Media in a frenzy, but Clark's comment not extraordinary or unprecedented
SUMMARY: The media frenzy that has followed Wesley Clark's June 29 comment on CBS' Face the Nation that Sen. John McCain's military heroism alone does not establish his qualification to be president is partially based on the false premise that the comment is in some way extraordinary or unusual. In fact, in 2004, numerous media figures argued that Sen. John Kerry's military record alone did not qualify him to be president.
The media frenzy that has followed retired Gen. Wesley Clark's comments on the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation is based on at least two false premises: first, that Clark attacked Sen. John McCain's military service, and second, that his comment -- that one's, in this case McCain's, military heroism alone does not establish his qualification to be president -- is in any way extraordinary or unusual. As Media Matters for America has noted, Clark did not attack McCain's military service; he praised McCain as a "hero." Moreover, Clark's comments were far from the first time someone has said of a war veteran running for president that his military service alone does not make him qualified to be president.
Indeed, in 2004, numerous media figures argued that Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) military record alone did not qualify him to be president. For example:
- On the September 10, 2004, edition (accessed via Nexis) of Fox News' Special Report, Roll Call executive editor Mort Kondracke asserted that "this whole business of John Kerry saying I'm qualified to be commander in chief because I was a Swift boat commander in Vietnam is bunk. ... It does not qualify you to be the commander in chief of all the Armed Forces because you were a Swift boat commander."
- In a February 13, 2004, column, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote: "Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office -- and given the fact of Bush's honorable discharge -- it's time to dismount this jackass. Vietnam is over. To judge people now on the basis of what they said or did then is to forget how emotionally riven we were. And how young and naive we were. ... What's more important now is what would a man do as president?"
- In a September 23, 2004, column, syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell wrote of Kerry: "Never mind that people who were actually there with him in the 1960s dispute what a great job he did then. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did and none of the things that eyewitnesses in Vietnam said he did. How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?"
- In an August 26, 2004, column, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg wrote that "experience -- while more often than not superior to the lack of it -- isn't as powerful or important as we like to think. If service in Vietnam or in uniform were the prerequisite for correct thinking on military and foreign-policy issues, then you'd think Veterans would all agree with each other. Obviously, they don't. The media's favorite veteran, John McCain, disagrees with John Kerry about Iraq and most foreign-policy issues."
Moreover, then-staff writer Ronald Brownstein wrote in a July 28, 2004, Los Angeles Times news analysis (retrieved from Nexis) that President Bush's "aides quickly insisted that Kerry's military service in Vietnam, however laudable, was less relevant to his qualifications as commander in chief than his Senate voting record on national security issues -- which the Bush campaign has tried to portray as soft on defense. 'Every American, including the president ... believes John Kerry's service in Vietnam was admirable,' said Steve Schmidt, the Bush campaign's deputy communications director. 'But what's most striking is that in order to talk about John Kerry's accomplishments, they've had to go back for 35 years. There is no mention of what John Kerry has done in the Senate the past 20 years.'"
On the June 29 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, Clark said of McCain:
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
After Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer said, "[Sen.] Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down," Clark replied: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president. ... But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths."
From the September 10, 2004, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
JUAN WILLIAMS (Fox News contributor): Well, that's what they say. But let me just say, these documents have slowly poured out over the course of Mr. Bush's term. And they haven't been in a consistent fashion, where I were to say, here is an entire record of President Bush's service and here is why he did not show up for a period in the Alabama National Guard.
KONDRACKE: Let us stipulate this whole business is nonsense. It is a diversion.
WILLIAMS: That is a good point.
KONDRACKE: It's a diversion --
FRED BARNES (Weekly Standard executive editor): No, I don't agree with that.
KONDRACKE: No, it's a diversion from what the voters of America deserve.
WILLIAMS: I agree.
KONDRACKE: And that is a discussion of their future. I mean, this whole business of John Kerry saying I'm qualified to be commander in chief because I was a Swift boat commander in Vietnam is bunk. And the idea --
WILLIAMS: Why is it bunk?
KONDRACKE: Because you command a little boat. You are not commanding --
WILLIAMS: Let me just say this to you.
KONDRACKE: Just a second.
WILLIAMS: If you are in the military --
KONDRACKE: Just a minute.
WILLIAMS: -- and served --
KONDRACKE: Just a minute. Just a minute. Just a minute. It does not qualify you to be commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln did not fight in any wars, right? And he ran a very good war in the Civil War. FDR did not fight in any wars and he ran a very good war in World War II. It does not qualify you to be the commander in chief of all the Armed Forces because you were a Swift boat commander.
WILLIAMS: Can I respond to this point?
KONDRACKE: Nor does it mean that you were a lousy commander in chief if you were a hack-off back in the 1970s, and then became an upstanding person because you had a religious conversion --
WILLIAMS: Do you think that it adds to your credibility as the American people look at the fact that we're in war right now that you were able to say, I put myself on the line. I went to war for this country. I risked my life? Do you think that adds to something to the voters in terms of their information about your character and your willingness to put their children at risk?
KONDRACKE: But your record for 20 years on foreign policy is a much more important thing. And that's very weak.
WILLIAMS: I think people have a strong feeling about your character on this point.
JIM ANGLE (guest host): We need to take a break at this point. Coming up, maybe a little bit more of this.
[laughter]
ANGLE: But also, John Kerry says if the president were serious about fighting terrorism, he'd extend the weapons assault ban -- the assault weapons ban, rather. We'll ask our All-Star panel about that and maybe some more of this next.
From Parker's February 13, 2004, column:
In defense of Bush's record, the White House has produced military pay receipts. Outside entities, including The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, have investigated records and found nothing to substantiate claims of desertion. (www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131)
Kerry wisely has taken the high road during this obvious witch-hunt, saying he has no interest in Bush's record. Of course as long as he has people like Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe cluster-bombing the media with AWOL charges, the high road is a pretty easy leap. There's no way to go but up when the source for "desertion" is movie producer Michael Moore.
Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office -- and given the fact of Bush's honorable discharge -- it's time to dismount this jackass. Vietnam is over. To judge people now on the basis of what they said or did then is to forget how emotionally riven we were. And how young and naive we were.
By that standard, it is possible to forgive Kerry's 1970 Harvard Crimson interview in which he said he wanted to eliminate CIA activity and turn our troops over to the United Nations. He's changed his tune. Presumably he's wiser. So are we all.
What's more important now is what would a man do as president? We know what Bush would do. Kerry voted for the war on Iraq but against funding to finish the job, thus making life more difficult for our service men and women still on the front lines.
Which Kerry would be president, the hero who advances assertively against the threat of danger? Or the antiwar demonstrator who turns protest into political currency?
From Sowell's September 23, 2004, column:
Yet for the most important job in this country -- indeed, the most important job in the world -- Senator John Kerry has applied by talking about what he did in a wholly different job back in the 1960s.
Never mind that people who were actually there with him in the 1960s dispute what a great job he did then. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did all the things he said he did and none of the things that eyewitnesses in Vietnam said he did. How does that qualify anyone to be President of the United States?
The Kerry campaign and the liberal media want to make this election a referendum on President Bush, especially as regards Iraq. That too is an insult to our intelligence.
From Goldberg's August 26, 2004, column:
As for the president, the only area in which he beats John Kerry decisively in the polls is, broadly, in his capacity as commander-in-chief. The American people -- as well as a majority of veterans and (I presume) those serving in the military -- generally think Bush is a better war president than Kerry would be. And yet the Kerry campaign insists that Kerry's stint in Vietnam makes him more qualified to be a war president because George W. Bush's four-year term as a war president cannot outweigh the fact that John Kerry spent four months in Vietnam. Meanwhile a bunch of guys who served alongside Kerry under similar circumstances all say that Kerry's full of it, and the Democrats say they have no right to talk at all. Indeed, they want the book pulled from bookstores. Follow all of that?
Now, keep in mind this is all largely a reversal from twelve years ago when Bill Clinton ran for office. Back then the Paul Begalas and John Kerrys claimed that service in Vietnam -- or anywhere else -- was irrelevant to being an effective president (while some Republicans were largely saying the reverse). Now, suddenly, it is the qualification that trumps all others.
My point isn't the usual hypocrisy gotcha, though that's certainly worth pointing out. It's that experience -- while more often than not superior to the lack of it -- isn't as powerful or important as we like to think. If service in Vietnam or in uniform were the prerequisite for correct thinking on military and foreign-policy issues, then you'd think Veterans would all agree with each other. Obviously, they don't. The media's favorite veteran, John McCain, disagrees with John Kerry about Iraq and most foreign-policy issues (depending on which day of the week Kerry is talking). John Edwards talks about how Kerry still carries shrapnel in his leg and therefore...therefore...therefore, well, something along the lines of nobody's ever allowed to criticize John Kerry. Obviously, that's idiotic on its face. If it's not, maybe we should count the side with the most shrapnel in its collective body and declare it the most qualified to lead the country. My guess is Karl Rove would be happy with that.
We do not live in the world of Starship Troopers where only veterans are allowed to vote.
In a democracy, arguments and reason must count for something, if not necessarily everything. During the lead-up to the war, opponents of the war (including hundreds of nasty folks in my e-mail box) declared that the White House had no right to send troops into combat because they hadn't seen it themselves. Or, I remember Chris Matthews trying to bully Rich Lowry into silence during the lead-up to the war. Matthews shrieked at Rich something to the effect of "Have you ever been to the Middle East!?" And when Rich said no, Matthews responded something like "Well, then you have no right to talk."
This is the path to madness. If reading books and articles, talking to experts -- including veterans -- and making arguments built on facts and logic is always insufficient compared to the experience of being shot at -- or taking a walking tour of a Middle Eastern city -- then we must have compulsory military conscription for everybody -- men, women, Quakers, Amish, gays, and invalids included (and then find ways to rotate them through combat). That's the only way to ensure that everyone maintains their rights.
From the July 28, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:
And Bush aides quickly insisted that Kerry's military service in Vietnam, however laudable, was less relevant to his qualifications as commander in chief than his Senate voting record on national security issues -- which the Bush campaign has tried to portray as soft on defense.
"Every American, including the president ... believes John Kerry's service in Vietnam was admirable," said Steve Schmidt, the Bush campaign's deputy communications director. "But what's most striking is that in order to talk about John Kerry 's accomplishments, they've had to go back for 35 years. There is no mention of what John Kerry has done in the Senate the past 20 years."
The dueling arguments over the relevance of Kerry's Vietnam experience illustrate a key way the convention is sharpening and advancing the debate between the two contenders. In effect, the two sides are competing to define the frame that swing voters could use to assess Kerry's fitness to be president.
The rightwing's open hostility to Democrats has ZERO patriotic element, as far as Honoring and Supporting the Troops is concerned. They loathe and despise Democrats who served, and discredit their service, their character, their patriotism, and their courage at every opportunity. Kerry, Max Clelland, John Murtha, Wes Clark, and James Webb are routinely trashed by rightwing media, they are lied about and utterly disrespected.
What this shows, of course, is that the rightwing and Republicans have no regard whatsoever for the Military Services or those who wore the uniform. They laud ONLY Republicans, as if THEIR service gives them unique qualifications. Democratic veterans ... they are scum.
Such a partisan approach to so-called "support" for the military belies the absolute fraudulent nature of their claim of support.
If being a prisoner of war does qualify one to be a national leader, how many terrorist leaders are we busy qualifying in GitMo?
It was only a matter of time until your true hideous disrespect was on display Tex, once again. And you have the nerve to talk about valuing our troops after that contemptible comparison.
Your credibilty was in the toilet before that last statement of yours, now it's even further down the rathole. Amazing.
Tommy, your assessment of Tex is ridiculous. For example, did the North Vietnamese consider McCain to be a good soldier doing his job or did they think he was a killer from the sky?
While Tex did not compare McCain to the prisoners at Gitmo, he made the connection that judging what Americans think about McCain may be the same as some foreign country residents think of "their heros". And how do you know that all of the detainees are murderers? We don't even know their names. What if some were just in the wrong place at the worng time? How will their countrymen/families see them, as heros perhaps.
"If being a prisoner of war does qualify one to be a national leader, how many terrorist leaders are we busy qualifying in GitMo?"
Seems pretty obvious to me that a comparison was made.
What's so unfortunate, and telling, about Tommy's post is it is full of the same thing that the right wing and corporate media's response to Clark's rather benign interview has- self-righteous indignation. It's hard to combat, because it involves willfull ignorance.
Good job Tommy- Rush and Sean and all the other boys would be proud.
One country's hero is another country's attacker. We see Santa Anna as a bad guy, determined to hold Texans captive. Mexico likely sees him as a person who tried, but failed, to rightfully fight back against a civil war!
If you can't see that someone's perspective can classify a person's behavior in a different way than another person's perspective might, then you need to learn to do that.
If being a prisoner of war does qualify one to be a national leader, how many terrorist leaders are we busy qualifying in GitMo?
If being a prisoner of war is a qualifier for being a national leader in our nation, then it's reasonable to declare that when we hold prisoners of war, their status might qualify them to be national leaders in their own countries of origin.
Reasonable people don't think that being a POW qualifies someone to be a national leader. Therefore, we don't think that it qualifies POW's that are being held at Gitmo either to be their own country's leaders!
If you think that it does qualify someone, then you are the one making that comparison!
Reasonable people don't think...
Whoever said Tommy was reasonable! Anyway, excellent post.
Tommy you're waaayyyyy off base here and your attack on Tex typical of how conservatives interpret valid analogies. He was NOT comparing McCain to a terrorist. It was an analogy suggesting that if being a POW was qualification enough that many people including some at GITMO would then be equally qualified. It's an excercise in logic and holds up pretty well. Disregard Tommy on this one Tex. Afterall he's been wrong more often than right. He was afterall a Bush supporter at one time.
His point is exactly the opposite of that, Crispy (now a name of endearment btw).
What Tex said.
"If being a prisoner of war does qualify one to be a national leader, how many terrorist leaders are we busy qualifying in GitMo?"
Could you have distorted it any more?
The media coverage of Wesley Clark's comments are pathetic. General Clark DID NOT belittle McCain's service, however he did dispute McCain's claim that HIS service automatically makes him a better candidate for president.
I don't blame Clark for not apologizing to McCain, NONE is needed!
"...Clarke stated Kerry's service made him a better choice for the presidency..." mikewhiner
I believe you tried posting this same point on another thread, and were politely asked to provide a quote to back up your statement.
It's basic etiquette in these forums: when asked for evidence to back up your words, either provide it, or pretend that you're off-line and run away.At least that's what adults would do, the average wingnut is more likely to try a clumsy change of subject, or just post the same lie on another thread tomorrow.
To Col "Wing Nut"....if you read the other post I followed with the asked item. It is common etiquette to have your facts straight before making a fool of oneself.
The link, as previously posted:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.clark.transcript/index.html
Clark never said that service isn't a big deal anymore.
That's your problem. You can't provide a link that says that because it didn't happen.
BottleB., that's why I asked for a "quote" and not just a link.
When the pinheads are asked to back up what they're posting, and know they can't, they link to a lengthy article that got them emotionally worked up to where they read all sorts of things that aren't there.
Then they expect you to sift through the entire link trying to guess what the hell they're talking about. My internets are a bit wacky this morning, so I will admit that I couldn't actually open his link, but I'm going to assume that was the deal, just based on experience. Otherwise, he would have pasted a quote.
Clicking the button won't provide what's not there.
There's no evidence that Clark thinks that military service is not a qualifier. It's McCain's service that he's saying is not a qualifier. He thought Kerry's service was.
It's you who think in black and white who can't understand that saying that McCain doesn't qualify means that all military service is not a qualifier.
You are the one showing your shortcomings.
Clark didn't say that no one's military service might qualify them to be President. He specifically talked about McCain's service.
- “Attacking” McCain’s Military Record
What Wesley Clark really said; how the press missed itIt’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism. That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/attacking_mccains_military_rec.php?page=all
The words you are asking for are in MMFA story! He stated his military service does not justify him being president (A point, I might add I agree with). The problem is this same person stated in 2004 about John Kerry that his service to his country DID make him qualified to be president.
A complete flop that MMFA choose not to disclose.
Do you not understand that some soldiers have exhibited the qualities that qualify someone for the presidency and some have not?
Clark never said that military service cannot qualify one to be a good President. He said that McCain's military history didn't qualify him, but Kerry's did.
That's why the previous poster was unable to provide a link to document that. It doesn't exist.
"John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.......He has the will to fight. He has the moral courage born in battle to pursue and secure a strong peace"
Absolutely Mike, Clark heralded Kerry's service in 2004 because of politics, and he devalues McCain in 2008 for the same reason. Hypocrite.
Still on that flawed premise that I'm someone I'm not? Why? Don't you know that it makes your argument weaker to attack the message rather than the messenger? In reality, it's hard to make this argument much weaker, but you still manage to do it!
McCain's service history and John Kerry's service history are not the same.
There's a difference between the two military men that Clark said meant something. He was not being a hypocrite.
Sue, Your message is as weak as you, the messenger. Stop the games and own yourself.
So Clark is touting Kerry's service as more of a qualifier than McCains? That is your defense, that is ridiculous.
My message is very clear and has nothing to do with me being the messenger. I'm not Sue, and as afraid of her as you clearly still are, she must not have been a weak messenger either.
If you can't admit that different service members might have exhibited different skillsets and different abilities that might qualify one to be President and other not qualified in Clark's opinion, then the problem is yours in not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy. It has nothing to do with a flawed message from me.
Clark didn't say that service doesn't count. That's what Mike claimed that Clark was now saying. In case you forgot.....
Why is it then in 2004, Clarke stated Kerry's service made him a better choice for the presidency...but in 2008 Clarke flops to now say service is no longer that big a deal?
Clark is not flip-flopping. He's saying that some service qualifies, and other incidents don't qualify. Mike can't find any quote that would document Clark saying that "service" is no longer a big deal.
Still not Sue, and you need to look in the mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't make sense.
What Wesley Clark was saying was that his opinion is that Kerry's military service did qualify him and McCain's service does not.
Not everyone's military service qualifies them to be President.
"What Wesley Clark was saying was that his opinion is that Kerry's military service did qualify him and McCain's service does not"
Do you have any clue, Sue, how ridiculous that is? Even if I accept what you are claiming, that just makes Clark's ultra partisan comments even more politically disingenuous, but you said it, not me.
Aren't you the one continually defending someone because it was their opinion?
Well, in this case, Clark's opinion is that Kerry's service would make him a great president. What's wrong with someone having an opinion? You have many of them.
I criticize people's opinions all the time
Wrong. You pass off outright lies/smears identified by MMFA as opinions.
What's funny is that you don't realize that opinions should be based on facts. You, on the other hand, gleefully accept and promote opinions based on proven lies.
Now how does that help the national debate? On this forum, all it does is further your thread-derailing.
As I've said many times before, you are smart enough to know when someone is lying/spinning. You just don't care.
Exactly. I want to know why Clark's opinions are so outrageous.
It's likely that we'll get a similar response to when Tommy was asked to explain why it was a smear in the first place.
That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.
This is from the Columbia Journalism Review.
I wouldn't have asked to explain why if you had just done so.
Twelve people wouldn't have asked to explain why it was a swipe the other day if you had already done it.
You haven't. You can't. It's not a swipe.
I want to know why Clark's opinions are so outrageous.
They simply aren't. I'm sure Clark's opinion of Kerry's military service and leadership making him fit for the Presidency in 2004, remain with him today. And, as of today (Day Three since Bob Schieffer foolishly questioned Obama's ability to be President since he has yet to get shot down by a fighter plane), it remains an absolute fact that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Please, provide the facts for the wonderful tales you spin on the statement, "you had to be pretty bad to get shot down in one of those planes."
????????????????????????????
".......is partially based on the false premise that the comment is in some way extraordinary or unusual"
No, it does not. MMFA is free to editorialize on why they feel Clark's comments are being played up so much, but it has far more to do with the media running with any little controversy for affect, rather than their unusualness.
"why didn't they jump all over the comments made about Kerry in the same way that they're jumping on Clark's comments about McCain?"
I just said it, to stir it up.
Tommy plays the field.
And the field usually wins handily.
I am quite fickle, what can I tell ya.......
Yes, you've been having an affair with lies and cheating on truth for quite a while now.
What a shock. Tommy's trying to minimize this in an effort to distract us. What a strange new tactic he employs. Why, it's so strange that I'm going to point it out, because no one has ever used that tactic before, and it's never been pointed out that people try to disrupt serious discussions that damage their side with distractions before.
What, you mean that it has been pointed out that people on the losing side of the argument often try to distract those on the winning side? How quaint. I guess if that's the case, it totally demolishes Tommy's stance.
How awkward for him.
The media fell for the false meme that Clark smeared McCain's service. Tommy tried pushing that point yesterday, that it was a swipe. He couldn't tell us how it was a swipe, but it was despite his inability to explain why. Of course it was not a swipe - that's why he couldn't explain why it was a swipe. Then he misused and abused a comment from the Obama campaign about Clark's comment to claim that Obama was distancing himself from Clark. Obama denied that's true earlier today.
You can learn that you don't have any right to ask me to stop using any phrase I wish to use. It's a perfect phrase that I'm using in a proper way, so why would you want me to stop using it anyway? Is the use of an accurate phrase by someone else too disarming to you?
meme (mēm)
noun
a unit of cultural information, as a concept, belief, or practice, that spreads from person to person in a way analogous to the transmission of genes
You can stop sticking up for Tommy when what he says is indefensible.
I bet we both have an equal chance of those things happening. Never mind that my request is reasonable, and your demand is indefensible and a personal attack that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
If the media isn't pretending that Clark's comments are unusual or rare, then why didn't they jump all over the comments made about Kerry in the same way that they're jumping on Clark's comments about McCain?
Because in their view, McCain is a "hero." Kerry was not.
What this is really all about is the MSM vetting the Dem VP slot. They already demolished Hillary for the role, now it's Clarke-- a powerful threat--next it will be whoever else is in line. Ridicule and humiliation is the goal.
By November, they will have turned the Dems into a laughing stock, with their constant scrutiny and harassment. Everything the Dems do is seen as suspicious or questionable, a "what are they up to now" tone is always present.
In other words, what they did to Hillary they will now do to the others. Did Obama supporters expect anything different?
MMFA mentions that the news has gone wild over Clark's statement on the false assumption that is unusual (or "newsworthy").
But, Tommy, you counter that that's ridiculous. The news doesn't pretend to focus on anything newsworthy,they only do trivia.
And your beef is with MMFA?
YES!!!!! Bush did it in 2000 to McCain. Every Republican did it in the most vile way imaginable to Max Cleland in 2002. I'm sure there are countless other examples from further back.
Honestly, did you forget about all of these examples, or are you just lamely attempting to explain away a clear case of media bias?
The tactic goes back at least as far as the 1836 presidential election, but I guess that doesn't stop you from pretending to be an authority on topics that you know absolutely nothing about. Seriously, it took 2 minutes on Google to find this:
"[Vice-presidential candidate, Hugh Lawson] White used smear tactics against [Richard] Johnson's miscegenation and dubious war record ('I do not think a lucky random shot, that may or may not have hit a long-dead Indian, proscribes a man the right to the Vice Presidency') to win over votes in the South."
http://everything2.com/e2node/1836%2520US%2520Presidential%2520Election
Do you think that nobody else will see that a few lines above I gave you two examples from 2000 and 2002?
Just stop now. You're embarrassing yourself.
a Senatorial race and that makes your case?
No, it doesn't.
Before 2004 there were limited examples of one side attacking another's military record or lack thereof. The swiftboating of Kerry was an unprecendented tactic never before seen in politics to such a degree. This really started in 1992 with the right's questioning of Clinton's draft avoidance and moved on to the lefts questioning Bush's national guard duty and culminated with the dispicable swiftboat stuff. Despite the examples you guys have given, it hardly shows that such tactics were common and I challenge either of you to give examples of anything that comes close to what we seen in 2004 before 2004. I would submit that attacks on an opponents military record were rare indeed therefore making them unusual in a manner of speaking. I have voted in every Presidential election since 1964 and I know I have never witnessed anything like the swiftboat sutff in 2004. I believe Tommy to be corrrect in his view that since 2004 the term "swiftboating" i.e questioning of military service has become a more commonly used tactic, much more so than before 2004.
Crispy, it's a giant stretch to think the media has learned anything at all. It's not possible because they are so insular and corporate.
Tell me, do you think that all of a sudden if there's an Obama presidency, that maybe, just maybe, they'll get back some of their skepticism/spine that's been missing since "W" took office. You know, the sort of skepticism they had when Clinton was in office? Being an Obama supporter, please ask yourself THAT question.
Crispy, it's a giant stretch to think the media has learned anything at all. It's not possible because they are so insular and corporate.
Tell me, do you think that all of a sudden if there's an Obama presidency, that maybe, just maybe, they'll get back some of their skepticism/spine that's been missing since "W" took office. You know, the sort of skepticism they had when Clinton was in office? Being an Obama supporter, please ask yourself THAT question.
Can't say for sure. But how is such possibility any less valid than believeing that the media has some kind of sinister agenda to prop up McCain? Come on! That is essentially the argument they threw at Tommy and somehow it's more valid...why? That being said I can't wholly disagree with your analysis but I just think it's becomes too easy to dismiss alternative points of view because they don't jive with a certain political ideology.
My exact point is that there is no alternative point of view presented in the media but what the moneyed elite and corporate owned stations want to promulgate. If you can't see that the press is this country isn't free at all (we're listed at 48th in the world for freedom of the press), then you haven't been paying too much attention. We're being censored every day by decisions made by these same corporations and moneyed elite. They control content, programming decisions, guests, the whole works.
If you still believe there is some semblence of honesty and self scrutiny in the press you are a very naive person. I'm not meaning to insult you, but please wake up!
Or are you saying that something happened to the media between 2004 and 2008 to make them more responsive to phony controversy?
Nothing changed, except in 2004 the lie-filled smear was against a Democratic candidate (therefore accepted as truth and repeated ad nauseum) as compared to now where the "victim" is a Republican candidate and it is therefore pilloried and attacked endlessly with fake outrage.
Why do you always go back to the opinion argument? This is not a case of a liberal opinion vs a conservative opinion. We deal in facts, friend. The case has been laid out for all to see by MMFA using direct quotes from the historical record. There is no opinion here, just one man swimming upstream with his eyes sealed shut. It's always towards the end when I think even you can't stomach any more twisting of logic and ignoring of evidence that you break out the "opinion" argument.
Jaw, Our basic disagreement is the way MMFA sees this, as always anti-Democrat, pro-con bias. That is opinion. I see it as the media loves a controversy, even if they have to play it up to get traction, which is what is happening here. Ideology is trumped by fanning the flames, no matter who it is.
You and MMFA have your opinion, I have mine. So easy......
I could not have provided a better example of my above point. Thanks. The reasons why your "opinion" is baseless and silly has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread.
Let me lay it out so maybe you can see how ridiculous your "opinion" is:
1. There has never been a political attack on a candidate's military record prior to 2004
2. Because of 1, the media had no idea how to respond. Apparently they could not relate it to other mudslinging and they needed a historical record of such an attack to realize that it was disgusting and repugnant.
An analysis of your"opinion" shows that 1 is false and 2 is stupid. Anyone with any sense of logic can see that, hence your"opinion" line is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to save face from your embarrassingly absurd argument.
2. Because of 1, the media had no idea how to respond. Apparently they could not relate it to other mudslinging and they needed a historical record of such an attack to realize that it was disgusting and repugnant.
An analysis of your"opinion" shows that 1 is false and 2 is stupid. Anyone with any sense of logic can see that, hence your"opinion" line is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to save face from your embarrassingly absurd argument.
You need to stop trying to pick up the pieces after Tommy self-destructs.
The changing of "never" to "unusual" doesn't make this untrue.
There wasn't "another side" as you claim. There were lies and distortions and there was reality.
The media often acted like it was a "he said, she said" kind of argument over opinion.
Look at Media Matters archives for proof. They continue to fight it when easily challenged points are left unchallenged. They documented this out last week when a news interviewer didn't point out that the claim that no oil spilled after Katrina was untrue.
Hey Tommy, how much you wanna bet the media's search for controversy won't include this little nugget of information?
"General Clark probably wouldn’t get that much praise from this group. I can’t speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar."
-McCain Supporter Orson Swindle (really, Swindle.) July 1, 2008
Of course, this was the McCain response:
"It certainly was not an attack on his service - no one would ever disparage that. Everyone honors Gen. Clark's service and sacrifice -- he's literally bled for our country. It was about policy disputes."
Really, this is getting pathetic.
He doesn't usually put in for overtime pay. His day is done by 8 Eastern time.
So keep watching my timecard here, your anger will be your undoing again, in the meantime, you're my comic relief. Big Kiss.....
Pointing out that you aren't typically here on weekends or after hours on weekdays means that I am a banned poster who scared your socks off?
That is so weak that it makes all reasonable people laugh. I'm not monitoring your time clock. I'm pointing out that as a paid poster you aren't here 24/7. It excused you from the deadline the previous poster suggested you were missing.
bricket
SB brisket of course. I was all worked up. And I'm not even sure I spelled that right.
Don't get me wrong, I'm going to watch "Jesus Camp" too but I don't think I'll be seeing it the way the republican dude sees it.
The whole thing was very disturbing. What I don't understand is why the IRS has not gone after these places after seeing video footage of them using the pulpit for political purposes, what with the "laying hands" on the cardboard cutout of GWB. It's almost like the IRS has been politicized, similar to every other federal agency over the last 8 years.
This is from General Clark's speech at the Dem convention in 2004.....
"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.
CLARK: He's seen the flash of the tracers. He's lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he's proved his moral courage too.
John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry's combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief. And John Edwards with his leadership and extraordinary intelligence, he's going to be a great member of that command team.
(APPLAUSE)
John Kerry is a man who in time of war can lead us as a warrior, but in times of peace, he will heed the call of scripture to lead us in beating swords into plowshares."
It seems like military experience was an important part of what qualified John F. Kerry for commander in chief back then. What has changed?
Nothing has changed, it's just politics. Clark's and Webb's comments are attempts to keep McCain from using his military experience to gain advantage over Obama's weakness in this area.
Media Matters (for very little) is doing it's part to help with pre-emptive strikes.
I don't believe it's possible that you cannot know the folly of what you said above.
Leadership in the military is a good asset for a President. It's something Kerry exhibited.
Getting shot down over enemy territory is not a quality that means you will be a good President or a bad President. It's nothing McCain did - it was done to him.
Bleachblonde,
Now I get it. When a dem goes to war---good! When McCain---ehhh, so what.
This is nothing more than politics, diminish McCain's service and hope to make the case that anyone's military service doesn't really matter. Obama has no standing in this area and his patsies are out there attempting to do the deed and MM(vl) is happy to follow suit.
I predict a daily list of stories by MM(vl) in an attempt to accomplish this.....Obama not liberal, Obama patriot, McCain's POW status a walk in the park.
Getting shot down was not McCain's plan, you're right it happend to him. But what about his time as a POW? Or his service before and after his time in Vietnam?
But you do have a point. Maybe we shouldn't ask Obama to explain his socialist tendencies and influence by Rev. Wright. He was only sitting in the pews and all of that toxic immersion 'just happened to him'.
"This is nothing more than politics, diminish McCain's service and hope to make the case that anyone's military service doesn't really matter. Obama has no standing in this area and his patsies are out there attempting to do the deed and MM(vl) is happy to follow suit."
I'd be happy to tout McCain as the superior candidate, right after you explain what qualities he gained from his experience in the service that will make him a better president, 'cause I'm afraid I just don't get it yet. Illustrate what he learned in the POW camp that will help him deal with the issues he would likely face in the next 4 years. And how his finishing in the bottom 10% of his class makes him a better choice than Obama. Granted, if we ever need our president to fly 10 miles out to land on a carrier again and pronounce "Mission Accomplished", at least he wouldn't have to ride in the back seat. I'm not sure that's a big national concern, though.
I predict a daily list of stories by MM(vl) in an attempt to accomplish this.....Obama not liberal, Obama patriot, McCain's POW status a walk in the park.
Obama IS a liberal, which is why he's a superior candidate to McSame. He's smarter, more aware of the world around him, unafraid and curious of the unknown, and intellectually driven. That's also what makes him the kind of patriot that founded this country and devised the constitution. McCain's POW stint was NOT a walk in the park, causing severe and lasting damage, both physically and mentally, which is why he broke down in captivity. He's the kind of patriot that took up a gun and killed as many British soldiers as he could. Constitution or dead Brits? I tend to think that it was the ideas that made this country great, not the corpses. But I could be wrong.
And how his finishing in the bottom 10% of his class makes him a better choice than Obama.
The bottom 10% would be a great step upward for McCain. He graduated third from the bottom in a class of about 900. That would put him in the bottom .33% of his class.
Now I get it.
You're not even within a thousand miles of "getting it," unless by "getting it" you mean to constructing yet another incredibly illogical straw man argument.
PC,
Did you see all of the other elements of Kerry Clark touted as well? Could you please explain why you were ok with the Swift Boaters in 2004? Why was Bush's lack of service ok to you if McCain's is so important now? I remember all of the attacks on Clinton for not serving, but when Bush went AWOL, you all didn't care.
Finally, did Clark, in your opinion, lie?
hamburgerboy,
For Clark, military service helped demonstrate the physical and moral authority of a presidential candidate in 2004. In 2008, it's evidently not as significant.
The other things he said in his speech were political statements that had to do with Kerry's belief system. These were in part shaped by his military experience.
As far as Bush is concerned, his military service was front and center of the democrat strategy to promote its candidate, but it failed to acheive it's desired end.
I don't think that being shot down or shot at makes you qualified for president. Ronald Reagan was not in the military but he led this country out of an era of despondency because of his morally correct view of what makes a great leader. So my orignal point was that of politics. It was political motivation/expediency that made Clark say what he said both times. It didn't work then and now it has only caused America to see a little clearer of where each man has developed his world view. Now MM(vl) is trying to make the perception about Obama vs. McCain about ANYTHING but military experience. Certainly Webb's comments and maybe Clark's as well, were pre-emptive strikes to downplay this advantage of McCain's.
I don't know if being a POW itself qualifies you for president. But it does speak of character strength, especially when Obama cut his mettle with the likes of ACORN and other marxists.
Clark was right both times. Military service was relevant for Kerry as a military commander who made decisions under fire; not so much for McCain, the exact context of Clark's remark was in answer to Shieffer suggesting that being shot down was somehow a qualification for being president.
No matter how many times you proclaim Ronald Reagan a great leader, the facts are that he raised taxes and conducted secret arms sales to Iran (while publically denouncing them) to fund the Contras, who were murdering people. Instead of being fiscally responsible, he ran up huge deficits which are still affecting our economy today, thanks to Bush's disregard for balancing the budget.
The numerous attempts you've made to suggest that Obama is a "maxist" are just plain stupid. That's where pride will get you.
But why would Clark tout Kerry's qualifications as commander in chief and then say bfd to McCain's?
Because Kerry's service was only one of many things that made him qualified.
McCain seems to be running ONLY on his service. (And don't even try to tell us he's not. It is exceptionally rare that a report about McCain fails to mention his service or his time as a POW.)
"Yes, that's honorable. But what else has McCain got?" is an important question to ask.
Essentially Clark asked it and McCain's Media went "bawk-bawk-BWHAT?!"
But why would Clark tout Kerry's qualifications as commander in chief and then say bfd to McCain's (ashamedreactionary)
Let's handicap you, and spot you that Clark said "bfd" to McCain's qualifications.(he didn't, but I don't mind letting you hit off the gal's tee).
Do you think it may have had something to do with the fact that Republican chickenhawks were wearing purple band-aids at their convention and mocking Kerry's war record, and partisan Vets were spreading lies about things they knew nothing about?
And something to do with the fact that, in this current election process, nobody is attacking Grampy's service to his country, but he is backed by the same Kerry bashers who are suggesting that Gramps is beyond reproach simply because he served?
Seriously, PC, you've been posting here for a while, and I've yet to see one comment you should be proud of.How did you decide on that screen name? were you being ironic?
Dearest kernal,
First the democrat convention was in July, the republican's in August. So Clark's comments could not have been in response to the purple bandaids. (I don't recall that but what an interesting gadget!) I think that Zell Miller nailed Kerry and the dems moreso than any bandaids.
"Notably, he mocked Kerry's call for strength in the armed forces by noting several important military projects that Kerry had opposed, saying that Kerry wanted "forces armed with what - spitballs?"" Now that was great stuff!
As far as my moniker, I am proud that I am a conservative. I briefly had another name here but then someone said I should be ashamed of my views, I was showing clearly what a poor presidency and poorer post-presidency that Jimmy Carter had foisted upon us. I was told that at least he 'tried', I shouldn't be mean and that conservatism was undermining his accomplishments! I said I was proud of conservatism and, wha-la, proudconservative was born!
I'm must say that I have been disappointed with your responses of late. You used to regularly engage in reasonable debate but now you seem more willing to let the discussion degenerate to a level that I think is beneath you.
I will continue to proudly post with facts, links and logic to make my points and hope you can again become proud of how you respond, too.
Hi proudcon, I was having a little bout of insomnia, and decided to see if there was any evidence of the species of weasel that responds 12 to 24 hours after a post to offer a rebuttal. And there you are!
First, a credit to you; You're right about the Dem and Repub conventions and their chronology, although there were countless other smears, as far as I know the purple band-aids didn't happen until after Clark's comments.
Which was a small point, just a detail, one of many smears, that stood out. You ignored my other questions, making it clear that you didn't really have answers.
I'm sorry that you've been disappointed in the level of discussion I've sunk to, but realize that I'm trying to play tennis with quadriplegics. Show me something on your end, and make yourself proud.
Thousands of people have flown fighters. A goodly number got shot down. A smaller population became prisners of war. What special quality of that latter population produced a candidate like John? Why is this experience so special in this case?
I assume in Kerry's case he said what he knew. His opinions are not based on ideology as far as I can tell. His coment on John drawn out, but pertinent. Of much more worth than this two day frothing of the mouth seeking to denigrate him on the chance that he might be a choice as Obama's VP.
George HW Bush was flying a ONE-MAN plane. There was no crew. We can reasonably debate and disagree but not if you don't have your fact straights. Why don't you learn what you are talking about before you open your mouth?
My goodness, how many times will you allow Tommy to hijack a thread? His endless wordsmith rubbish takes every thread down to a paralysis by analysis. He parses it out till it's down to semantics for crying out loud, then he's so frickin sorry you don't get it.
"You are comparing McCain, a decorated war hero who was held as a prisoner in Vietnam, to terrorist murder suspects currently at Gitmo?"
that statement alone, an oh so right wing distortion of what was said, and then his oh so right wing vicious attack at Tex should be enough to finally and forever stop responding to him.
Geesh, I like to come here and read comments but this is getting ridiculous.
You are, in fact and in reality, a lying troll.
But speaking of traitors, how about unwarranted spying on Americans? Is that a traitorous act?
"Clarks comment not exraordinary or unprecedented". For once I thoroughly agree with MMFA. Unwarranted distortions of democrat opponents records, statements, actions, character, qualifications,etc., are neither extraordinary nor unprecedented and I am sure we will see a lot more of this tactic from BO and/or his surrogates in the coming months.