Author Topic: Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style  (Read 1584 times)

Offline spursfan101

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« on: August 26, 2004, 10:24:08 AM »
If you had any thought that the first presidential campaign after 9/11 would be especially sober and responsible, give it up.

There are a million angles to the saga of John Kerry and his swift boat enemies and none of them reveal anything virtuous about politics. But one element that is missing from this story is surprise.

Any student of Bush family campaigns could have seen the swift boat shiv shining a mile away. This old family has traditions – horseshoes, fishing, bad syntax and having the help do the dirty work in campaigns as well as the kitchen. And they are very good at getting jobs done without leaving fingerprints, without compromising their patrician image and their alleged character.

Even the audaciousness of this year’s episode is not surprising. Who would have believed that George Bush, with all the trouble over his National Guard service, could get John Kerry in hot water for his combat duty and medals in Vietnam? Well, anyone who saw what George Bush did to former POW John McCain in the 2000 primaries, which was even more outrageous.

The ancestral origin of Bush family gut fighting came in George H. W. Bush’s 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis in the form of the infamous Willie Horton ad. (Historical footnote: Horton actually went by William, not Willie, and is referred as William in all legal documents; the ad makers thought Willie sounded scarier and blacker.)

That ad was produced by an outfit allegedly independent of the official campaign. It wasn’t aired on TV much but got most of its play in the press. Papa Bush and his official staff maintained they knew nothing about such déclassé skullduggery. There was nothing blatantly untrue about the ad, but it was hugely misleading and subtly racist.

The ad also attacked Dukakis right where he was supposed to be strongest. If the Duke had a strength (a big if), it was as a highly competent government CEO who led the Massachusetts Miracle. The ad gave an emotional snapshot of a guy whose incompetence let a killer out of jail so he could commit assault and rape. It worked.

The mantle passed to Bush the Younger in 1994 when he ran for governor of Texas against Ann Richards. She was a salty, strong, unmarried woman. And guess what? A whispering campaign got rolling in East Texas that she was gay and so were some of her staffers. Then one of the Bush campaign's local chairmen told a reporter that Richards' appointment of "avowed homosexuals" might become a campaign issue. In the twisted way the press legitimizes talking about questionable issues, that remark made the whole deal fair game.

In 2000, McCain had George W. on the ropes and South Carolina was the do-or-die state. Flyers appeared from thin air alleging that McCain had a black child (he and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi daughter from an orphanage there). Other fliers said McCain was the "fag candidate." Rumors swirled that McCain’s time in a North Vietnamese prison camp had left him unstable and downright crazy - again, hitting at the opponent's greatest strength. Other rumors were that his wife was a drug addict. Nice stuff, and none of it had Bush’s inky fingerprints on it.

At an event with Bush, a vet from some fringe group accused McCain of abandoning veterans. That really set McCain off and he demanded an apology from Bush. Bush simply said that he believed McCain "served our country nobly." That’s what he says about Kerry now. Above the fray, clean hands, patrician.

Soon after that, a mysterious group dumped $2 million into ads in more liberal New York attacking McCain’s environmental record and boosting Bush's. Eventually, it turned out the ads were bankrolled by a big Bush donor named Sam Wyly. No Bush fingerprints there either.

You get the picture. The big question is why John Kerry didn't.

When the swift boaters launched their dark craft did he think it would just vanish? That would be like Bill Clinton thinking the Monica Lewinsky story would disappear. Kerry responded indecisively and weakly.

Kerry and his campaign are not innocents in all this. Independent 527 groups opposed to Bush have pumped far more cash into the race than the anti-Kerry groups and they, too, have made irresponsible assertions. And though two Bush campaign officials have now quit because of their ties to the swift boaters, Kerry's operation has all the same kind of ties to the anti-Bush groups.

What Kerry and the Democrats do not have is an explicitly ideological cable network, a dedicated publishing house and a pantheon of sympathetic, wildly popular talk radio shows that essentially function as 527 groups.

The non-Fox networks and major newspapers covered the Kerry charges just as they did the charges about Bush’s National Guard service – they tried to dig out the truth. The Democrats have plenty of rich donors, 527 groups, Air America and, for the sake of argument, reporters infected by liberal bias. They wish they had the media propaganda apparatus the Republicans have, but they don’t.

It is also said that Kerry brought this on himself by making his Vietnam service part of his campaign. But that’s absurd. What was he supposed to do, ignore it? He did volunteer, he did command a boat, he was shot at and did get the medals.

The claims that Kerry lied about his record have been as debunked as any historical claim about a distant combat action can be. And just because someone talks about something in their past in a campaign doesn't mean that it's okay for other people to lie about it.

Kerry's anti-war activities when he got back home will always attract fierce opposition, even loathing, whether or not there are scurrilous 527s beating up on him. And the mixed portrait of him as a war hero and anti-war hero will always ring false for many who see him as a compulsive flip-flopper and have-it-both-ways guy.

But despite Kerry’s own Brahmin lineage, patrician bearing and vast wealth, he's a poor relation when it comes to hiring help to do the dirty work.

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.
 
Paul

Guest_Randy

  • Guest
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2004, 10:52:52 AM »
This guy makes himself (and most news organizations) sound so incredibly non-partisan and objective -- I just wish the facts supported him.

I don't have a lot of problem with some of his comments about Bush and the anti-Kerry campaigns.  I just read that Bush is going to pursue stopping these campaigns -- of course, this is a result of political pressure.

However, let's consider a couple of things:
1)  When Kerry and the demos attacked Bush's service record in the National Guard, most every newspaper in the nation picked it up (I know because I did some traveling during that time).  And it wasn't just a ONE-TIME cover -- it was over and over and over again.  Over a period longer than 3 months.
2)  When Bush and republicans have attacked Kerry over his record, newspapers are very quiet.  I saw ONE day of articles in newspapers and it wasn't the kind of "if he was really there, why can't he prove it" stuff that I read with Bush.  Kerry could release his military records and rebuke all of this stuff, right?  Then why doesn't he?  And why don't the papers continue to harp on it until he PROVES it to them?  

I don't happen to like a lot of Bush's plans but IMO they are a whole lot better than someone who has NEVER had a plan and still can't manage to propose one that works.  So far, all Kerry has done is make campaign promises:  "I'll return the world to the garden of eden," "I will make sure that WOW never loses at the tables," "I guarantee liberty and prosperity for all," "I guarantee that the whole world will be involved in helping us with the crises in Iraq," "I guarantee happiness, prosperity and euphoria for everyone in the US."  Of course, he is going to spend MORE money than Bush has but still manage to balance the budget.  Kerry STILL hasn't shared a plan to accomplish ANYTHING and someone wants to elect him?  Many charge that Bush didn't have a plan for how to get out of Iraq -- Kerry doesn't have a plan for anything and that somehow doesn't seem to bother them.  :crazy:  

Offline westkoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8624
    • View Profile
    • Email
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2004, 11:30:22 AM »
Randy, you are showing alot of bias right now.  The media was quiet about this Kerry deal?  I disagree, i've seen the OC Register, MSN, Fox News, and a bunch of other places covering it like no other.  The OC Register had quite a bit to say about the whole thing.  They covered it a few times and in the end when they were trying to get to the bottom of the story a gentlemen who was with Kerry on the boat got a whole page to explain how Kerry saved his life.   Search Google News (which btw is a great place to go to read articles from all over) for news stories about John Kerry inVietnam and every single paper in major areas have covered it in some shape or fashion.  The John Kerry debate has got more press than Bush not going to Vietnam.  By far, I mean seriously its not even close.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2004, 11:31:03 AM by westkoast »
http://I-Really-Shouldn't-Put-A-Link-To-A-Blog-I-Dont-Even-Update.com

Guest_Randy

  • Guest
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2004, 01:41:43 PM »
Quote
Randy, you are showing alot of bias right now.  The media was quiet about this Kerry deal?  I disagree, i've seen the OC Register, MSN, Fox News, and a bunch of other places covering it like no other.  The OC Register had quite a bit to say about the whole thing.  They covered it a few times and in the end when they were trying to get to the bottom of the story a gentlemen who was with Kerry on the boat got a whole page to explain how Kerry saved his life.   Search Google News (which btw is a great place to go to read articles from all over) for news stories about John Kerry inVietnam and every single paper in major areas have covered it in some shape or fashion.  The John Kerry debate has got more press than Bush not going to Vietnam.  By far, I mean seriously its not even close.
 :rolleyes:   umm, I'd say the same thing about your viewpoint, westkoast.  I talking PRINT papers -- not internet papers -- because I was traveling when both stories were hitting the internet.  Papers in the east were killing Bush but not the same with Kerry when I passed through again.  I don't see too many "neutral" papers -- editors and papers seem to always carry a bent in one direction or the other.  Of course, we all tend to "bend" things based on our perspective as well -- it's just that reporters are supposed to be objective - not subjective!

Offline westkoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8624
    • View Profile
    • Email
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2004, 04:57:07 PM »
Quote
Quote
Randy, you are showing alot of bias right now.  The media was quiet about this Kerry deal?  I disagree, i've seen the OC Register, MSN, Fox News, and a bunch of other places covering it like no other.  The OC Register had quite a bit to say about the whole thing.  They covered it a few times and in the end when they were trying to get to the bottom of the story a gentlemen who was with Kerry on the boat got a whole page to explain how Kerry saved his life.   Search Google News (which btw is a great place to go to read articles from all over) for news stories about John Kerry inVietnam and every single paper in major areas have covered it in some shape or fashion.  The John Kerry debate has got more press than Bush not going to Vietnam.  By far, I mean seriously its not even close.
:rolleyes:   umm, I'd say the same thing about your viewpoint, westkoast.  I talking PRINT papers -- not internet papers -- because I was traveling when both stories were hitting the internet.  Papers in the east were killing Bush but not the same with Kerry when I passed through again.  I don't see too many "neutral" papers -- editors and papers seem to always carry a bent in one direction or the other.  Of course, we all tend to "bend" things based on our perspective as well -- it's just that reporters are supposed to be objective - not subjective!
Randy, alot of those articles printed on the newspapers websites can be found in the hard copy as well.  I know the LA Times and the Register both do a dual posting of alot of articles, especially ones that would drive in alot of hits.  These newspapers see people relying on the Internet for information so they do a dual prong attack.

You say you were traveling when the Bush story came out but werent when the Kerry story came out...so how are you comparing the papers around the US when you were not traveling when the story came out?  The Bush story came and went but this swift boat thing has caused a big stir and has been a major story for weeks and weeks now.  How can you honestly say that they were covering Bush more and Kerry less?  I didn't see/hear about a TV commercial taking shots at Bush hanging out in the US during Vietnam.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2004, 04:58:11 PM by westkoast »
http://I-Really-Shouldn't-Put-A-Link-To-A-Blog-I-Dont-Even-Update.com

Guest

  • Guest
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2004, 08:18:39 PM »
Quote
You say you were traveling when the Bush story came out but werent when the Kerry story came out...so how are you comparing the papers around the US when you were not traveling when the story came out?

Quote
I was traveling when both stories were hitting the internet. Papers in the east were killing Bush but not the same with Kerry when I passed through again.

I'm not sure where you got that idea -- I think my quote above clearly states that I passed through many of the same areas with different results.  The swift anti-Kerry ads are different -- do you think that those newspapers are supporting the swift ads or denouncing them?  Do you think these ads have helped Bush?  I doubt that they have since he is presently taking strides to have it stopped either in court in or legislature.

Offline westkoast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8624
    • View Profile
    • Email
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2004, 01:47:48 AM »
Quote
Quote
You say you were traveling when the Bush story came out but werent when the Kerry story came out...so how are you comparing the papers around the US when you were not traveling when the story came out?

Quote
I was traveling when both stories were hitting the internet. Papers in the east were killing Bush but not the same with Kerry when I passed through again.

I'm not sure where you got that idea -- I think my quote above clearly states that I passed through many of the same areas with different results.  The swift anti-Kerry ads are different -- do you think that those newspapers are supporting the swift ads or denouncing them?  Do you think these ads have helped Bush?  I doubt that they have since he is presently taking strides to have it stopped either in court in or legislature.
I did misread it.  My bad.  I guess I shouldnt being alt-tabbing around and should just stick to doing work lol.

Randy you are going to honestly say that there were less stories about Kerry than there were stories about Bush?  This whole thing has dominated the media for the last month or so.     I find it hard to believe that more stories were ran about Bush, especially since we all know what sounds like a more controversial story that would get readers to pick up copies.  What sounds more intresting A) Bush going into the national guard instead of vietnam cuz of Pops  or B ) an old war vet with  military metals like the purple heart possibly re-writing history with a video camera or fabricating a story about being shot when really  hes too dumb to get 20-30 feet away from a grenade he pulled the pin on.

 Just about every major news paper covered the book that came about bashing Kerry, talking about how he re-shot footage to make himself look like a hero.  Then it was the swift boat ads.  Then it was individuals (on both sides) comming out to speak their mind. After that, it was the calling out of the people behind the swift boat ads.  Then it was John McCain telling Bush to bash the ads.  Now you type in Kerry and you get 10,000 articles that relate to if he did or did not deserve his metals.  Anything other than the people believing 100% that he was a war hero, which is part of the image he is trying to sell, hurts him.  

Quite a few articles from the Chicago, LA, NY, OC,  Philly, CNN, MSNBC, and other areas/sources all share one thing no matter what side they lean too....they all have a part in the article about vets questioning what Kerry did.  The paper will be extremly slanted, yet people read that and still have to hit the part that says what he did is still under question from people who were  there.  Personally makes me wonder, what about you?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2004, 02:04:38 AM by westkoast »
http://I-Really-Shouldn't-Put-A-Link-To-A-Blog-I-Dont-Even-Update.com

Offline JoMal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
    • View Profile
    • http://
    • Email
Dirty Tricks, Patrician Style
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2004, 05:16:59 PM »
1. At the time of the Kennedy assasination, George Bush Sr. was a CIA operative working in the Dallas area.

2. George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA in the late 70's.

3. Gerald Ford was on the Warren Commision, which twisted the facts of the Kennedy assasination to eliminate any conspiracy "hoaxes" and convince the American public that Oswald was a lone nut operating without support.

4. The only way to avoid questions about Oswald was to make sure he died. Rudy was CIA.

5. The congressional commission that was convened to re-examine the Kennedy assasination that was formed in the late seventies, (when Bush Sr was director of.....see 2 above) found that in all likelihood, more then one gunman was involved in this assasination. Unfortunately, most of the key witnesses suppoenaed by this commission somehow died before then could testify.

6. Both of the Bush's presidential campaigns have mysteriously utilized covert agencies to do a 'black-ops" political smear job on their opponents, which later they can deny any involvement with, but clearly has CIA organizational criteria backing the whole idea.

7. Once CIA, always CIA

8. Oh, and both George Sr and Gerald Ford, two of the least capable and unlikely presidential holders this country has ever had, got "rewarded" for their work from the early sixties by gaining that unheard of job.

9. Dubya, even less capable then the other two, has Daddy's CIA connections pulling his strings, because let's face it, he would not pack his own lunch without first getting an okay from his handlers.

10. The 2000 Florida election "accident" doesn't look so accidental any more, does it? Gore did not so much passively agree to his losing the election as much as fear reprisals if he had accepted the presidency. Remember, 2000 was an election year that ended in zero. How convenient. He was warned off.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.....We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.....We are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular....We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."