Wash. Post editorial acknowledged Republicans dominated in "negative campaigning" but said it was "because they were the ones on the defensive"
SUMMARY: In an editorial, The Washington Post asserted that "[t]he worst offenders" of "negative campaigning" were "Republicans, but that probably was because they were the ones on the defensive." In fact, Republicans also employed vicious smears in winning the 2002 and 2004 elections.
In a November 9 editorial, headlined "A Better Way," which discussed how "[n]egative campaigning hit new lows this year," citing four tactics used by Republicans this election cycle, The Washington Post asserted that "[t]he worst offenders ... were Republicans, but that probably was because they were the ones on the defensive." In fact, Republicans also employed vicious smears in winning the 2002 and 2004 elections. For instance, during the 2002 Georgia Senate race, then-Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss linked then-incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, a former Army captain who lost three limbs during the Vietnam War, to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and attacked Cleland's record on national security. During the 2004 presidential race, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now Swift Vets and POWs for Truth), which backed President Bush, also employed smear tactics to falsely attack Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) record during and after his service in Vietnam, a smear previously noted by the Post's editorial page.
Additionally, the Post editorial cited the "sleazy new practices such as robo-calls designed to annoy and deceive voters" but did not note that they were employed by Republicans, not Democrats, as its own reporting has. The editorial also referred to "the Election Day disgrace of Maryland's top two elected officials sanctioning the use of a clearly false campaign flier and then compounding the insult to the targeted Prince George's County audience by using out-of-state homeless people to distribute the material" but did not note that the campaign was conducted by Republicans. As the Post reported on November 7, "Inaccurate sample ballots describing Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele as Democrats were handed out to voters in at least four polling sites in Prince George's County."
Despite the Post editorial's suggestion, Republicans have a history of engaging in controversial attacks on their Democratic opponents and such attacks are not unique to the 2006 midterms. For instance, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, during that 2002 Georgia Senate race, Chambliss aired advertisements against Cleland that featured footage of Saddam and bin Laden and attacked Cleland on his record on national security. As the Post itself reported in a July 3, 2003, article:
It [the ad] opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators," said a narrator, "Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times!"
The Chambliss ad was immediately condemned, as the Post reported, by Republican Sens. John McCain (AZ) -- who said of the ad, "[I]t's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible" -- and Chuck Hagel (NE) -- who threatened to run an ad denouncing Republican officials if they didn't pull it off the air.
Additionally, in 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth became famous for airing false and discredited ads attacking Kerry's Vietnam service record. Among other things, the Swift Boat Veterans accused Kerry of lying to receive the medals he was awarded during his service and of betraying the troops by giving anti-war testimony before Congress in 1971. An August 24, 2004, Post editorial condemned the ads, stating that "ads by the group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had crossed the line in smearing the service that earned Mr. Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star." The editorial further noted that "additional evidence has emerged, in reporting by The Post's Michael Dobbs and in other papers, that further discredits the group's claims."
The Post's editorial reflects a pattern among the media in denouncing "dirty campaigning" and suggesting both parties are culpable, while providing only Republican transgressions as examples, as Media Matters has previously noted (here and here). For instance, the October 25 broadcast of ABC's Nightline reported that "both sides are playing a serious game of hardball" with "mudslinging" attack ads hitting "below the belt," focusing entirely on a handful of controversial Republican ads that garnered wide media attention and were broadly condemned, both for their inaccuracies and their personal attacks. But the report did not cite one instance in which a Democrat had made similar attacks. Likewise, in an online report on how recent campaigns advertisements are "getting ugly," ABC News, unable to point to a single instance of "nasty" attacks from Democratic candidates or their supporters, suggested it is only a matter of time before "the left" begins to "unleash its garbage as well." ABC News offered no evidence to back up its assertion.
Hardball is one thing; smears and mudslinging quite another. The Republicans do it to each other too -- remember what was done to McCain in South Carolina? No lie is too big, no lie is too small.
It's their M.O. SMEAR SMEAR SMEAR Lose Ask for bipartisanship.
those should be listed. (kinda new at this)
Let me try just one more time: SwiftVets opposed John Kerry. We did not support George Bush. We were effective because we told the truth about what we experienced with John Kerry in Vietnam. Kerry finally admitted that he lied about "Christmas in Cambodia". Our comments have been truthful and factual. The media analysis of our comments had been awful, dominated by unsupported allegations. Tom Wright Offifer in Charge, PCF 44 & 89
Yeah, all those swift boat vets who "served" with Kerry in Vietnam and were never even near the guy.
and kerry planned it all back then. he didn't deserve one of those medals he got.
Your "group" has been discredited how many times by how many different people? But I do give you credit for one thing. You changed the course of things, and now people actually believe that John Kerry lied about things to get medals. It's funny how you guys "served" with John Kerry, but only in the sense that you were in the same country with him. I've seen the interviews with the men who were actually on the boat with him, and they all say the same thing. Stand up guy. Ask the guy he pulled out of the water, and saved how he feels about John Kerry.
I do thank you for your service to this country though. But stop spewing lies please.
>>>..."because we told the truth about what we experienced with John Kerry..."<<<
Glad you checked-in, because I can tell you to your face that, as a Vietnam vet, I think you and your comrades are just about the worst filthy, rotten, lying scum I've ever come across.
I with Dave_Chicago on this one.
They can take their service and shove it. I would be happy to be the sailor to do it.
Swift Boat duty in Vietnam was voluntary for commissioned officiers, and specialized for enlisted, John Kerry had done his forward assignment on a destroyer, and instead of going to a luxury Euorpean duty, or stateside, he volunteered for the most dangerous duty for a Naval Officer.
Anyone whom would lie about serving with him to malign him for political advantage, to smear his record is a sack of sh-t..
If a Swift Boater, his son, brother, mother, or anybody has a problem with that I'd be happy to straighten ya out!
Usually, I'm against piling on, but for a Swift Boater I'll make an exception:
You are disingenuous to the core, a compulsive liar who helped dream up one vicious attack after another to bolster the election campaign of a spoil brat President who, in his whole ne'er-do-well life, never once had to cooperate or share with others, let alone have the stones to actually serve in a war zone like John Kerry did.
Not only did you not serve with John Kerry, you did not serve your country when it needed your candor and honesty most, during an election year. By any vigorous definition, you, sir, fit neatly under the heading of traitor, or at least provocateur, and no, sorry, your service to this country in day’s past does not excuse nor condone your mendacious smears of 2004. If anything, it sours and turns to ashes your contribution to our nation. It is not I who stand in judgment over you but the Spirits of the Dead that haunt the walls of the Vietnam Memorial and the soon-to-be erected Iraqi War Memorial, a Memorial whose ultimate tally of names I dare say your selfish actions may have in fact added to.
How do you sleep at night knowing you and your liar ilk are partly responsible for the deaths of so many brave men and women in Iraq who, under the auspices of different leadership, would have been in the succor of hearth and home instead of playing Iraqi whack-an-insurgent to a fatal end?
Perhaps that is the most damning indictment of all, that you did not consider those who serve now, that you were so blinded by your political affectations that in never once occurred to you, midst your orgy of lies, that your actions might have dire consequences on the battlefields of Iraq.
May God forgive you, because the majority of the American people sure won’t. They know you for a fact, sir, for all the lies on Earth cannot cover your shame.
...well said! Thank you.
SwiftBoatLiar got served.
Would you, like, run for President.
And spot on in every way.
Except that Mr. Wright actually did serve with Kerry. Although he seems to be less than truthful about his claim that he refused to patrol with him:
[link to homepage.mac.com]
If they didn't bunk together, they didn't serve together, and all the SBV I have seen that actually were on a boat with Kerry supported him fully in 2004.
...because all the officers usually bunked on the LSTs when they weren't out patrolling.
But granted, he didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry, and 9 out of 10 of those who did support him totally. The 10th - Steve Gardner - is of course a proven liar.
...but it won't change the fact that most of your money came from Texas Republican moneymen who didn't serve a day in uniform.
It doesn't change the fact that your group helps fund one frivolous lawsuit after another designed to do nothing but harrass John Kerry and his supporters - the first of which was laughed out of court. Surprised? Check SBVT's donation record to the so-called Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation.
Oh, and while we're at it, John Kerry never "admited he lied" about Christmas in Cambodia or any other event during his VN service. He never claimed to have been "sent on a secret mission" on that date - simply that he had been patroling on the border and believed he had crossed during an ambush. Unlike your Swift Boat pals like Steve Gardner, he did bother to correct the record on the matter.
And yeah....when are those two guys who supposedly went with you to "confront" Kerry going to step forward and corroborate your story?
You hardly seem to be the one to talk about "unsupported allegations," but if you want to see some real debunking of the Swift Boat Liars, try this site:
[link to homepage.mac.com]
I had also meant to say that Kerry's claim that he was patrolling on the border on Christmas Eve 1968 is supported by at least two crewmen as well as a fitness report that describes the ambush.
You see, it was Steve Gardner who was lying on the matter.
Who'da thunk, eh?
Were effective because Kerry didnt do enough soon enough to counteract them. Because their LIES had time to sink in. When they were finally debunked by the press it already had an effect. So try one more time to slide off into oblivion and shame.
did you Swift Boaters get the financial backing for your "Campaign Against Kerry"?
The single "fact" you sieze on to "prove" that everything you said is true is the admission about "Christmas in Cambodia"? By that guideline, your leader John O'Neill was either in Cambodia, or NOT in Cambodia, and lied to the President of the United States, Richard Nixon.
From a tape of their meeting:
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
So, "Christmas in Cambodia", you think is both PROVEN to be wrong ... which it is not ... but also your own GUY seems to be utterly confused on that topic.
Since that's the only ammo you loosed here, and it's a dud, we must believe that you have no defense for your attack of a decorated veteran, and thus are a craven partisan opportunist.
To that end, you guys ALSO have smeared all decorated combat vets who were awarded Purple Hearts. Why? Because you said Kerry sought purple hearts to gain an exit to VietNam (an exit that would not be necessary if he had not volunteered in the first place, but that aside...), and that his action was COWARDLY, because he would leave his brothers behind. REAL HEROS refused their purple hearts, you guys have said, because THEY wished to stay with their buddies. By this calculus, you Swift Boat "Vets" have smeared every decorated combat vet in America; if you have a Purple Heart, you are a COWARD.
You should be ashamed, but I guess you think it was worth it to keep Kerry out of the White House, and instead install the Chickenhawk Bush who has so far LIED us into a war that has killed nearly 3000 brave American soldiers and gravely injured tens of thousands more, and for NOTHING.
You are the antithesis of a "patriot".
You Swift Boat Vets are shameful, cowardly, and ANTI-AMERICAN. You have no honor, you have no shame, and mostly, you have no EVIDENCE to back up your smears. Craven partisan opportunists and assassins, the lowest form of life. What you guys did is inexcusable. Dismissed.
If the Republicans were "on the defensive," it was their own party members who put them in that position. It wasn't the Democrats, it was Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Curt Weldon, Don Sherwood, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, George Allen, Katherine Harris, Ken Blackwell, Bob Taft, Tom Reynolds, Conrad Burns, Richard Pombo, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. These people put their party on the defensive. The Post could have easily avoided confusion and avoided looking sympathetic to Republican smear ads by simply stating that any wounds the GOP had suffered during this campaign were self-inflicted.
Freud would have called this projection. I call it Karl Rove's legacy.
it was all the people you mentioned the Repubs were "on the defensive" from . . . and let's not forget Jack A-bribe'em-off . . .
Howard Dean UP, Karl Rove Down
Check out this video. The Democrats are simply getting out of control!
Very funny link. At last we know the sordid truth about Billy.
Those poor defenseless Republicans, constantly browbeaten by the mean old Democrats.
My sympathy runneth dry...
"We were effective because we told the truth about what we experienced with John Kerry in Vietnam."
To your credit, you are the only anti-Kerry guy who actually saw Kerry on the rivers of Vietnam, who shows his face on the internet on occasion. However . . . .
How about disclosing who the other two officers were who were with you when you supposedly told John Kerry to go home, Mr. Wright? Your credibility would take a big step forward if you were to tell us who they were.
The truth? I don't know if I would go that far. It's more like a masterful job of misrepresentation, wild spin, and omission of facts that didn't serve the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" in their goal -- shamelessly smearing John Kerry.
Doug Reese
Why is it, Mr. Wright, that despite being asked numerous times to disclose the identities of the two men who supposedly went with you to ask Kerry to leave - you cut and run?
If everyone disliked him so, it seems that at least one other person would come forward to validate your story.
So far not a single person has.
Why is that?
It is becoming increasinglt apparent that this country is fast losing its independent, accountable media. With newspapers losing readership handover fist, electronic media is becoming more hype than subsatance, it is no small wonder that more and more people are gravitating towards bloggers, International media on line, Democracy Now, and Free Speech TV. I am not certain what election the so called journalists at the WaPo watched, but overwhelmingly the Rethuglicans not only ran the worst advertising with all their lies, they resorted to tactics that do not exemplify a democracy. Please show me what caused the Re-Thuglicans to go negative or defensive, as the WaPo so eloquently, waxed?
Riggggghhhhht... on the defensive. Yes, a conservative white businessman with an "R" by his name, like Bob Corker, is really fighting an uphill battle to replace the previous conservative white man with an "R" by his name, Bill Frist, and win a far-left state like Tennessee. With an impossible task like that he really had no choice but to smear Harold Ford Jr.
Oh, those sly Democrats were able to do the very best sort of dirty campaigning - simply telling the truth about the scoundrels constituting the opposition, and the administration. Even the MSM couldn't sufficiently distort that truth, or the campaigns based upon it, to maintain the Repugnant majorities.
BUT having now "demonstrated" the fairness of the crummy electoral process by allowing the Dems to accept the blame for the inevitable catastrophes yet to appear from past and ongoing administration subversion of our constitution, Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and the Repugnants are poised to sweep the 2008 elections, and finish off any pretense of "Republic" or "Democratic" for our nation. Then the Repugs and the MSM can sing another chorus of "crybaby losers" if we complain. We can look to the MSM to continue to support those scoundrels, whether in or out of office (another thread hits explicitly at MTP as to appearances by pro-War, non-Democratic spokespersons, with no balancing representation by Dems or opponents of the illegal invasion of Iraq). These are the reasons I gather my "news" primarily from foreign papers, and check local 'casts or print only for local sports.
equated questioning the war to being " with the terrorrists ". That set the tone and gave permission to continue such rubbish withourt regard to constitutional rights.
im not convinced that was actually the real swift boat guy i think it may have been somone trolling but i have to say ATTA BOY DAVE TELL EM HOW YOU REALLY FEEL , DAMN
He's the real deal. While he doesn't stick around to answer questions, he is almost the only one who shows his "face" on the internet among the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth".
But, if he would just answer those questions . . . . . .
Doug Reese
It would be too much to ask that they just pointed out that slander and spin were the GOP way and they were flat out venal. This is by the way they would have characterized it if they were saying Democrats were far more guilty of negative campaigning. For the press its always ok the Republicans are bad, but... for Dems its whats wrong with these guys.