NY Times' Phillips's revisionist history: "Swift-boating" is "a verb for negative ads"

Between a "negative ad" and what those Swiftboat hacks did to Kerry, calling in to question how he served his country with boatloads (ha!) of lies. Meanwhile, a COPY of a letter casting aspersions on Bush's time tucked in the safe womb of a champagne unit was more than sufficient cause to unhorse Dan Rather's illustrious, distinguished career.

If the standard were anymore doubled, it’d bite itself in the ass twice.

Swiftboating is strictly the providence of the Republican Party, for it is wholly unnecessary to assassinate someone's character with the Sword of Mendacity when their record of incompetence, cronyism and utter failure shall impale them quite sufficiently.

Curse you, MMFA, for being "among the first to use 'swiftboat' as a verb." Thank you for introducing another ambiguous term into the English language, the definition of which may depend on your party affiliation. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Isn't Bush doing enough damage to the English language?

So, for future reference, it isn't "swiftboating," it's defamation...and thank you for your support.

george bush is to general incompetence. the former in both examples are particularly nasty examples, tied to one political party, that are demonstrably damaging to democracy while the former are large categories, that cut across larger demographic groups.

... is a particular thing. It is to attack a partisan target ON PERSONAL BASIS (rather than on issues) with smear which is not based in truth or fact. Further, it is to indiscriminately (and perhaps unintentionally, but inevitably) SMEAR those related to the topics of the smear ... "acceptable collateral damage" (i.e. If one has a Purple Heart, one is a COWARD, because the REAL heros in Vietnam refused their Purple Hearts in order to stay with their buddies in combat; if you accepted a Purple Heart, you wanted to go home and abandon your squad in a "cut and run").

By contrast, a "negative ad" can be anything that criticizes what an opponent has done or said, rather than solely promoting one's own agenda and ideas. If focused on ISSUES, "negative advertising" is a vital part of the "compare and contrast" necessary to politics in America today. Specifically, a candidate MUST say what he would do, and also explain why his opponent's ideas are not working or have produced bad results.

Thus, the "negative ad" is not only acceptable, but NECESSARY for political debate. By contrast, "Swiftboating" is immoral and despicable, and seeks to pervert the democratic process.

To define "Swiftboating" as mere "negative advertising" would be like defining "brutal rape" as a mere "sexual encounter" ... it does not come close to clarity with a purposeful whitewash.

The ad in question does not distort or lie. It simply says that Senator George Allen voted against the bill to provide better body armor to our forces.

It's harsh, but seems to be true, therefore, he's not being "Swiftboated".

[link to www.senate.gov]

From the comments posted, I get the distinct impression that those who protest the loudest have little, if any, direct experience upon which to base their assumptions. Media Matters certainly fits into that category. According to MM's story, the attacks on Kerry's service were "based on lies, factual distortions, etc.." I wonder, then, how Media Matters and others who accept such an evaluation, explain the issues of Kerry's "Cambodian Christmas Fantasy" and the infamous (and equally absurd) "CIA Secret Agent story" (complete with fake souvenir hat!). Surely, those who are committed to the TRUTH and who are so eager to brand the Swift Boat Veterans as liars, must have a reasonable explanation as to why the Senator felt it was necessary and, indeed, acceptable to lie repeatedly about those two fictitious events. Since the last presidential campaign, organizations, like Media Matters, have themselves engaged in a campaign of lies, half truths and out right distortions when it comes to the SBVFT accusations. Perhaps the most glaring and most often used example is the statement that all of the Swift Boat accusations have been PROVEN to be false. That is an outright, intentional distortion of the facts. To date, not a single Swift Boat accusation has been definitively PROVEN to be false. The very most that can be said, with any degree of honesty, is that up to this point in time, the accusations REMAIN UNRESOLVED. I acknowledge that there has been a wealth of counter charges against the SBVFT but, such counter charges do little, if anything, to resolve the issues regarding Kerry. The Senator could have made an effort to resolve these issues by simply granting unfettered access to his military records. He declined to do so. In fact, despite reports to the contrary, he continues to do so. For a man who is so determined to be considered a war hero, I would have expected him to very willing to let the American public see his file. All of it. What could the file possibly contain that makes the Senator so afraid of it's release? Clues? Anyone?

Actually, I think Kerry called it a lucky hat, but it only took a few hours for your overlords to start reporting that Kerry claimed to havr a magic hat.

The fact that you mention the magic hat and Cambodia/Xmas tales tips your hand as to your primary source of information. Mega dittos, hang tough til Monday, the Oxymoron will be back to explain things to you.

But you might want to try some other sources.

Of course, I'm probably delutional.