Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
I think it's basically true that all candidates tell lies, and frankly, the fault isn't theirs, it's ours. The American people are inconsistent, but they expect their leaders to be consistent; which means that politicians have to change their views but always claim they haven't. For example, while I think it's simplistic to say that Kerry was for the War before he was against it, that's a pretty accurate description of American voters. At various times, a majority have said that the War was a mistake, but when you ask if they're more or less likely to vote for a candidate because he supported the war, many more people say they're more likely to vote for that candidate. So there you have it: most Americans think the War was a mistake and most Americans want a President who supported the War.

None of this would be a problem if Americans accepted that their leaders could change their minds, but that's also seen as a weakness. So -- somewhat bizarrely -- politicians are forced to claim that they've been saying the same thing all along, even though it's the voters themselves who''ve flip-flopped. Here's an example: during the first debate, Kerry said that the Iraq War was a mistake. Later, when asked whether troops were dying for a mistake, he said that they weren't. That's a contradiction. But the source of the contradiction is in ourselves. Polling shows that many Americans have come to believe that the Iraq War was a mistake that has made us less safe, but to honor our sons, daughter, mothers and fathers who've died for our country, we cannot bear saying their deaths were in vain.

Personally, I think Cheney's lie was pretty egregious. He implied that he's presided over the Senate every Tuesday since he took office; in fact, he's done it twice. I'm genuinely surprised that not one Bush supporter has acknowledged that Cheney was at least misleading on this point. It's one thing to support a candidate, it's another to pretend that your candidate has no flaws. Look above and you'll see I said Kerry contradicted himself. Why can't you acknowledge the flaws in your own candidates?

The reason that people who oppose Bush bring up Cheney's lies is that we think Bush supporters pretend -- or maybe even believe -- that their own candidates are more virtuous. It says something that the main attack of the Kerry campaign has been that Bush made serious mistakes in Iraq, while the main attack of the Bush campaign has been that Kerry flip-flops. The Kerry campaign's attack is a criticism of policy, while the Bush campaign's is a character attack. You see that, right? And that's precisely why people who oppose Bush have highlighted Cheney's lies. I agree, all politicians lie, so why is the Bush campaign trying to win based on the claim that Bush and Cheney don't?

Comments
on Oct 08, 2004
Good post, Blogic, I'm going to give you an "insightful" for this one. I felt the same way after the first presidential debate -- it was almost impossible to find a single right winger who said that Bush lost -- with the exception of Draginol, who really isn't hardcore right wing, but still a Bush supporter. On the other hand, after Cheney's obvious victory in the VP debate, I was shouted down a couple of times by the lefties for admitting that Edwards, although he did fine, was outperformed. Dunno, I think we've all got our blinders on, but I like to read someone on "my" side pointing out the flaws of "our" side. It's only by pointing out these faults that we can start trying to fix them. Thanks for this article!
on Oct 08, 2004
You can accuse me of being late stepping to the plate, but I thought Bush was terrible in the first debate. Full disclosure requires that you know I was traveling from the East Coast to Arizona during the debate and didn't see it, so my opinion is based on the clips shown later and transcripts. I strongly support President Bush because of his policies and because of his fidelity to a set of principles. Kerry can't show up in the last month of the campaign, pretend to have convictions and principles after demonstrating for 20+ years that he is a moral chameleon, and expect any rational person to believe him.

BTW, McAwful is just tap dancing like crazy on Fox right now trying to call this a Home Run for Kerry. He is scary.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 08, 2004
I actually think Kerry is more virtuous than his supporters. The single biggest reason why I'm likely to vote for Bush is that the the ugliness I've seen from the left (not casual supporters I've seen here on JU) such as MoveOn.org and Michael Moore and that other sleaze has made me not want a candidate that is associated with those kinds of people to win.
on Oct 09, 2004
I actually think Kerry is more virtuous than his supporters.


Gotta bust your chops on that one, Drag. He's just as sleazy as the whole campaign crowd, a truly empty suit. And I think he has no problem at all with Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, or Whoopi Goldberg. I have more respect for rank and file Democrats who support his policies, fluctuating as they do, out of genuine conviction, than I do for the man himself.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 09, 2004
It is very tough to be honest when the messages to the millions are in sound bites, and the analysis is mostly of the "gotcha" variety, where any line will be taken out of context and tortured far beyond its original meaning.

In this atmosphere, if you want to win, you need to look presidential in the sound bite setting, and you need an outstanding staff of image makers who create a persona out of whole cloth, and then try to sell that persona to the public. Neither the real person nor the actual underlying principles of government have any place in the election.

In this atmosphere, honesty -- like courage and intelligence -- only has meaning as an image to be chosen and emphasized. One man who I know second hand, who worked in two past Republican administrations, has gone as far as to say that you might as well give up -- in truth, you know nothing whatsoever about the actual people running for office.

Given the tangible evidence that I see, the Bush administration is particularly amoral and dishonest, while Kerry (and assumedly the people around him) are particularly stupid, or, at least inarticulate. Both campaigns have chosen to smear the other on exactly their own weakness, and, given the nature of image advertising, the messages have stuck.

But the concept of real honesty has no meaning in an image campaign.
on Oct 09, 2004
I'm not sure how you can think the Left is particularly uglier than the Right in this election. As I've mentioned, I read both Democratic Underground and Free Republic, and I'd say they're pretty equally ugly/sleezy/crazy. I also think the Swift Vet Attack was showed the same nastiness that's been shown by some of the anti-Bush attacks.

And, of course, Karl Rove is famous for smear campaigns. Just ask John McCain, who publically blamed Bush for the Georgia attacks implying that McCain had fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, and that McCain had been brainwashed by the Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war.

If you're avoiding candidates associated with this kind of slime, I don't see how you can support Bush or Kerry.
on Oct 09, 2004
Just ask John McCain, who publically blamed Bush for the Georgia attacks implying that McCain had fathered a mixed race child out of wedlock, and that McCain had been brainwashed by the Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war.


BS, you should know better than that. Senator McCain blamed the man not Bush, and Bush condemned the attacks.

blogic you are going off the deep end.

- GX
on Oct 10, 2004
McCain repeatedly said George Bush should be "ashamed" of the attacks. Here's a link to the transcript, so readers can judge for themselves who may have gone off the deep end. McCain blames Bush. End of story. McCain even points to a tactic that Kerry complained about this year: that Bush praises an opponent even as his surrogates smear the same person. The state was South Carolina, not Georgia. Once again, I want to remind readers that my point is that if you're avoiding candidates who are associated with slimy tactics, you can't vote for Bush or Kerry.

This is from Larry King Live, February 15, 2000:
MCCAIN: Well, let me tell you what happened. There was an ad run against me, we ran a counter-ad in New Hampshire, Governor Bush took the ad down. And then I was beat up very badly by all of his surrogates, called Clinton, called Clinton-lite, called every -- a hypocrite. I mean, you've seen...

[snip]

But let me tell you what really went over the line. Governor Bush had an event, and he paid of it, and standing -- and stood next to a spokesman for a fringe veterans' group. That fringe veteran said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans.

Now, I don't know if you can understand this, George, but that really hurts, that really hurts.

And so five United States senators, Vietnam veterans, heroes, some of them really incredible heroes, wrote George a letter and said, Apologize, you should be ashamed...

BUSH: Let me speak to that.

MCCAIN: You should be ashamed. Now if you want...

KING: Is he responsible for what someone else says?

MCCAIN: Well, this same man -- he stood next to him, it was his event.

BUSH: Let me -- let me answer that.

MCCAIN: You should be ashamed

[snip]

BUSH: Let me say something, John. Let me finish. Let me finish.

John, I believe that you served our country nobly. And I've said it over and over again. That man wasn't speaking for me. He may have a dispute with you...

MCCAIN: He was at your event.

[snip]

BUSH: The man was not speaking for me. If you want to know my opinion about you, John, you served our country admirably and strongly, and I'm proud of your record, just like you are.

[snip]

MCCAIN: You paid for an event and stood next to a person. And when you were asked if you would repudiate him, you said, no.
on Oct 10, 2004
[snip]


This.

Kerry Pulls Ad of McCain Smear Complaint

Friday, Aug. 27, 2004
NEW YORK - President Bush and Sen. John Kerry bowed to the wishes of popular maverick John McCain on Thursday, as the president embraced the Republican senator's legal fight against big-money special interest groups airing negative ads and the Democratic nominee scrapped a commercial that featured McCain.

Their bitter fight over Vietnam-era military service took a compelling new twist as Kerry stood by the central charge in his ad — that Bush has used smear tactics to undercut the Democrat's valorous combat record. "I am absolutely telling you the God's honest truth about what happened and what took place over there," Kerry told supporters in Minnesota.

He has been on the defensive since a group financed by Bush supporters, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, aired a television commercial early this month accusing Kerry of exaggerating his wartime experience. Calling the group a front for the Bush campaign, Kerry unveiled an ad this week that features four-year-old footage of McCain accusing Bush of smear tactics in their bitterly contested 2000 GOP primary race.

The fierce response reflects concerns inside the Kerry camp that the debate could undercut his signature political theme — as a decorated Vietnam veteran, Kerry argues, he is capable of replacing the incumbent Republican while the nation is at war. It is too early to tell by polls whether the debate has hurt Kerry. Or whether it has exposed Bush, who served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the war, to voter backlash.

The only obvious winner is McCain, a former Vietnam War hero who emerged from his 2000 defeat as one of the nation's most popular politicians, beloved by independent voters and courted by both presidential candidates. He has welcomed the attention, often instigating it, with an eye toward a possible run for the presidency in 2008.

Three weeks ago, the Arizona senator asked Bush to condemn the anti-Kerry ad. This week, he asked Kerry to withdraw the anti-Bush ad.

With their actions Thursday, Bush and Kerry satisfied McCain's demands.

Announcing that Kerry had yanked his ad, spokesman David Wade said, "It's long past time that Bush also take McCain's advice and do the right thing by putting an end to the smears and lies on John Kerry's service."

Bush has criticized all outside group attack ads, including the Swift Boat Veterans group's anti-Kerry commercial. Kerry's campaign insists Bush has essentially endorsed the accusations against Kerry because he has not denounced the ad.

McCain sought to take Bush off the hook, suggesting that the president had gone far enough in condemning the accusations.

The political reprieve came only after the White House announced that Bush will join forces with McCain in legal action to crack down on political ads aired by outside groups, dubbed "527s" because of the section of the tax code that covers them.

Legislative Action

"The president said if the court action doesn't work, that he would be willing to pursue legislative action with Sen. McCain on that," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said after Bush called McCain with the news.

McClellan did not indicate how quickly Bush would act. Election Day is Nov. 2.

McCain, an advocate of campaign finance reform, welcomed the White House embrace and said he would soon press forward with efforts to force Democratic and Republican groups to live within fund-raising limits. Currently, the 527s raise money with few limits under so-called "soft money" rules.

McCain suggested, and associates privately confirmed, that he had accepted Bush's statements as proper condemnations of the anti-Kerry ad.

"I've said before I would like for the president to specifically condemn that ad, but the president has said John Kerry served honorably and also the president is now committed to acting to try to bring 527s into regulation," McCain told The Associated Press. He said the lawsuit will likely have no impact on the election.

Kerry's advisers belittled the White House action, calling it a ploy to gloss over the attacks against their boss.

"It's a little ironic that George Bush is now trying to assume the mantle of campaign finance reformer given the fact that he worked so hard to block the McCain-Feingold bill when it came up for a vote," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said, referring to campaign finance legislation sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin.

Kerry running mate John Edwards took a glancing jab at Bush while campaigning in New Mexico, denouncing "the same old false, negative attacks."

In Minnesota, Kerry pointed out that the Navy documented his actions 35 years ago, and called the accusations "the lie that's been put out there."

While many Democrats want the controversy to go away, Kerry's team plans to keep it alive at least until Bush's convention gets under way here next week. His team is underscoring ties between the anti-Kerry group and the Bush campaign. Republicans say there are similar ties between Kerry's campaign and Democrats 527s.

Previewing a line of attack against Kerry at the convention, Republican chairman Ed Gillespie said Kerry "can't have everything both ways" on campaign finance reform, the war in Iraq and other issues.

A Los Angeles Times Poll shows Kerry losing a bit of ground since July on questions related to his Vietnam experience, his honesty and his fitness to serve as commander in chief. A CNN-USA Today survey shows that people believe 2-to-1 that Kerry is probably telling the truth about his Vietnam record.

But Kerry lost half the support of people who said they would vote for him based on what they learned about his military experience during his convention last month.

© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

blogic, next you will be telling us that Bush stole Florida, but glare over the fact that you must do a RECOUNT IN ALL COUNTIES FOR IT TO BE LEGAL, OTHERWISE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. If Gore would have gotten away with it HE WOULD HAVE STOLE THE ELECTION.

Contact Senator John McCain [LINK]
Send him a message and ask him yourself, I bet he will say something different than what picture you are trying to paint or is the man not allowed to think for himself?

- GX
on Oct 10, 2004
"I agree, all politicians lie, so why is the Bush campaign trying to win based on the claim that Bush and Cheney don't?"


They aren't. You can frame the question in as eloquently as you want, prefaced by as much as you want, but you are asking the question about the wrong side.

Take the time to go back and look at how many times the word "mislead", "lied", "dishonest", etc., have been used, and look who used them. Kerry is called a waffler, a flip-flopper. BUSH is called a liar. If anyone is irrationally pretending that they are the "honest" candidates, it is Kerry/Edwards.
on Oct 10, 2004
Readers should note that the posted Associated Press article in no way contradicts the transcript of John McCain's own words, nor my description of his words in that comment.
on Oct 10, 2004
Readers should note that the posted Associated Press article in no way contradicts the transcript of John McCain's own words, nor my description of his words in that comment.


If McCain was so hard up about it the Kerry Ad that had McCain in it would have still played and McCain would have let it, or did you miss that point?

Still would like to see you put your money where your mouth is and ask the man. Come on see what the man says or you afraid of asking a Senator the question about what he thinks?

- GX