Kerry Swiftboater: "We Will Attack Obama Viciously"

Right, because Obama did such a bang-up job with the Rev. Wright controversy.

I'm sure the 527's are quaking in their boots.

Right, because Obama did such a bang-up job with the Rev. Wright controversy.

1. What the heck does the Rev. Wright controversy have to do with 527 groups?????
2. Media driven "Scandals" are part and partial of presidential politics. Bottom line... Obama managed to continue to add super-delegates even in the thick of the Rev. Wright controversy. Bottom line - he came through it and is now moving on...

I'm sure the 527's are quaking in their boots.

I'm not expecting that the idiots behind the 527s to quake "in their boots". They're too greedy, arrogate, stupid, thirsty for power, etc.... to care much about Obama (or any other candidate they disagree with). My point was (and still is) Obama won't sit back and take it the way Kerry did.

Exactly, Pavilion. I'm sure theses sleasebags have been using the last 4 years to hone their weapons - they probably own their own production company now. I expect them to outdo themselves against Obama.

But like you said, Obama won't take this sitting down, and thank God for that. That's why I support his candidacy, because the Wright debacle showed he can quickly and directly address these situations. Cajun jeeringly ridiculed Barack's handling of the Wright situation ... but I dare him to form a list of benchmarks which Obama didn't improve upon during that time. All of his positives went up, and his negatives went down. Sorry Cajun if that isn't good enough for you. Somehow I don't think there's anything Obama could do to meet your approval.

The swiftboat ads will work like magic on 27% of the population (the Bush dead-enders), and the rest of us will see them for what they are. I have a sneaking suspicion that these ads will backfire because too many people can see through them. Obama will respond rapidly, and YouTube will generate so many rebuttal videos which are sure to be more entertaining and cutting.

I for one am looking forward to the swiftboaters falling flat on their faces. What I really want to see are viral videos about the sb'ers (or is that bs'ers?) themselves, with all the nice little negatives about their connections, their alleged graft connections, their alleged habits of sleeping with livestock..... And of course, they'd better watch the race card - overplay it, and the third rail of politics will be carrying all that lovely amperage.

Even if they do their worst, it may not work this time. Remember how Bush 41 tried to run against Clinton the same way he ran against Dukakis, making it all about The Flag, God, American-ness and the '60's culture wars ? And every time he trotted out one of his smears -- well, by some strange coincidence a story would make it into print about how Bush and his "very good friend" Jennifer Fitzgerald always asked for adjoining hotel rooms when they traveled together. Did the story come from the Clinton campaign? Gee, who us, they would say, batting their eyelashes innocently?

In the end, of course, what lost the election for Bush 41 wasn't Jennifer Fitzgerald, it was the economy, stupid. When things are bad enough, voters aren't easily distracted with " . . . oh, look, a skanky girlfriend," or " . . . oh look, a scary militant Black preacher." That doesn't mean some of them can't be, and the rage of the Clinton haters after the 92 election, as we know, bordered on psychotic, and damn near took the whole country into a nervous breakdown. But their hysteria couldn't win them elections, in 92, 96 or even really in 2000.

The headline is a direct quote: how is that fraudulent?

"We will attack Obama viciously" promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Nothing fraudulent about it. It may have been an unintetionally revealing slip of the tongue but the word vicious is a surprisingly accurate description of their actions and there is nothing remotely "fraudulent" about using it as a headline.

No, it is not the actual article headline. Anyone concerned about distortions, and who does the same, has no business denouncing others. Some can't discern the difference, granted.

The headline is a direct QUOTE! What part of english are you having the most trouble with?

As I said, some can't discern the difference between accuracy and distortion. You appear to number among those. It is not the actual headline of the article. Remembering that may temper your outrage.

As I said, some can't discern the difference between accuracy and distortion. You appear to number among those.

Actually you appear to number among those. What exactly do you believe is being distorted? You are the one who has refused to offer any rational explanation.

It is not the actual headline of the article

So what? Do you imagine that to be rule for Newsvine? Its not. Nor does it distort.

Its pretty obvious you are quick to imagine distortion where convenient and accuracy where that is convient. Feel free to provide a reasoned factual account for your assertions to back up your unsubstantiad accusations. Merely repeating your conclusory assertions and adding more insults doest amount to any kind of rational reason to agree with anything you have written.

As I said, some can't discern the difference between accuracy and distortion. You appear to number among those. It is not the actual headline of the article. Remembering that may temper your outrage.

I'm not mad, I'm astonished at the extent of your incredibly lame assertions. And that you actually think anyone would be so imbecilic as to be fooled by them. If you quote directly from the article, how can it be fraudulent? He can use any Headline he wishes to as long as it pertains to the Article. Stop trolling Neo-Con. the more you post, the more you prove that Neo-cons have no veracity or credibility, and that all attempts at swiftboating will backfire on them.

If the attacks are what you love about politics, you should stick to Brittney and Hannah Montana gossip.

Attacks are just news that your opponents don't want you to know about.

And the public is not stupid, they can make up their mind whether an attack is valid. To suppress "Attacks" is to suppress free speech.

Many are outright lies or a twisting of context.

I guess I just prefer a higher level of discourse.

To suppress "Attacks" is to suppress free speech.

Another irrelevant non-sequitor. No one is suppressing anything except the Swift Boaters attempt to suppress the truth.

And the public is not stupid, they can make up their mind whether an attack is valid.

Yes, and the same for criticism of such noxious falcious and savage attacks.

How about allowing politicians to sue for false attacks?

I'd favor that.

How are "Swift Boarders™" suppressing truth by putting forth information? That makes no sense.

Kerry got a court order to block the release of that 527 "SWIFTBOAT" movie based on the fact that it's inaccurate, not educational, but could not sue for damages to his reputation or as an attempt to libel him.

Suing for "Slander" or "libel" is almost impossible unless you can prove original authorship, and intent, and not just someone repeating hearsay as fact, or expressing an "opinion'. But now we know the true nature and source of this social diseases...

And as for how it will be dealt with by Obama, he's counting on it...

"Crooked schemes will end by overwhelming their authors and coadjutors in disgrace, and... he alone who walks strict and upright, and who, in matters of opinion, will be contented that others should be as free as himself, and acquiesce when his opinion is fairly overruled, will attain his object in the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1804.

When the rats come out of their holes to feed is when you get rid of them.

"Is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong, because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.

SWIFTBOATERS? I prefer the original term of Propagandist.

How are "Swift Boarders™" suppressing truth by putting forth information? That makes no sense.

Because it's not information

information |ˌinfərˈmā sh ən|
noun
1 facts provided or learned about something or someone : a vital piece of information. See note at knowledge . • Law a formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury : the tenant may lay an information against his landlord.

Hey! I just heard on the vine from a reliable source that people are saying that "The Observer" is a pedophile and a trisexual! Just thought I would pass this information on to you all.

See the difference? Thanks TO for being so co-opertive in helping to explain what SwiftBoating is. I hope no one takes this statement The Observer" is a pedophile and a trisexual! out of context.

How about allowing politicians to sue for false attacks?

I'd favor that.

They can sue, there are just a lot of hurdles for a public figure to sue in such cases and even where justified can backfire in part due to the rhetoical weapon of being against "free speech".

Why the extra hurdles? Becuase of concerns that lawsuits could be used to suppress free speech.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians.

Anyone who is intent on being "vicious" and smart and well counseled can get away with clearly implying something that is false but as long as phrased carefully can have an "opinion" escape hatch from liabiilty. Some of these groups would love to be sued for the publicity and chance to litigate on a uneneve playing field.

After all, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Or to use the modern proverb: Never wrestle with a pig. You'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.

Or, When you get into a @!$%# fight with the devil, don't expect to come out smelling like roses.

Suing for "Slander" or "libel" is almost impossible unless you can prove original authorship, and intent, and not just someone repeating hearsay as fact, or expressing an "opinion'. But now we know the true nature and source of this social diseases...

That's why we need to reform the laws. I don't think original authorship should matter. If it is being disseminated with a reckless disregard to whether it is true, a politician/public figure should be able to get a Cease and Desist order and sue. That's what I'd like to see. It would protect both parties and raise the discourse in the public square.

a politician/public figure should be able to get a Cease and Desist order and sue. That's what I'd like to see

You already can - IF you can prove your case.

That would of course be a suppression of free speech and give more power to unelected judges. If it were implemented in a perfect manner without error, that would be great, of course the world doesnt usually work that way.

That's why we need to reform the laws.

How? By legisilatively making things that are not clear magically clear? By making judges infalliable? What exactly is this proposed reform? Are you even sure you know what the laws say already?

The Responsibility is to the People.

"I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers,(open and honest government) and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

Government is supposed to be open and honest

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers,(open and honest government) and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people."

When the Government stonewalls and prevents full information to the public that system breaks down. Prominent examples include lying about spying on the American people (then attacking the New York Times for trying to fufill this ideal), lying about the cost of the Medicare Modernization Act, distorting the case for war, using secrecy classification and declassification as a politicized tool by selective release, smear campaigns and lying (including several counts of perjury by the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff, a Vice President who claims to be above government information laws, etc, etc, etc.

That's why your name is Catch 22.... Freedom of the press has been compromised as well, sold out or bought out from under them, the result is the same, the end of a free press. They are to be, to some extent, the fourth leg of the chair, Executive, House, The Legislative Branch, and the Free Press, the eyes and ears of the public. To help keep us informed if the Government goes astray and contrary to the will of their sovereigns, the People. Remember when "60 minutes" was more "investigative reporting", and not tabloid news show about Brittany Spears lack of panties?

This isnt a Catch22, it is however, not particularly surprising.

the end of a free press.

Its a bit premature to declare free press dead, its not like there havent been similar problems throughout history. The Bush administration has taken them to extremes, and the myth of liberal bias is an effective propaganda tool and making the situation worse, the free press isnt dead - it is largely sensationalist and pathetic. Then again, these are not exactly new flaws either.

Its still relatively free, just willfully coopted and manipulated for mutual benefit.

Angry Blonde: Amen to that! How hard is it to toggle over to Snopes.com before forwarding some ridiculous e-mail? And how many people just push that "forward" button without even thinking of doing that?!? That's why there are idiots out there who still believe that Obama, rather than Keith Ellison, took his oath of office on the Koran and refused to salute the flag. SHEEEEEESH!
Yours,
Angry redhead

People generally believe what they want to believe. So if you're looking for a reason not to like Obama, and don't want to admit to yourself it's because of the color of his skin, latching on to a lie like "he's a Muslim" becomes very easy.

As I commented on another blog today, Democrats need to do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to Dan Rather in 2004, and make it about the messenger, not just a defensive response to the message. We need to hear the name "Karl Rove" loudly and often whenever some smear against Obama surfaces, especially if Rove, wearing his "impartial news commentator" mask, talks about it on Fox.