammatory ads ran about George W. Bush over the year."

You seem to have forgotten the other non-truth "ads" run by Bushco Inc., such as...
*The "voted for" a $0.50 gas tax, complete with web based fuzzy math gas calculator.
*"...voted for every tax increase in his 19 year history in the Senate", also not true.
* The ads where he allegedly voted against "every weapons system to help our soldiers", another lie.
...I'm sure I'm missing some.

Oh yeah, there is no liberal talk show hosts. You're talkinig out of your echo chamber ass.:eyes:

No ads about any of that. Do they really want to play?

Too late assholes. Blood is in the water now.

Hey Rove! You ugly bald fuck, we're not letting you off the hook!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on edit: Thank you Mods :thumbsup:

Thanks Mods and RFK2!

Dumbass trolls.

Has "elac," as IT called itself, appeared on other Swiftboat threads? These low-bred troglodytes generally have a singular purpose... I'm listening to Malloy talk about saving a Freeper right now! "... I'm going strait to Hell!"...

This "elac" didn't even read the Cliff Notes version of "Troll Tactics 101."

1. "Them fighting words," = "elac" didn't even get the Redneck English right in the very first phrase.

2. "I suggest you call up your legendary war crime committer," = The second phrase uses the classic, "blame the other for what the perpetrator is doing" and indicates that "elac" dislikes convenient DU spell checker.

3. "i mean liberal flip-flopper," = Oh boy, elac really fucked up here. Need I say more?

Back to school "elac!" I don't think Mike Malloy meant YOU when he said to try and save a Freeper. In other words, get a frontal lobotomy.

HAHAHA!!! Good bye!

Several "talking points" being hammered right now:

1). Why aren't the Democrats as upset over Michael Moore, F-9/11, etc. as they are the Swift Boat ads

2). Why aren't the Democrats as upset over MoveOn.Org running ads comparing Bush to Hitler as they are the Swift Boat ads

3). Why are the Democrats upset over Bob Perry funding the Swift Boat ads and God-Knows-What-Else when George Soros is doing the same on their side and has declared that the defeat of George Bush is his "number one priority in life"

4). Why is the Kerry campaign asking to have "Unfit For Command" removed from bookstore shelves when there are many, many "Bush-bashing" books right next to it

So, last night, Reagan sat with that sickening clueless grin that he normally has and nodded up and down like a good little puppy dog as Hannity hammered these points over and over and over (after having spent his entire radio show that afternoon doing exactly the same thing).

1. F/911 is TRUE, it's based in the present tense, and Moore is not a longtime family friend of John Kerry, any of his close advisors, or anyof his campaign managers.

2. MoveOn never ran an ad comparing Chimp to Hitler. It was entered in a contest, didn't win, never ran.

3. George Soros is not a longtime buddy or business associate of John Kerry, any of his close advisors, or any of his campaign managers.

4. "Unfit for Command" is a fraud, a hoax, a collection of lies about the U.S. Navy. Which "Bush-bashing" books are a collection of lies?

Hannity CANNOT say the name "MoveOn.Org" in a sentence without adding "who ran ads comparing George W. Bush to Hitler." The words are crazy-glued together in his one-track brain.

But he's learned the lessons of not only Rupert Murdoch but Karl Rove very, very well. You pick a talking point...doesn't matter if it's based in fact or not...and you just bark it out over and over and over like one of those little pain in the ass dogs that runs laps around your ankles while jumping up and down and yelping. You don't alter the words, you don't change the delivery, it's like that timeless image of Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on the desk during a U.N. meeting. You become SO annoying, and SO unyielding, that your opponent either caves in or simply walks away in disgust.

I think part of the reason for the perceived "delay" in Kerry's response to these ads...and I am not "armchair quarterbacking" the campaign...is that he had to cross that initial hurdle of dealing with his disgust over the ads being run in the first place.

Salon has an article on Rove (sorry, I don;t have the URL handy) in which the author offers the theory that Republicans approach a political struggle as if they were kids on a playground engaged in a game of marbles. Their attitude is that they own the GAME, they own the MARBLES, and they own the PLAYGROUND. That's what we're dealing with.

Right, Karl?