Nasty Campaign Already? or...Looking French is now a bad thing?

[JumpinJesus]

Name calling and negativiy beginning more than a year before the general election? This article appeared on Spinsanity's website.

Article can be found here http://spinsanity.com

Name-calling in the Democratic presidential race (8/8)
By Brendan Nyhan

While the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have generally eschewed direct personal insults so far, the same can't be said for their political opponents. Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Senator John Edwards, D-NC, have all been tagged with derisive nicknames and labels, ones that in Kerry's case are being repeated over and over.

On April 22, an anoymous Bush adviser told the New York Times that Kerry "looks French,” a silly insult designed to capitalize on anti-French sentiment in the wake of the Iraq war. Since then, three right-wing pundits have repeated it frequently, calling Kerry "French-looking" in nonsensical terms. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz, lashed back in the press, prompting James Taranto, the author of the Best of the Web Today column on Opinion Journal, the website of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, to first pick up on the phrase. In his April 24 column, he first discusses the controversy, then further down calls Kerry "French-looking," beginning a spree of 22 uses of the term that culminated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday in which he repeated it.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh has used the term multiple times as well (see commentaries from June 9, July 16, July 22 and August 5, among others). He has also introduced other variants, calling Kerry "John French", Jean Cheri and "Jean F. Cheri".

Washington Times editor Wes Pruden is the other major figure using the term. He wrote on June 20 that "You have to feel a spot of sympathy for someone who looks as French as John Kerry. But he's sometimes got a mouth like Jacques Chirac, and he leaves a lurid paper trail." In a subtle touch, Pruden then called him "The French-looking senator" in his next sentence. On July 25, he called Kerry "the French-looking pursuer of Howard Dean."

Dean has also become a target of Limbaugh, who has begun referring to him as "Nikita Dean" in a reference to Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev. Reacting to a Washington Post story that portrayed Dean as a fiscal conservative, Limbaugh said:

The Democrats always try to tell us that the Soviets, "well, they're just misunderstood people. I mean, they're really not our enemies, they're just afraid of us because of our nuclear arsenal." I've got a new name for Howard Dean. I'm going to call him "Nikita Dean." With the way the press is trying to position this guy, they're not going to get away with it. "Nikita Dean" from now on.
Later in the show, Limbaugh added:

He's [Dean] positioned himself so far out on the left that Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is to the right of him. Hence the name "Nikita Dean." I mean I'll bet most of you never thought you'd see the day when the head of Russia was more supportive of capitalism, individual liberty and American foreign policy than the leading Democratic presidential candidate is, but it's the truth.
Finally, a Bush advisor labelled Edwards as the "Breck girl of politics" in the same April New York Times article where Kerry was labelled as looking French, which the Times described as "a reference to the shiny-hair model for a popular shampoo in the 1960's." The label has not been repeated very much in the political press (although Limbaugh has used it), in part due to Edwards' low standing in the polls, but is poised to come into wider use if his candidacy takes off.

Given that we're months away from the primaries and over a year from the general election, the repetitive use of nasty nicknames could indicate that the presidential campaign is going to be heavy on cheap invective.

Huh? Instead of focusing on issues and actual dialogue, we have Bush's advisors and radio talking heads resorting to calling Democratic candidates names? What is this, a 3rd grade popularity contest to the Republicans?

[auswegian]

Heh heh heh. Republicans are funny.

There will probably be a reaction in Europe and the civilized world soon. Rightists will be referred to as "American-style". My bet it'll be the Germans who say it first, referring to the Italians.

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by JumpinJesus
What is this, a 3rd grade popularity contest to the Republicans?

A popularity contest is exactly what it is. Slurring the other candidate has a long and glorious history in our political system. Check out this article.

It's a long article, so I will only quote the opening section:

These Are the Good Old Days:
"Dirty Campaigning" Was Once Much Worse
By Dan Sanders

"Presidential campaigns are a lot nicer today than they used to be. What respectable person today would think of calling one of the candidates for the highest office in the land a carbuncled-faced old drunkard? Or a howling atheist? Or a pickpocket, thief, traitor, lecher, syphilitic, gorilla, crook, anarchist, murderer? Yet such charges were regular features of American presidential contests in the 19th century."

_– Presidential Campaigns by Paul F. Boller, Jr.

One of the most fondly held delusions of modern presidential politics is that campaigns get dirtier with every election. Pundits and the public snarl at the deluge of "attack ads" flying between one side and another; a ravenous press gleefully lays bare the private lives of public men; the ill-will demeans the office and wears out the citizenry months before the November denouement. In every campaign, someone brings up the noble politics of the last century. Oh for the days of Lincoln and Douglas, they will moan, for the days of great men debating the great issues with dignity and eloquence.

To remember ancient campaigns only in these terms is, to say the very least, myopic. Dirty campaigning has been a fact of life in presidential politics if not from Day One—when George Washington ran all but unopposed—then certainly by Day Two or Three. The instant Washington retired to Mount Vernon, the fight to succeed him, between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, was on. Manners were quickly forgotten, as was much of the truth. Adams's forces derided Jefferson as an atheist, a pawn of the French eager to join their guillotine-mad Revolution, a coward for his lack of military service during America's Revolution, and a candidate for "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin." Jefferson supporters gave as good as they got, claiming that the haughty Adams planned to tear up the Constitution and install himself as the King of America with his sons ensconced as crown princes. When the two met in a rematch four years later it got even worse. It was alleged that President Adams had ordered an American warship to journey to England and return with not one but two mistresses for him to enjoy. On top of his supposed sins from the last election, Jefferson was now—according to newspapers backed by Adams's party—a godless, lawless racketeer in favor of legal prostitution, incest, rape, marital infidelity, and the slaughter of children on spears. When Jefferson won, the hard feelings were so deep that Adams refused to be part of the swearing-in ceremony, slipping out of town before dawn on Inauguration Day.

[The_Dude]

well, wouldnt calling somebody a french slur be a good thing?

last time i checked, we havent found any wmd's and it looks so far like bush/blair were the liars and the french are the ones with actual intel.

[BigGov]

95% chance, any information we find on WMD's will be released in about a year.

They've said they wouldn't release anything until they had everything. Or wanted to win an election.

[The_Dude]

i'll be waiting

[seretogis]

Newsflash : there was anti-French sentiment in the US far before this war.

[BigGov]

Mostly because they're cocky and they can't win any war. In fact, throughout history they've been pretty horrible at fighting.

[The_Dude]

what does fighting a war have to do with saying a candidate "looks french"

[BigGov]

Because the French are pretty pathetic overall and we rightfully look down upon them?

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
Because the French are pretty pathetic overall and we rightfully look down upon them?

dont say "we".

i dont really look down on countries because of their military accomplishments (or lack of) that took place years ago.

france is a developed western european country with a socialistic attitude

[Nizzle]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
Because the French are pretty pathetic overall and we rightfully look down upon them?

Speak for yourself.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
Because the French are pretty pathetic overall and we rightfully look down upon them?

What are you saying--that our nation is like a bastard child that grew up to spit on his mother?

I don't feel very proud of that legacy.

[auswegian]

The French weren't too bad militarily through history. They lost in Vietnam, sure, but so did everyone. They managed to the stop the Germans in the Great War at the very least, even when the Russians went splat they still held onto Paris. Although their track record where the Germans are concerned seems particularly bad.

Hey, how about Napoleon for size? Sure, he was defeated in the end, but he was spectacular for a while there.

Besides, who cares if they're not a particularly good militarist? I don't think anyone is morally better because they have a long history of military victories. It's a weird way to the look at the world.

The French are like a strong sort of cheese. Obnoxious to the uninitiated, a delicacy to those who know them.

[BigGov]

Hey, how about Napoleon for size? Sure, he was defeated in the end, but he was spectacular for a while there.

He was horrible. He takes down a few pathetic countries, then goes to Russia, a country that's bickering with itself and is in array. What should happen? Franch should win easily. What does happen? Russia kicks Napolean's ass across all of Europe.

Then there was their great defense in WWII. I mean, letting the enemy drive right around you, real smart.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
Mostly because they're cocky and they can't win any war. In fact, throughout history they've been pretty horrible at fighting.

I understand the reaction taken from France's position on Iraq. A few months ago the continual reminder to the French that they're part of an "axis of weasel" for not backing a country that protected them during WWII. The general stance of "how quickly they forget" spread fast.

Something I thought about later is early American history. The issue we had with England not wanting to let go and fighting the British.

Im not an expert on US history so I wanted to ask someone here. I know militias contributed to the fight, but what was Frances role (if any) in fighting the British?

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by Jimmy4
He was horrible. He takes down a few pathetic countries, then goes to Russia, a country that's bickering with itself and is in array. What should happen? Franch should win easily. What does happen? Russia kicks Napolean's ass across all of Europe.

Then there was their great defense in WWII. I mean, letting the enemy drive right around you, real smart.

He was Italian as well, wasn't he?

[XenuHubbard]

Originally posted by Sun Tzu

Im not an expert on US history so I wanted to ask someone here. I know militias contributed to the fight, but what was Frances role (if any) in fighting the British?

Well, to put it in a straight-forward manner, without them there would be no US.

[smooth]

Hence my reference 6 comments back

[Phaenx]

I don't know about that.

If we owed France anything I think we've already paid them back twice already.

[Zeld2.0]

Wow people need a lesson in history.

First, the American Revolution - without the help of the French, our army would've been very very poorly trained (in fact, it was many OUTSIDERS who came to help train our army at such places as Valley Forge) - poorly funded (our own Continental Congress could barely get anyone in the colonies to pay and needed foreign help) - and without a navy worth a damn.

The French landed veteran, well trained and equiped soldiers in the colonies to fight the British - they were the ones who made a great contingent of the army that fianlly defeated Cornwalis at Yorktown - the last battle on colonial soil.

Need I also mention that:
-Without French (not to mention Holland and Spain which were allied i believe? forgot the exact other nations) fighting the British *outside* the colonies, the British could've focused their most elite troops (rather than just say Hessian mercenaries) in the colonies. The war acutally raged all across the world at this time, in the colonies in the Carribean, as well as in Europe.
-Without the French Navy, the only navy that could defeat the British Navy at the colonies, we couldn't have won the war - Cornwalis was trapped at Yorktown only because his own fleet was prevented from shipping him and his soldiers across the water. If the French Navy wasn't there, the British could've funneled in more reinforcements or escaped to fight another day, in more preferable fighting conditions.
-French engineers and artillery played a crucial role in Yorktown and other battles.

Oh and if you check out Washington D.C. and the statues there - there are many many statues in many places (like across the White House) who are dedicated to many foreign men (French and others- Marquis de Lafayette anyone?) who played the key role in forging this country.

And onto Napoleon:

So Napoleon got his ass kicked back across Russia eh?

Are you saying that he was worthless compared to Russians?

No, I'll tell you the secret the Russians had: General Winter.

You know Hitler made the same mistake, he went into Russia, nearly won, but winter kicked his ass and the Russians finally got the shit together to push em back.

Napoleon made it all the way to Moscow but later had to retreat because of the great distance. The Russian's didn't kick their ass as much as the weather and long distance.

Not to mention that France during the time of his wars did conquer almost all of Europe (Spain being under friendly control, austria prussia and what not were defeated often, as were the British.)

Oh and Napoleon was used by Thomas Jefferson to get favorable actions on behalf of the economy of the States - without French power at that time, the British could've easily impressed our sailors at whim, easily blockaded us, and what not.

Oh and the Napoleonic Wars also distracted British manpower from the War of 1812 - and guess what, the troops sent to the war in North America were hardly the best troops, yet they still nearly defeated the U.S. (burning down Washington D.C.). After Napoleon's first exile, many veteran troops were sent here. Luckily for us, the peace was being settled by then.

Wanna know another thing? World War I. They lost over 1 million men in the First World War. They held their ground often with German troops just 20 miles from Paris. The Western Front would've broken without the French & British working together (not to mention Russians fighting on the East as well).

The French were to be knocked out first by the Schlieffen Plan but it failed and 4 years of the most brutal fighting ever witnessed occured there.

So when a generation of your men, yes 1 million KILLED not to mention thousands more injured, occurs, your people will be pretty pissed regardless of which nation you are.

And everyone loves to talk about how shitty they were in World war II...

Well guess what, the British nearly lost as well. France just didn't have the luxury of an English Channel. The Blitzkrieg could not have been stopped honestly - no army in the world had such powerful armor and airforce and combined arms.

No, the U.S. was a shithole military at the time, ranked #20 in the world. They used flour to simulate grenades.

The U.S. could've entered these wars and helped earlier but it didn't.

And you know what? The French didn't quit - they fought in the Resistance, thousands of them.

To quote General Eisenhower - "The French Resistance was worth divisions of men and armor."

The Resistance played the key roles in the invasion of D-Day by being the ones who sabotaged rail lines, blew up bridges, and helped make chaos in the German supply lines which diverted attention from the landings.

Not to mention that without their intelligence reports and will to fight, we couldve lost thousands of men trying to liberate France, but they often were the ones who fought the Germans in the streets, creating a logistical hell.

And they paid dearly as well - for instance, some Resistance members were suspected in a small village and the Germans wanted revenge.

They rounded the citizens up, put children and women in a church with loud music playing, while they took the men to the woods. They executed the men and burned the church down while lobbing grenades into the crowded church.

You think many Americans today can face such hardships during catastrophic wars? We take shit for granted today. People back then in every nation fought for their lives - we happened to end up top dog after the war, but it could've easily gone any other way.

Then again the victors are the ones who write the history books, and many here appear to have been brainwashed

And i would hardly say twice - we came in the last year of the fighting of World War I and barely fought - i believe it was only in Jan 1918 we really got any major amount of U.S. troops in action there and the war ended in November. We took a whole freakin year just to mobilize troops and get them there.

World War II of course is a duh. I would hardly say anything else.

[BigGov]

So Napoleon got his ass kicked back across Russia eh?

Are you saying that he was worthless compared to Russians?

No, I'll tell you the secret the Russians had: General Winter.

Psst. The Russians had to deal with the Winter too. Oh, and mobilize. And if it's so hard for the French to fight with long supply lines, how could the Russians do it fairly easily the other way?

You think many Americans today can face such hardships during catastrophic wars? We take shit for granted today. People back then in every nation fought for their lives - we happened to end up top dog after the war, but it could've easily gone any other way.

I don't know. People in NYC suddenly come together and help each other when they're in trouble.

As for the sabotaging, would Americans have the guts to do that? Definately. Would we have the weapons to fight back? Yes.

Then again the victors are the ones who write the history books, and many here appear to have been brainwashed

That might explain a lot considering the French have never been victorious then.

[Zeld2.0]

Wow Jimmy ever know what its like to fight on your own terrain in climates you are familiar with?

The Germans lost because of it - so did the French. The Russians are most well known for their winter / arctic fighting conditions. And no they didn't push Napoleon back to his own borders, he withdrew there and eventaully he went into exile.

The WTC is nothing compared to being bombed daily, shelled, executed in the streets sire. We'd fight back, no doubt, but can the average joe handle it? Sometimes i think our country does need a wakeup call.

And no ask the generation that won World War II and the generation today about France - today we've been all filled with the same bullshit from the media!

[auswegian]

I think much of the ignorance in American society stems from the fact that there hasn't been a serious threat to the United States in over a century. You take those two damn oceans for granted. Americans aren't smarter, or stronger, or more capable than anyone else (and vice versa, of course). You've just got one hell of a geographical advantage.

WTC was a horrible thing, by todays standards. But completely and utterly insignificant compared to what Europe suffered through last century. No one will deny the sacrifices that the United States made in WW1 and 2. But to be of the opinion that these sacrifices were somehow greater and morally superior than those of the Frenchmen and Russians who were defending their own soil is just plain disgusting.

[JBX]

Nous, l'ar français un peuple arrogant. Nous pensons que le monde est sont ci-dessous les normes et la culture. Quant à être regarder français, il une insulte pour les hommes, un compliment pour des femmes.

[JumpinJesus]

Lest we forget, one of our most treasured monuments to freedom, the Statue of Liberty, was a gift from the French. I suppose with our current sentiment, we wouldn't mind knocking it down? That'll show 'em.

[BigGov]

Originally posted by JBX
Nous, l'ar français un peuple arrogant. Nous pensons que le monde est sont ci-dessous les normes et la culture. Quant à être regarder français, il une insulte pour les hommes, un compliment pour des femmes.

Very Rough Translation:

We, the French ar an arrogant people. We think that the world is are below the norms and the culture. As for to be to look at French, it an insult for the men, a compliment for women.

[Macheath]

Oh can I have a go at this childish crap:

1: Kerry looks French.

2: Why?

1: Um,...well, you see, Kerry was in Vietnam and so were the French. Therefore, he looks French.

2: Okay...suuure. So what does Bush look like? He wasn't in Vietnam. Maybe Bush looks German. I mean, they were never in Vietnam. That seems logical

1: You're starting to look a little bit like Godwin.

2: Don't dish out what you can't take. Ever notice how Karl Rove looks a little bit like Elmer Fudd?

[Zeld2.0]

heh auswegian thats a good way to put it