Your Bloody Soap Box · Public discussion

Dan Rather REPLACED!

Started by Weisse Luft · · Last activity · 57 posts · 5,382 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Your Bloody Soap Box
Published
10 September 2004
Last activity
22 September 2004
Original author
Weisse Luft
Posts
57
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
5,382
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 57
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. lokstah said:

    But the content of the documents -- with the possible exception of the "sugarcoat" remark -- are simply referrences to items we've been hearing about for a while now. The "value" of the documents to the anti-Bush effort was simply that they put a little more filler, and a face, to the slacker story. It was just a little icing, not a bombshell.

    All the more reason that the conspirators, if they exist, are complete clods. If you're going to construct a piece of shameless bunk for the sake of damaging a political figure, for crying out loud, go for the jugular.


    I understand what you're saying. However, forging documents to prove a point only makes people wonder if the rest of the story is true. The Dems had a better case before these 'documents' came out.

  2. Bikerman2004 said:

    I understand what you're saying. However, forging documents to prove a point only makes people wonder if the rest of the story is true. The Dems had a better case before these 'documents' came out.

    In legal terms, its "fruit of the poisoned tree". Illegal searches invalidate the evidence gathered, no matter how incriminating. If Col. Killian's secretary didn't type, how would she recall the words? Her testimony is trivial.

  3. Want to see a real Col Killian memo on 1LT Bush?

    http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/3-nov-70-bush-praise.pdf

  4. lokstah said:

    than that they were penned by Dan Rather in his basement after a night of love with Molly Ivins.


    I hold you responsible for the mental image I now have in my head. Thanks.

  5. Bikerman2004 said:

    The Dems had a better case before these 'documents' came out.

    Yeah, that was my point too. I thought Bush looked bad enough (well, not bad really; just sort of dopey and snotty) in regards to the TNG records without some overzealous Democratic grad-student intern attempting to create a bigger story, if that's in fact what happened.

    Oh well. I consider it one of a string of significant setbacks for the Kerry campaign since July. It's all gone very nearly to hell.

    Quoted post said:

    I hold you responsible for the mental image I now have in my head. Thanks.

    Yes, well, sorry. :o

  6. Weisse Luft said:

    Popycock. Rather said the documents were authentic and he had a handwriting analyst verify the signature matched. This isn't the case of "shooting the messenger", its a case of "fruit of the poisoned tree".

    Protecting the individual who "leaked" these documents is pure fabrication. Why are the forged documents artificially aged?

    Saucy, you are really reaching on this. Rather knows he is toast and is trying to "rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic".

    I wasn't "reaching" on anything. My entire post was simply describing the 60 minutes episode in case others had not seen it. That's why I used the words "according to 60 minutes" and "she said" and "she seemed". If you have a different interpretation of the episode or feel that Kilian's secretary was lying then feel free to post why you think so.

    From watching the episode it seemedthat Rather was already acknowledging that the docs were forged (so I'm not sure why everyone keeps debating this ad nauseum here). He is arguing that the content was valid. Based on the secretary's interview (and unlike Rather, she seemed very credible) the content of the documents mirror those of the original CYA file that Killian kept. I have yet to year anyone provide evidence that the content of the docs are fake: 1) Bush defied his CO 2) Bush failed to show up for a physical as directed by his CO 3) Bush did not fulfill his service requirements. This information has been corroborated elsewhere.

    There is no question that this is shoddy journalism. Dan Rather should have been fired years ago before his descent into senility. He's a total nutbar. Which is why I usually don't watch CBS news (other than Sunday 60 minutes) or any network news for that matter.

  7. Saucy said:

    I wasn't "reaching" on anything. My entire post was simply describing the 60 minutes episode in case others had not seen it. That's why I used the words "according to 60 minutes" and "she said" and "she seemed". If you have a different interpretation of the episode or feel that Kilian's secretary was lying then feel free to post why you think so.

    Yes I do...I find it hard to believe that an 86 year old woman remembers out of the many thousands of documents that she typed specific wording and/or circumstances on one individual 32 years ago..I'd be surprised if she could even remember to take her daily medication on time. 🙄

    Quoted post said:

    I have yet to year anyone provide evidence that the content of the docs are fake: 1) Bush defied his CO 2) Bush failed to show up for a physical as directed by his CO 3) Bush did not fulfill his service requirements. This information has been corroborated elsewhere.

    "Barnes' daughter has admitted she was being pressured to recant everything she has said and Killian's son, who said - get this - that CBS interviewed both him and his stepmother prior to the airing of the 60 minutes show. They BOTH told the interviewer (somebody named Mapes, a female) that they didn't believe the documents could be real. They both refuted that their father had anything to do with this. They gave a myriad of reasons why they don't believe any of it.

    CBS never put any of their words on the show. Not only that, but the son offered up names of people who flew with Bush and could offer rebuttals to any stories about him shirking his duties and not only did Mapes not call them, she actually said about one of them, "Well, he's pro-Bush, so I'm not calling him." The son and stepmother are LIVID about this and the daughter of Barnes is under so much stress you could hear her voice shaking. Someone is putting an enermous amount of pressure on her to go against her former word (that her father is a liar) and she refuses to back off. "

    more... "Killian's son swears that CBS ignored his testimony about the veracity of documents and his father's opinion of Bush. Killian also named other officers that knew Bush, including his primary instructor and roommate, but 60 Minutes used none of these sources."

    oh there's more....

    WASH POST: Documents allegedly written by deceased officer that raised questions about Bush's service with Texas National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Texas... Developing..."
    Abilene is about 20 miles away (click here for map) away from Baird, Texas, the home of Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard member whom Newsweek magazine reported may have been CBS's source. Burkett is known to have a grudge against George W. Bush, the former governor of his state.

    and

    Writing at National Review Online, Anne Morse tells of another time when Dan Rather used flimsy evidence to promote a liberal stereotype:
    Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere to expose him.
    On June 2, 1988, CBS aired an hour-long special titled CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which CBS trumpeted as the "rebirth of the TV documentary." It purported to tell the true story of Vietnam through the eyes of six of the men who fought there. And what terrible stories they had to tell.
    "I think I was one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly what they were looking for," said Steve Southards, a Navy SEAL who told Rather he had escaped society to live in the forests of Washington state. Under Rather's gentle coaxing, Southards described slaughtering Vietnamese civilians, making his work appear to be that of the North Vietnamese. [...]
    Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse, alcoholism, joblessness, homelessness, suicidal thoughts: These tattered warriors suffered from them all.
    The The Wall Within was hailed by critics who--like the Washington Post's Tom Shales -- gushed that the documentary was "extraordinarily powerful." There was just one problem: Almost none of it was true.

    finally,

    You have to wonder: Now that Dan's credibility really is taking a beating, why won't he blow the whistle on his source, the one who slipped him the documents that almost certainly are fraudulent and got him into this mess?
    Speaking to New York's Daily News, Rooney said that he felt that papers which his network colleague Dan Rather presented as genuine memoranda written by a former military commander of President Bush are fakes. Rooney also criticized CBS News's management for being too sure of itself.
    "I'm surprised at their reluctance to concede they're wrong," the self-styled curmudgeon told the paper. "I'm unsure if they're whistling in the dark instead of apologizing."

    Rooney's comments will not likely endear him to Rather who became very upset at his 85-year-old colleague after Rooney said on CNN's Larry King Live that he found Rather to be "transparently liberal" and that the latter "needed to be more careful."
    Earlier in the week, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's Sunday interview program Face the Nation, said that his colleagues "have to find some way to show our viewers they are not forgeries." ----Methink he should be looking for the truth, not just a way to cover their A$%!

    Quoted post said:

    There is no question that this is shoddy journalism. Dan Rather should have been fired years ago before his descent into senility. He's a total nutbar. Which is why I usually don't watch CBS news (other than Sunday 60 minutes) or any network news for that matter.

    I agree he should have been fired but there is more than shoddy journalism here...It is a left sided view of the world brought to you by mr. "COURAGE" himself...

    Why would he Dan Rather display biased journalism when it comes to our president yet when he interviewed Saddam H. he treated him with kid gloves...?? "Courage" 😕

  8. Saucy said:

    I have yet to year anyone provide evidence that the content of the docs are fake: 1) Bush defied his CO 2) Bush failed to show up for a physical as directed by his CO 3) Bush did not fulfill his service requirements. This information has been corroborated elsewhere.


    Again if the documents are fake, why would we think the contents of said fake documents are truthful.

  9. Think of it like this:

    Some documents are found that are supposedly written by Christopher Colombus regarding his exploration of the "New Americas." Turns out they're false. Does that mean that he never explored this area?

  10. Bikerman2004 said:

    Again if the documents are fake, why would we think the contents of said fake documents are truthful.

    Because the questions existed well before CBS obtained anything from anyone.

    Bush has said on more than one occasion that he "met all his obligations," something the records can't support. It's not in question that he missed a required 1972 medical exam, and that his excuse is spotty -- from CNN, 9/6/04: "Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama."

    It's also not in question that he was suspended from flight duty in 1972, and that no National Guard record (which was required to have been submitted by his commanding officer) offering an explanation for either his medical absence or his suspension seems to exist. Nor has anyone offered a good rebuttal to Ben Barnes' claims of shoe-horning Bush, along with lots of other favored sons, into the cushy spot in the first place -- Daddy's orders.

    Is it particularly critical to the Presidential job description that you not have been a punk kid in the 1970s, blowing off chunks of your National Guard duty? Of course not. But the fact remains that this election has boiled down on both sides to a massive character war disguised as a debate over issues -- just ask Kerry, who watched his character barbequed by attack after well-planned attack throughout August. They're trying to fight back. Can you blame them? Not like it's working.

    Ah, hell.

  11. lokstah said:

    Because the questions existed well before CBS obtained anything from anyone.

    Bush has said on more than one occasion that he "met all his obligations," something the records can't support. It's not in question that he missed a required 1972 medical exam, and that his excuse is spotty -- from CNN, 9/6/04: "Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama."

    It's also not in question that he was suspended from flight duty in 1972, and that no National Guard record (which was required to have been submitted by his commanding officer) offering an explanation for either his medical absence or his suspension seems to exist. Nor has anyone offered a good rebuttal to Ben Barnes' claims of shoe-horning Bush, along with lots of other favored sons, into the cushy spot in the first place -- Daddy's orders.

    Is it particularly critical to the Presidential job description that you not have been a punk kid in the 1970s, blowing off chunks of your National Guard duty? Of course not. But the fact remains that this election has boiled down on both sides to a massive character war disguised as a debate over issues -- just ask Kerry, who watched his character barbequed by attack after well-planned attack throughout August. They're trying to fight back. Can you blame them? Not like it's working.

    Ah, hell.

    On the contrary, Ben Barnes himself rebutted his own claims that he shoe horned President Bush into the National Guard in an interview he gave years ago. His daughter even confirms this. But, now his story has changed, several times. In one of his last interviews he stated that while he was the Lt. Governor of Texas he helped President Bush into the NG, but, Bush began his service in 1968, and Ben Barnes did not become Lt. Governor until 1969.

    I would offer the difference is Senator Kerry has made his Vietnam service the focal point of his campaign, that is what he has been running on as the qualification for the job of Commander in Chief. Bush is not running on his NG service 30 years ago. Obviously veterans who served with Kerry back during the war are still very angry about his anti-war actions and the incorrect things he said about them upon his return.

    We know what this is about. The swiftboat ads scored big points. So, some wizbang in the campaign thinks if similar ads and questions are raised about President Bush's service, some big points will be scored as well. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep following this tact. It's a loser. Instead of highlighting Kerry's accomplishments from his 20 years in the Senate, (Are there any? What important pieces of legislation has he authored or sponsored?) they continue to muddle his campaign. Voters will likely look back on President Bush's record of the past four years rather than his NG service of 30 years ago.

  12. An article by Lowell Ponte on the afore mentioned Ben Barnes ....

    "THE LAST SMEAR,” THE DOOMSDAY WEAPON that John F. Kerry’s sinking campaign desperately hopes can [censored] victory from the jaws of defeat, is ready and is scheduled to be launched against President George W. Bush on Wednesday night, September 8, on CBS’ weeknight version of “60 Minutes.”

    This bomb is an already-taped Dan Rather interview with former Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes in which Barnes will hint, and deceptive CBS editing will strongly imply, that during the Vietnam War the Bush family pressured him to use politics to get a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

    “Barnes comes off as very sympathetic,” the American Spectator quotes an unnamed CBS news producer with whom its reporter spoke. “This is a guy who has been under intense, brutal pressure from a family that is very powerful in Texas. You get the impression that he just can’t take it anymore.”

    This story “is clearly the Kerry campaign’s response to the Swift Vets controversy,” noted one source quoted by the American Spectator. It is an attempt to undermine President Bush’s credibility in the same way that testimony by 254 of Kerry’s fellow Swift boat veterans undercut his carefully-cultivated Kennedy-esque image of honor and heroism during the Vietnam War.

    But before anybody swallows the story Ben Barnes tells, America needs to know some things about Mr. Barnes that CBS and the rest of the establishment media are unlikely to mention.

    Ben Barnes was born in 1938 in De Leon, Texas southwest of Fort Worth. After graduating from the University of Texas and earning a law degree from Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Barnes in 1960, at age 22, was elected to the Texas House of Representatives. He served there until 1969, the last four of these years as the youngest Speaker of the House in Texas history. From 1969 until 1973 Barnes was the state’s Lt. Governor.

    President Lyndon B. Johnson compared the young political wunderkind to Thomas Jefferson and predicted that Ben Barnes would be the next Texan elected President. The leftwing Texas Monthly called Barnes the “golden boy” of Texas politics.

    But “after he was involved in a bribery and stock fraud scandal in the early 1970s,” wrote leftwing Mother Jones Magazine, Barnes “never held office again. He was involved with a number of banks and thrifts that were mentioned during the S&L crisis, and forced into bankruptcy when the Texas thrift industry cratered in the late 1980s.”

    By the late 1990s Barnes had become a millionaire lobbyist working for GTech, a company that operated lotteries in 37 states including Texas. The Texas lottery was losing money, in part because of a sweetheart deal in which Barnes received 3.5 cents for every ticket sold – more than $3 million per year. When the Texas lottery commission re-bid GTech’s contract, the company sued and – after buying Barnes out for $23 million – hired a new lobbyist. A fired Texas lottery director sued, claiming that he had taken the fall for GTech because Barnes had a National Guard story embarrassing to then-Governor George W. Bush.

    Barnes, facing potential charges of yet more wrongdoing, told his National Guard story in a deposition in a successful effort to politically deflect his own responsibility in this matter. In multiple re-tellings since 1999, the details of Barnes’ story have changed several times. Its gist is Barnes’ claim that when he was the Democratic Lt. Governor he intervened to get Republican Houston Congressman George H.W. Bush’s son George W. into the Texas Air National Guard (alongside the sons of Governor John Connally and Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Democrats). Barnes now says he is “ashamed” of this. Trouble is, George W. Bush began the first of six years’ service in the National Guard in 1968, but Barnes did not become Lt. Governor of Texas until 1969. Barnes has acknowledged that no member of the Bush family sought his help, but claims he was approached by a Bush family friend (who died three years before Barnes began telling his self-serving story).

    Because Barnes’ tale rests solely on his word, how good is his word? Given his long past of shady dealings, the shipwreck of his career on scandal, and the changes and inconsistencies of his story, Barnes appears to be less than a credible witness.

    More doubt is raised by this partisan Democrat’s motives. Barnes promoted an earlier version of his story in 1999 and 2000 in a clear attempt to damage the presidential campaign of George W. Bush. And Barnes apparently has had the same aim in reviving this story, long ago discredited by an investigation by the liberal Los Angeles Times, in 2004. As CNN reported in 1999, “the Los Angeles Times said it found no evidence that either Bush or his father, former President George Bush, had personally tried to influence or pressure anyone to get the younger Bush a place in the Texas Guard.”

    Ben Barnes has a large vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election. He is a co-chairman of John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Barnes, as CBS News reported in June 2004, has made bundled contributions of more than $500,000 to Kerry’s campaign. Barnes owns a home near his friend Kerry’s home in Nantucket on the Massachusetts shore.

    For many years Barnes and the lobbying firm he founded in Austin, EntreCorp, have made many millions of dollars by acting as the go-between bringing special interest groups and companies together with highly-placed Democrat officeholders. The Center for Responsive Politics has listed Barnes as the third largest all-around Democratic donor in America 1999-2004. So influential and important is Barnes to the Democratic Party, as this column reported last January, that Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle has nicknamed this fat cat money man and lobbyist “the fifty-first Democratic Senator.”

    If Kerry becomes President, reported the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in July 2004, Ben Barnes is at the top of the list of those close to the Kerry Administration likely to become “gatekeepers and endorsers for…appointees and job-seekers.” Given his sticky-fingered past, Barnes would likely also become a toll-collector at this gate, charging everybody he allows through it, and overnight he could become an even wealthier and more influential political lobbyist and “fixer” serving special interest groups, corporations, nations and individuals.

    Given Ben Barnes’ shady past, dubious reputation and selfish mercenary motive to defeat President Bush and elect Barnes’ close friend and partisan ally John F. Kerry, what honest reporter would give credence to an unsubstantiated Barnes tale calculated to damage President Bush in the final days before the November election?

    CBS Anchorman Dan Rather, according to the American Spectator, “has been pushing for months” to get his network’s most watched news program “60 Minutes” to air this non-credible story in an already-videotaped interview with Ben Barnes. This interview, the Spectator reported in September 2004, has been edited deceptively to imply that the Bush family directly pressured Barnes to get George W. Bush into the Air National Guard. Rather only half succeeded. His Bush-smearing interview will air on “60 Minutes,” but on its lightly-watched Wednesday version this week, not its far more widely seen Sunday night version.

    (Dan Rather is an extreme partisan who, while Anchor for the CBS Evening News, participated in a Democratic Party fundraiser in Texas. The leftwing slant of CBS itself has been documented by that network’s former reporter Bernard Goldberg in his 2002 best-seller Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News.)

    What is the truth about George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard? He apparently was chosen to defend his nation in this service for a reason so obvious that few notice it. Mr. Bush was accepted by the Guard less than two weeks before his graduation from Yale University, and Guard commanding officers logically concluded that any young Texan bright and hard-working enough to graduate from such a prestigious university had thereby demonstrated both excellence and high character.

    Mr. Bush served in the National Guard for six years. During the first four of those years George W. Bush far surpassed the time and work requirements for National Guard service, and during his remaining two years Mr. Bush complied with those basic requirements. (After returning from his four months in Vietnam, metamorphosed radical anti-war leader John Kerry was required to serve for several years in the Naval Reserve, but the establishment media has refused to investigate charges that Kerry shirked this required duty.)

    In mid-1968, when George W. Bush joined the National Guard, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and Texas was still a yellow-dog Democratic one-party state that would take another decade to elect its first Republican governor in more than 100 years. The Republican Bush family had no power to twist then-Texas House Speaker Democrat Ben Barnes’ arm, even if it wanted to. The notion that Barnes was “pressured” by the “powerful” Bush family to get George W. into the National Guard is absurd. But this phony claim is apparently what CBS, to rescue the desperate Kerry campaign, is preparing to broadcast.

    President Bill Clinton, a master at extracting donor cash in exchange for political favors, once told a group of Methodist ministers: “If you all will take a sinner like [Ben] Barnes, you might take me.”

    If people can be C-BSed into believing a disreputable sinner like Ben Barnes, America might yet suffer the devastation of a President John Kerry.

  13. Jakebrake said:

    I would offer the difference is Senator Kerry has made his Vietnam service the focal point of his campaign, that is what he has been running on as the qualification for the job of Commander in Chief. Bush is not running on his NG service 30 years ago. Obviously veterans who served with Kerry back during the war are still very angry about his anti-war actions and the incorrect things he said about them upon his return.

    We know what this is about. The swiftboat ads scored big points. So, some wizbang in the campaign thinks if similar ads and questions are raised about President Bush's service, some big points will be scored as well.

    Well, I hardly disagree, Jake. The TNG issue was undoubtedly raised as a too-little-too-late counter attack to the Swift Boats sting, but it's been a poorly conceived and poorly executed mess. The CBS fraud bit is lemon juice in the papercut.

    Needless to say, if it had worked, I doubt anyone would be calling the Vietnam focus a tactical error. Despite polling which tends to reveal the opposite when voters are asked, the fact is that study after controlled study reveals that careful negative campaigning works, and the Republicans have made an art out of it.

    They masterfully defined Kerry, put him on the defensive, had him explaining himself over and over, and reduced his rehotrical weaknesses to easy and memorable talking points (flip-flopper and so on) -- they ran a brutally attack-laden, entertaining and invigorating convention, and all the while, sat back and watched while a extraordinarily effective 527 (SBVFT) snapped into assasain mode.

    Evil? Wicked? Not at all. If the Kerry camp had the strategists to pull off so well-coordinated a Rovian campaign, they'd have done it too. They tried, but miscalculated at every turn.

    Ah, hell.

  14. lokstah said:

    Needless to say, if it had worked, I doubt anyone would be calling the Vietnam focus a tactical error. Despite polling which tends to reveal the opposite when voters are asked, the fact is that study after controlled study reveals that careful negative campaigning works, and the Republicans have made an art out of it.

    I will agree with you there sir. Despite the crying and moaning every election cycle on how negative campaigning is ruining American politics (and this type of campaigning has been in existance virtually since we became a country), attack ads do work. I would offer though that Democrats are just as adept at it. It was only a short while ago that Republicans were feeling the affects of losing Lee Atwater, while taking incoming strikes from James Carville.

    lokstah said:

    They masterfully defined Kerry, put him on the defensive, had him explaining himself over and over, and reduced his rehotrical weaknesses to easy and memorable talking points (flip-flopper and so on) -- they ran a brutally attack-laden, entertaining and invigorating convention, and all the while, sat back and watched while a extraordinarily effective 527 (SBVFT) snapped into assasain mode.

    I'm a bit surprised they have been able to do that, considering Senator Kerry tries to take both sides of every issue. I was also a bit surprised that Democrats poured millions of dollars into several 527 groups which had minimal impact, yet a 527 came along with an initial 250 grrr investment which was moderately successful.

    But, election still a ways off. As they say, a week equals a lifetime in politics. It's still anyone's race.

  15. lokstah said:

    Needless to say, if it had worked, I doubt anyone would be calling the Vietnam focus a tactical error. Despite polling which tends to reveal the opposite when voters are asked, the fact is that study after controlled study reveals that careful negative campaigning works, and the Republicans have made an art out of it.

    Ok, it didn't work but I am not surprised that Dan didn't follow the guidlines in his handy dandy hand book:

    From the CNS handbook

    "Anonymous sources should be used only when it is determined (1) that there is no other practicable way to obtain and report the information; (2) that the information is factual and of sufficient newsworthiness to warrant its use despite the fact that we cannot disclose its source; and (3) that the source and his information are highly reliable in the particular instance."
    "Where the use of an anonymous source is necessary, as much information as possible about the nature [underlined] of the source should be provided to the audience, assuming, of course, that this information would not lead to disclosure of the source. Where the source may have a vested interest in the matter to be reported, it is especially important that information be provided as to the nature and/or motivation of the source."

    I am also not at all surprised that Dan didn't apologize to President Bush nor did he promise to find out who actually forged the documents in question. If one is going pretend that one is fair and just, then one should attack the "forger" with the same veracity that one was attacking the victim of said forger...

    Liberal Media Bias??? Yes, it is obvious.

  16. lokstah said:

    Needless to say, if it had worked, I doubt anyone would be calling the Vietnam focus a tactical error. Despite polling which tends to reveal the opposite when voters are asked, the fact is that study after controlled study reveals that careful negative campaigning works, and the Republicans have made an art out of it.


    I'd say Moveon.org is a quick learner. They put out nothing but negativity.
    The TNG stuff didn't work in 2000. Why would the Dems try a failed strategy again in 2004? It seems it was just wasted campaign cash.

  17. Bikerman2004 said:

    I'd say Moveon.org is a quick learner. They put out nothing but negativity.
    The TNG stuff didn't work in 2000. Why would the Dems try a failed strategy again in 2004? It seems it was just wasted campaign cash.

    So you can understand the left's frustration. The Democrats can't seem to put up a good fight against these guys, whether it be negative, passive, monied or grassroots. Quick leaner? It's not working, Bikerman, so I'd disagree. Back in 2000, the frustrated buzz among liberals was, "sheesh, if the Democrats can't succeed in making Gore look more capable than Bush, they don't deserve the White House."

    It's dejavu all over again, from my perspective. Take the military service question. We've been telling ourselves, "something is really wrong with the Dems' strategists, or really right among Bush's strategists, that of the two guys, the two-tour decorated combat veteran ends up leaving the fight with a black eye, and the slacker kid who skated through Vietnam in the TNG emerges relatively unscathed. What's going on?" Strategically, in campaign terms, that's one particular point which shouldn't have unfolded how it did... but it did.

    Credit goes to a skillful Bush team, and a repeatedly miscalculating Kerry team.

  18. lokstah said:

    So you can understand the left's frustration. The Democrats can't seem to put up a good fight against these guys, whether it be negative, passive, monied or grassroots. Quick leaner? It's not working, Bikerman, so I'd disagree. Back in 2000, the frustrated buzz among liberals was, "sheesh, if the Democrats can't succeed in making Gore look more capable than Bush, they don't deserve the White House."

    It's dejavu all over again, from my perspective. Take the military service question. We've been telling ourselves, "something is really wrong with the Dems' strategists, or really right among Bush's strategists, that of the two guys, the two-tour decorated combat veteran ends up leaving the fight with a black eye, and the slacker kid who skated through Vietnam in the TNG emerges relatively unscathed. What's going on?" Strategically, in campaign terms, that's one particular point which shouldn't have unfolded how it did... but it did.

    Credit goes to a skillful Bush team, and a repeatedly miscalculating Kerry team.


    I think part of the problem is that Dem attack ads seem mean and vindictive.
    The moveon.org ad that had Bush morphing into [censored] is a good example of this. People just don't feel that way. While the Repub attack ads are toned down and appeal to a broader base.

  19. Bikerman2004 said:

    I think part of the problem is that Dem attack ads seem mean and vindictive.
    The moveon.org ad that had Bush morphing into [censored] is a good example of this. People just don't feel that way. While the Repub attack ads are toned down and appeal to a broader base.

    Possibly, though of course, this is a matter of opinion and perspective. I'd agree that the [censored] ad is likely either preaching to the choir or bewildering the undecided, neither of which is too helpful. But MoveOn has cooked up a number of ads, and most of them are standard (albeit witty) criticisms.

    Though I won't compare it to the [censored] piece, the SwiftBoat stuff was (again, depending on your leanings), in my opinion, intensely vindictive and low. Somehow, though, it was the right attack at the right time -- it made a tremendous impression, one which lasted well after the group had withered a bit under fire. I don't have trouble comprehending why the TNG stuff, in isolation, might have failed to splash, but counterpoints to one another, I'm a bit perplexed as to why the SwiftBoats made a bigger boom than the Texans.

  20. lokstah said:

    Possibly, though of course, this is a matter of opinion and perspective. I'd agree that the [censored] ad is likely either preaching to the choir or bewildering the undecided, neither of which is too helpful. But MoveOn has cooked up a number of ads, and most of them are standard (albeit witty) criticisms.

    Though I won't compare it to the [censored] piece, the SwiftBoat stuff was (again, depending on your leanings), in my opinion, intensely vindictive and low. Somehow, though, it was the right attack at the right time -- it made a tremendous impression, one which lasted well after the group had withered a bit under fire. I don't have trouble comprehending why the TNG stuff, in isolation, might have failed to splash, but counterpoints to one another, I'm a bit perplexed as to why the SwiftBoats made a bigger boom than the Texans.


    I think the Swift boat [censored] suceeded because it attacked Kerry on what he is basing everything on...Vietnam service! The TNG stuff falls flat because Bush has a record as president to run on. That is what people see, what he's done, right or wrong, over the past 4 years.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.