The truth about politics and smear campaigns - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 09-11-2004, 03:24 PM

I have stated this before in another thread and thought it deserving of its own thread becausethe nastiness is getting worse every day.

Smear campaigns and unproven facts or opinions of a candidates past usually mean nothing to people. It doesn't affect anyone that I know's vote. I don't think it really affects that many undecideds because they know what the smear and mud are coming.

However, how a candidate reacts to the smear, I believe says more than the smear.

Even though I truly hate Bush's policies, I respect the fact that he doesn't let the smear get to him. Clinton was much the same. Clinton would smile shake hands and just say, "that's politics and hey, I'm not perfect." then go about his policies and conducted himself extremely professional. Nor did Clinton truly run a smear campaign (unlike either candidate this year. Best campaigns I can remember were in '96 Dole and Clinton stuck to the issues and showed I believe deep respect for each other.)

Now, on the other extreme we have Kerry. He cries to the elections board about Swift. He only needs to answer once then move on. The more he acknowledges the smear the worse it gets, AND this is what causes people to rethink their vote.

Let's look at Bush, people argue that there must be some truth to the CBS papers because his campaign doesn't argue the facts. He has been accused of many things (and perhaps rightfully so), and what does he do? He may acknowledge, but then he moves on. He still doesn't really focus on issues but he doesn't put weight on the smear and thusly it doesn't stick.

People, and myself included, when truly undecided may look at some smear, but we observe how the candidate handles it.

Schwarzenegger was accused of grabbing co-star's asses, being a racist and so on. Why didn't it stick and hurt him? Because he handled it explained the facts then refused to acknowledge it again.

Now, I will say that Bush is really pushing the smear envelope though, by allowing the GOP and it's 527's to go into Kerry's Vietnam records and having Cheney say we'll get hit if Kerry is elected. Both are below the belt and both are very cheap shots.

Swift and Kerry's record, however, were made worse and worse because he continues to throw up Vietnam, he continues to whine about them and he is acting very poorly regarding them. The more he pays attention to these ads and these problems the less he gets his message out, the more he looks weak, the more that even people who back him begin to worry.

The Cheney speech, was, however, where he should have focussed. It was truly a cheapshot and Kerry very easily could have turned it around on Cheney. But he didn't and now its too late.

The smear makes good posts and allows us to debate our choices and in some ways allows us to vent. Which is ok, as far as I know none of us are running for office and as long as respect is shown we can argue about the smear. Hell, it does make for some great conversations. Especially when there isn't any flaming, trolling, personal attacks and facts are given and backed up when asked to be. It shows we have passion and that is needed to keep freedom alive.

irateplatypus · 09-11-2004, 03:40 PM

this reminds me of a biography i read about Abraham Lincoln (my vote for our greatest president of all time). the man endured personal attacks and betrayal from men he thought were friends and his many political enemies. yet, he took their venom with humor and with good nature. i think a sober reaction to personal attacks is an important dimension of what makes a great leader that is not often recognized.

i certainly see this quality in Bush and Clinton. Time and distance from the events of the 90s have given me a new appreciation of Clinton's political savvy (though i still disagree with most of his agenda). after reading pan's post i realized that he articulated what makes me uneasy about kerry. senator kerry strikes me as a man who is well in-tune with government and international issues but does not strike me as a man who is a true leader.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 04:58 PM

I wish people wouldn't throw around the word "truth" so quickly and easily. What you're describing is not the "truth", it is your perception.

I have a much different perception of the Bush/Kerry smear campaign tactics. My perception is one of disapproving of the smears themselves as opposed to how they are handled by the person being smeared.

Kerry is in a difficult situation - on the one hand if he says nothing, he is accused of being weak and on the other he is accused of being shrill or non-savy. He has tried, and in some ways succeeded, to follow a balance between the two types of response. And I disagree with your contention that Kerry is still responding to the SBVT opinions masked as truth.

But regardless, it comes back to the question - why are these smears trumpted so readily? Because it is easier to play dirty politics than it is to explain a failed record.

That is far more of a qualifier for leadership and Presidential ability than some concept of 'ignoring your accuser'. If you can't speak to your record and need to hide behind the drumbeat of dirty politics, whether you are successful or not, you have no business leading anyone anywhere.

irateplatypus · 09-11-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

I have a much different perception of the Bush/Kerry smear campaign tactics. My perception is one of disapproving of the smears themselves as opposed to how they are handled by the person being smeared.

those aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 05:19 PM

I disagree. If the smear campaign is setup to attack a candidates qualities whether they play it non-chalant or respond aggressively, it is a no-win situation for the candidate. This is how the GOP smear campaigns are setup. In each case, a negative judgement is waiting in the wings.

If Kerry didn't respond to SBVT at all - this thread (or another one like it) would be about the lack of leadership qualities in Kerry because he can't defend himself.

It is a perpetual smear - used to hide from a failed record.

Ustwo · 09-11-2004, 05:42 PM

To me a smear is only a smear if its not true. The circumstances might be nasty, or underhanded but unless it’s a lie I don’t see a problem with it.

I think Kerry’s problem is a lot of the ‘smears’ are true or at least partially true. It’s a lot easier to ignore a lie and have it go away than the truth. When members of his campaign call challenging his senate record a smear it looks more like someone trying to hide something. When he tries to call the swiftboat adds a violation of campaign finance reform but never said anything about the moveon.org adds, it makes him look not only like he is trying to cover something up, but also hypocrite.

Kerry’s problem is the real John Kerry is nothing but a long time politician with a lot of skeletons that it entails. He can’t be the real John Kerry, because the real John Kerry wouldn’t get elected. He has been the pro-war, anti-war, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-tax, pro-tax (well some things are consistent) candidate.

Clinton was able to get away with it, not only because of his savvy behind a microphone, but because not that many people really cared about his sexcapades. His actions finally did catch up with him in the end, (esp those last minute pardons which were a clear abuse of power and did a lot to damage the Clinton legacy) and I think cost Gore the election.

But back to smearing. I think at the national level, smears can only hurt you when they are at least partially true.

When a group (I forget which one) tried to blame GWB for the dragging death of James Byrd because he doesn’t support hate crimes legislation it was nothing but a smear and didn’t hold any traction with potential Bush voters (they neglected to mention both men got the death penalty, and the third was still on trial).

On the other hand when they pulled the ‘October surprise’ with the Bush DUI, that was true, and while it was very underhanded in its timing and how it was handled, it is believed it did cost Bush a good number of votes.

Ok enough rambling on my part.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 05:54 PM

You probably should had stopped after your first paragraph instead of taking every chance you can grab to claim all the smears against Kerry are "atleast partially true" and as such, excusable and not really smears. But you couldn't resist - because that's what partisan smear tactics are all about: taking every chance to baselessly attack your opponent.

Ok enough rambling on my part.

If only.

pan6467 · 09-11-2004, 05:57 PM

I'm sorry Opie. I consider it a truth, because if you were to poll (which I think I'll start one) the readers on this forum a vast majority would say that yes, they are less likely to vote for those who react negatively to negative ads. And that would be what I was saying.

Reacting negatively to negative ads (that's what the people in the trenches are for) is not a sign of strength and it's a sign of weakness.

I came to this decision and observance a couple weeks ago. I truly want to vote for Kerry and to believe with every fiber that he'll make a good president. But a few weeks ago I sat thinking what I didn't like about Kerry and why I was uneasy with the vote and came to this conclusion. Then I asked friends what they thought and when people are honest and truly think about it they realize that he is showing weakness.

Look at it this way. When Clinton was being hung out to dry by Congress did he waver? Did he ever show in any way cracks that showed he was breaking? HELL NO. Every time I saw or heard him, he was strong, his voice as powerful as ever and he still showed he was in charge.

Look at Bush, does he ever waver? Does he ever show signs of breaking? No, every time you see him he carries himself with pride and gets his message across. I may not like the message, but the way a man carries himself and the actions he takes in adversity says a lot about his character and wins people over.

If Kerry wants to win he has to find this. He has to stand tall and carry himself and get his message out and not show the ads bother him. Otherwise he'll lose the undecideds. That is fact and it is a truism.People want someone that appears strong and focussed. How one reacts to smear campaigns shows how one reacts to adversity.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 06:08 PM

pan -

Again, you may consider it a truth, but it's nothing more than a subjective truth. It is your opinion. It may be the opinion of many people, but that does not make it a fact.

As I expressed, my opinion is that the GOP can yell louder than the Democrats, so Kerry would always be claimed to be weak regardless of his response to the SBVT lies.

The entire concept that the response to a smear is more important than using a smear is foreign to me. If a candidate consistently uses smear tactics, as Bush has for every single one of his elections, that says far more than how the response to the smears is spun.

theusername · 09-11-2004, 06:23 PM

Really voters want to hear, what happened 35 years ago is not an issue now. Oooops, John Kerry's reporting for duty and ran his campaign as a Vietnam Veteran because he can't run on his record in the Senate. In my mind, unless Iraq or the economy crash Kerry isn't going to be much of a challenge come November. He was the wrong candidate in this, or any presidential election.

Also the expectations of the smear are also important. Everyone already knew about Clinton, he was a womanizer as Governor too. Everyone knew about Arnolds past. Everyone knows Bush was misguided until he was 40 and born again. We don't have high expectations in these time frames/situations. However, Kerry we first learned was a Vietnam War Hero, but maybe not. So we're surprised by that and it scared some.

Just my take anyways on why this smear was effective. Also, Kerry's responses were poor. He attacked Bush who really didn't play a role, and it's not like he ever condemned moveon.org or the hollywood looney's he made a speech for, so to expect Bush to condemn Swift Boat Veterans doesn't seem like an even deal to me.

pan6467 · 09-11-2004, 06:24 PM

True, it is a subjective truth.

I disagree, again look at Clinton and how he handled himself. In '92 Whitewater came out and "he cheated on his wife" and the GOP slammed him with everything they could. Clinton would then answer the accusations, not cry foul or go running and asking the election committee to have them stop airing the ads, and move on. He was a fucking train man, he didn't let the adversity stop him. When he was being impeached did he cry to the people and ask for help? Did he show signs of cracking or breaking? NO and I submit that is the reason he wasn't impeached. Because he didn't show weakness, he didn't give into the pressure. He stood his ground and said push me off but I'm not backing down. And people respected that. I believe in 20 years Clinton will be looked upon as a strong president and great man.

Kerry on the other hand is letting it get to him and showing weakness. If you cannot see that his reactions are fueling more smear ads (because he reacted negatively to it, then the GOP could throw more of it, because he was giving it credibility) then yes, what I assume is truth would not affect you. I believe it is truth (perhaps subjectively) because I do not believe a man reacting negatively to negative ads and showing weakness will win any election.

What Kerry needs to do before it is too late is get off the Vietnam issue totally, pound the issues. Give an answer if necessary to a smear but move on and don't show that it is getting to him.

It's like the bully on the schoolyard, you show weakness he's gonna keep pummeling you there, yes eventually you may toughen up but for Kerry if he wants to win he better toughen up fast.

I'm not being or wanting anyone in this thread to be partisan. I'm a DEM, and damn proud to be, but I am not blind to the overbearing weakness Kerry is showing me and I have a feeling many many others who want to vote for him, but see the weakness and have doubts. If he shows weakness now what is he going to be like in office when he wants to get a bill through and the GOP don't want to work with him?

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 06:33 PM

You bring up the election committee complaint again. Bush complained to the election committee back in Jan/Feb over one of the MoveOn ads. Not only do you not claim that is a sign of Bush's weakness - but you either didn't even know about it (again I submit, because the GOP can yell louder) or you intentionally ignore it.

When has Kerry "cried to the people and asked for help"? How has he shown any signs of "cracking or breaking"?

Clinton was impeached.

If Kerry didn't react to the ads, he would have been labeled weak and guilty. If he does react to the ads, he is labeled weak, and a liar. As I said, I see no way he could come out on top in the face of GOP smear tactics. Is that a reason to blame Kerry? No. It is a reason to blame the GOP for subverting democracy by mocking it with smears instead of dealing with the issues.

Ustwo · 09-11-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

You probably should had stopped after your first paragraph instead of taking every chance you can grab to claim all the smears against Kerry are "atleast partially true" and as such, excusable and not really smears. But you couldn't resist - because that's what partisan smear tactics are all about: taking every chance to baselessly attack your opponent.

Ok enough rambling on my part.

If only.

Yes I know opie I'm not allowed to say anything bad about Kerry. Please stop responding to my posts, its for the best.

pan6467 · 09-11-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

You bring up the election committee complaint again. Bush complained to the election committee back in Jan/Feb over one of the MoveOn ads. Not only do you not claim that is a sign of Bush's weakness - but you either didn't even know about it (again I submit, because the GOP can yell louder) or you intentionally ignore it.

When has Kerry "cried to the people and asked for help"? How has he shown any signs of "cracking or breaking"?

Clinton was impeached.

If Kerry didn't react to the ads, he would have been labeled weak and guilty. If he does react to the ads, he is labeled weak, and a liar. As I said, I see no way he could come out on top in the face of GOP smear tactics. Is that a reason to blame Kerry? No. It is a reason to blame the GOP for subverting democracy by mocking it with smears instead of dealing with the issues.

Bush's people did complain yes. But HE has not reacted to any smear personally. Have you heard him complain about people wanting his records?

Clinton was not "impeached", impeached at least from what I was taught means thrown out of office. clinton came up a few votes short of being impeached. Maybe I'm wrong in that belief.

Yes, I do believe, and have posted many times that the GOP could not win on issues that the smear is the only way to win. BUT poll after poll has shown smear doesn't affect that many votes. BUT Kerry is losing votes.... so why would that be? It is because he shows weakness by letting the smear get to him.

It's not worth arguing about, Opie. We both want Bush out. We both are voting for Kerry. i'm just offering up an opinion that I feel would help. I believe if Kerry just hammered out issues and his policies and ignored the smear or gave 1 comment and moved on (instead he keeps changing his story which adds more credibility to the smear) he would stand a far better chance of winning.

Kerry just isn't handling the smear well. Clinton did, Gore did.... Kerry isn't.

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Bush's people did complain yes. But HE has not reacted to any smear personally. Have you heard him complain about people wanting his records?

I think you may misunderstand the role of an incumbent in a Presidential election. They rarely need to make any statements, instead using their staff and fellow party members to make those statements. If you review the White House daily press briefings, where Scott McCellan is the official voice of the White House and the President, you will notice that any question of difficulty is completely deflected. There is no response.

Q: "Why did the President do X?"

A: "The President feels that staying the course and fighting for Democracy throughout the world is the best course available."

Q: "Understood. But when the President did X, what were his reasons?"

A: "I think we've already addressed that question but I will clarify: the President feels that the best way to achieve Democracy throughout the world is by staying the course."

Actually reviewing the Press Briefings is AMAZING. You just want to reach through your computer screen and shake the man to get an answer.

Quote:

Clinton was not "impeached", impeached at least from what I was taught means thrown out of office. clinton came up a few votes short of being impeached. Maybe I'm wrong in that belief.

Clinton was impeached.

Quote:

Yes, I do believe, and have posted many times that the GOP could not win on issues that the smear is the only way to win. BUT poll after poll has shown smear doesn't affect that many votes. BUT Kerry is losing votes.... so why would that be? It is because he shows weakness by letting the smear get to him.

It's one thing to say "I don't believe smears so they don't affect my vote." and it's quite another to start thinking "Hmm... all these questions about Kerry's Vietnam record, maybe he's not the right person." or, "Hmm... the way Kerry handled the SBVT stuff seemed weak because he said too much/said too little." The veracity of the allegations becomes secondary. Just look at Ustwo's comments here and in other threads - he firmly believes that Kerry is an inch away, if not already, a traitor. Smears do work.

Quote:

It's not worth arguing about, Opie. We both want Bush out. We both are voting for Kerry. i'm just offering up an opinion that I feel would help. I believe if Kerry just hammered out issues and his policies and ignored the smear or gave 1 comment and moved on (instead he keeps changing his story which adds more credibility to the smear) he would stand a far better chance of winning.

Indeed. Kerry should focus on the issues. And he is. The problem is, it's far more entertaining for the people to focus on the smears and the GOP ablidges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Please stop responding to my posts, its for the best.

No.

pan6467 · 09-11-2004, 07:37 PM

Opie,

Smears may work, but I think reaction to the smear is what determines the vote. If a candidate cannot rise above the smear and get his message out he will not win. Bush could have far worse smear than Kerry (cocaine use rumors, driving every business he ever ran into bankruptcy, and so on), but it doesn't stick because Bush doesn't allow it to stick.

Seriously, look at the '92 and '96 elections and watch how Clinton reacted and you'll see what I mean.

=-=================
Clinton was not impeached. He was acquitted on article 1 (45 for 55 against) Article 2 was deadlocked at 50 apiece meaning Gore cast the deciding vote.

President Clinton responded to the Senate vote today in the Rose Garden. Earlier in the day the Senate voted to aquit the president on both articles of impeachment. The following is a transcript of his response.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.

I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year.

Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together. This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America.

Thank you very much.

REPORTER: In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it.

link:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/

OpieCunningham · 09-11-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Opie,

Smears may work, but I think reaction to the smear is what determines the vote. If a candidate cannot rise above the smear and get his message out he will not win. Bush could have far worse smear than Kerry (cocaine use rumors, driving every business he ever ran into bankruptcy, and so on), but it doesn't stick because Bush doesn't allow it to stick.

Seriously, look at the '92 and '96 elections and watch how Clinton reacted and you'll see what I mean.

How does Bush not "allow it to stick"? By ignoring it? No. It doesn't stick because the media doesn't beat it into our heads.

Kerry ignored the SBVT issue for weeks. It didn't go anywhere because the media consistently played it. He then responds to it for a day or two. And now weeks later, you're complaining about him as if he is still responding to it. He is again ignoring it. The media isn't playing it as much because there are new and more interesting things to talk about - like the RNC and now the memos.

You're putting far too much responsibility to the behavior of the nation and the behavior of the media and the non-stop smear tactics of the GOP on Kerry's shoulders by claiming he is "weak". If Kerry had come out the day of the SBVT allegations and emphatically stated that they were false accusations, the media would have continued to spend 2 weeks covering it - because it is juicy and regardless of veracity.

Quote:

Clinton was not impeached. He was acquitted on article 1 (45 for 55 against) Article 2 was deadlocked at 50 apiece meaning Gore cast the deciding vote.

That's the Senate. He was impeached in the House.

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

09-11-2004, 03:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	The truth about politics and smear campaigns I have stated this before in another thread and thought it deserving of its own thread becausethe nastiness is getting worse every day. Smear campaigns and unproven facts or opinions of a candidates past usually mean nothing to people. It doesn't affect anyone that I know's vote. I don't think it really affects that many undecideds because they know what the smear and mud are coming. However, how a candidate reacts to the smear, I believe says more than the smear. Even though I truly hate Bush's policies, I respect the fact that he doesn't let the smear get to him. Clinton was much the same. Clinton would smile shake hands and just say, "that's politics and hey, I'm not perfect." then go about his policies and conducted himself extremely professional. Nor did Clinton truly run a smear campaign (unlike either candidate this year. Best campaigns I can remember were in '96 Dole and Clinton stuck to the issues and showed I believe deep respect for each other.) Now, on the other extreme we have Kerry. He cries to the elections board about Swift. He only needs to answer once then move on. The more he acknowledges the smear the worse it gets, AND this is what causes people to rethink their vote. Let's look at Bush, people argue that there must be some truth to the CBS papers because his campaign doesn't argue the facts. He has been accused of many things (and perhaps rightfully so), and what does he do? He may acknowledge, but then he moves on. He still doesn't really focus on issues but he doesn't put weight on the smear and thusly it doesn't stick. People, and myself included, when truly undecided may look at some smear, but we observe how the candidate handles it. Schwarzenegger was accused of grabbing co-star's asses, being a racist and so on. Why didn't it stick and hurt him? Because he handled it explained the facts then refused to acknowledge it again. Now, I will say that Bush is really pushing the smear envelope though, by allowing the GOP and it's 527's to go into Kerry's Vietnam records and having Cheney say we'll get hit if Kerry is elected. Both are below the belt and both are very cheap shots. Swift and Kerry's record, however, were made worse and worse because he continues to throw up Vietnam, he continues to whine about them and he is acting very poorly regarding them. The more he pays attention to these ads and these problems the less he gets his message out, the more he looks weak, the more that even people who back him begin to worry. The Cheney speech, was, however, where he should have focussed. It was truly a cheapshot and Kerry very easily could have turned it around on Cheney. But he didn't and now its too late. The smear makes good posts and allows us to debate our choices and in some ways allows us to vent. Which is ok, as far as I know none of us are running for office and as long as respect is shown we can argue about the smear. Hell, it does make for some great conversations. Especially when there isn't any flaming, trolling, personal attacks and facts are given and backed up when asked to be. It shows we have passion and that is needed to keep freedom alive. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-11-2004, 03:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	this reminds me of a biography i read about Abraham Lincoln (my vote for our greatest president of all time). the man endured personal attacks and betrayal from men he thought were friends and his many political enemies. yet, he took their venom with humor and with good nature. i think a sober reaction to personal attacks is an important dimension of what makes a great leader that is not often recognized. i certainly see this quality in Bush and Clinton. Time and distance from the events of the 90s have given me a new appreciation of Clinton's political savvy (though i still disagree with most of his agenda). after reading pan's post i realized that he articulated what makes me uneasy about kerry. senator kerry strikes me as a man who is well in-tune with government and international issues but does not strike me as a man who is a true leader. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-11-2004, 05:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	I disagree. If the smear campaign is setup to attack a candidates qualities whether they play it non-chalant or respond aggressively, it is a no-win situation for the candidate. This is how the GOP smear campaigns are setup. In each case, a negative judgement is waiting in the wings. If Kerry didn't respond to SBVT at all - this thread (or another one like it) would be about the lack of leadership qualities in Kerry because he can't defend himself. It is a perpetual smear - used to hide from a failed record. Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-11-2004 at 05:22 PM..

09-11-2004, 05:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	To me a smear is only a smear if its not true. The circumstances might be nasty, or underhanded but unless it’s a lie I don’t see a problem with it. I think Kerry’s problem is a lot of the ‘smears’ are true or at least partially true. It’s a lot easier to ignore a lie and have it go away than the truth. When members of his campaign call challenging his senate record a smear it looks more like someone trying to hide something. When he tries to call the swiftboat adds a violation of campaign finance reform but never said anything about the moveon.org adds, it makes him look not only like he is trying to cover something up, but also hypocrite. Kerry’s problem is the real John Kerry is nothing but a long time politician with a lot of skeletons that it entails. He can’t be the real John Kerry, because the real John Kerry wouldn’t get elected. He has been the pro-war, anti-war, pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-tax, pro-tax (well some things are consistent) candidate. Clinton was able to get away with it, not only because of his savvy behind a microphone, but because not that many people really cared about his sexcapades. His actions finally did catch up with him in the end, (esp those last minute pardons which were a clear abuse of power and did a lot to damage the Clinton legacy) and I think cost Gore the election. But back to smearing. I think at the national level, smears can only hurt you when they are at least partially true. When a group (I forget which one) tried to blame GWB for the dragging death of James Byrd because he doesn’t support hate crimes legislation it was nothing but a smear and didn’t hold any traction with potential Bush voters (they neglected to mention both men got the death penalty, and the third was still on trial). On the other hand when they pulled the ‘October surprise’ with the Bush DUI, that was true, and while it was very underhanded in its timing and how it was handled, it is believed it did cost Bush a good number of votes. Ok enough rambling on my part. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-11-2004, 05:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I'm sorry Opie. I consider it a truth, because if you were to poll (which I think I'll start one) the readers on this forum a vast majority would say that yes, they are less likely to vote for those who react negatively to negative ads. And that would be what I was saying. Reacting negatively to negative ads (that's what the people in the trenches are for) is not a sign of strength and it's a sign of weakness. I came to this decision and observance a couple weeks ago. I truly want to vote for Kerry and to believe with every fiber that he'll make a good president. But a few weeks ago I sat thinking what I didn't like about Kerry and why I was uneasy with the vote and came to this conclusion. Then I asked friends what they thought and when people are honest and truly think about it they realize that he is showing weakness. Look at it this way. When Clinton was being hung out to dry by Congress did he waver? Did he ever show in any way cracks that showed he was breaking? HELL NO. Every time I saw or heard him, he was strong, his voice as powerful as ever and he still showed he was in charge. Look at Bush, does he ever waver? Does he ever show signs of breaking? No, every time you see him he carries himself with pride and gets his message across. I may not like the message, but the way a man carries himself and the actions he takes in adversity says a lot about his character and wins people over. If Kerry wants to win he has to find this. He has to stand tall and carry himself and get his message out and not show the ads bother him. Otherwise he'll lose the undecideds. That is fact and it is a truism.People want someone that appears strong and focussed. How one reacts to smear campaigns shows how one reacts to adversity. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-11-2004, 04:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	I wish people wouldn't throw around the word "truth" so quickly and easily. What you're describing is not the "truth", it is your perception. I have a much different perception of the Bush/Kerry smear campaign tactics. My perception is one of disapproving of the smears themselves as opposed to how they are handled by the person being smeared. Kerry is in a difficult situation - on the one hand if he says nothing, he is accused of being weak and on the other he is accused of being shrill or non-savy. He has tried, and in some ways succeeded, to follow a balance between the two types of response. And I disagree with your contention that Kerry is still responding to the SBVT opinions masked as truth. But regardless, it comes back to the question - why are these smears trumpted so readily? Because it is easier to play dirty politics than it is to explain a failed record. That is far more of a qualifier for leadership and Presidential ability than some concept of 'ignoring your accuser'. If you can't speak to your record and need to hide behind the drumbeat of dirty politics, whether you are successful or not, you have no business leading anyone anywhere.

09-11-2004, 05:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	You probably should had stopped after your first paragraph instead of taking every chance you can grab to claim all the smears against Kerry are "atleast partially true" and as such, excusable and not really smears. But you couldn't resist - because that's what partisan smear tactics are all about: taking every chance to baselessly attack your opponent. Ok enough rambling on my part. If only.

09-11-2004, 06:08 PM	#9 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	pan - Again, you may consider it a truth, but it's nothing more than a subjective truth. It is your opinion. It may be the opinion of many people, but that does not make it a fact. As I expressed, my opinion is that the GOP can yell louder than the Democrats, so Kerry would always be claimed to be weak regardless of his response to the SBVT lies. The entire concept that the response to a smear is more important than using a smear is foreign to me. If a candidate consistently uses smear tactics, as Bush has for every single one of his elections, that says far more than how the response to the smears is spun.

09-11-2004, 06:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Really voters want to hear, what happened 35 years ago is not an issue now. Oooops, John Kerry's reporting for duty and ran his campaign as a Vietnam Veteran because he can't run on his record in the Senate. In my mind, unless Iraq or the economy crash Kerry isn't going to be much of a challenge come November. He was the wrong candidate in this, or any presidential election. Also the expectations of the smear are also important. Everyone already knew about Clinton, he was a womanizer as Governor too. Everyone knew about Arnolds past. Everyone knows Bush was misguided until he was 40 and born again. We don't have high expectations in these time frames/situations. However, Kerry we first learned was a Vietnam War Hero, but maybe not. So we're surprised by that and it scared some. Just my take anyways on why this smear was effective. Also, Kerry's responses were poor. He attacked Bush who really didn't play a role, and it's not like he ever condemned moveon.org or the hollywood looney's he made a speech for, so to expect Bush to condemn Swift Boat Veterans doesn't seem like an even deal to me. __________________ ?

09-11-2004, 06:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	True, it is a subjective truth. I disagree, again look at Clinton and how he handled himself. In '92 Whitewater came out and "he cheated on his wife" and the GOP slammed him with everything they could. Clinton would then answer the accusations, not cry foul or go running and asking the election committee to have them stop airing the ads, and move on. He was a fucking train man, he didn't let the adversity stop him. When he was being impeached did he cry to the people and ask for help? Did he show signs of cracking or breaking? NO and I submit that is the reason he wasn't impeached. Because he didn't show weakness, he didn't give into the pressure. He stood his ground and said push me off but I'm not backing down. And people respected that. I believe in 20 years Clinton will be looked upon as a strong president and great man. Kerry on the other hand is letting it get to him and showing weakness. If you cannot see that his reactions are fueling more smear ads (because he reacted negatively to it, then the GOP could throw more of it, because he was giving it credibility) then yes, what I assume is truth would not affect you. I believe it is truth (perhaps subjectively) because I do not believe a man reacting negatively to negative ads and showing weakness will win any election. What Kerry needs to do before it is too late is get off the Vietnam issue totally, pound the issues. Give an answer if necessary to a smear but move on and don't show that it is getting to him. It's like the bully on the schoolyard, you show weakness he's gonna keep pummeling you there, yes eventually you may toughen up but for Kerry if he wants to win he better toughen up fast. I'm not being or wanting anyone in this thread to be partisan. I'm a DEM, and damn proud to be, but I am not blind to the overbearing weakness Kerry is showing me and I have a feeling many many others who want to vote for him, but see the weakness and have doubts. If he shows weakness now what is he going to be like in office when he wants to get a bill through and the GOP don't want to work with him? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 09-11-2004 at 06:32 PM..

09-11-2004, 06:33 PM	#12 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	You bring up the election committee complaint again. Bush complained to the election committee back in Jan/Feb over one of the MoveOn ads. Not only do you not claim that is a sign of Bush's weakness - but you either didn't even know about it (again I submit, because the GOP can yell louder) or you intentionally ignore it. When has Kerry "cried to the people and asked for help"? How has he shown any signs of "cracking or breaking"? Clinton was impeached. If Kerry didn't react to the ads, he would have been labeled weak and guilty. If he does react to the ads, he is labeled weak, and a liar. As I said, I see no way he could come out on top in the face of GOP smear tactics. Is that a reason to blame Kerry? No. It is a reason to blame the GOP for subverting democracy by mocking it with smears instead of dealing with the issues.

09-11-2004, 07:37 PM	#16 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Opie, Smears may work, but I think reaction to the smear is what determines the vote. If a candidate cannot rise above the smear and get his message out he will not win. Bush could have far worse smear than Kerry (cocaine use rumors, driving every business he ever ran into bankruptcy, and so on), but it doesn't stick because Bush doesn't allow it to stick. Seriously, look at the '92 and '96 elections and watch how Clinton reacted and you'll see what I mean. =-================= Clinton was not impeached. He was acquitted on article 1 (45 for 55 against) Article 2 was deadlocked at 50 apiece meaning Gore cast the deciding vote. President Clinton responded to the Senate vote today in the Rose Garden. Earlier in the day the Senate voted to aquit the president on both articles of impeachment. The following is a transcript of his response. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people. I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year. Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together. This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America. Thank you very much. REPORTER: In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget? PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it. link:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/impeachment/ __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"