Democrat or Republican, this is what your side does and what your vote supports...

[Lebell]

Partisanship aside, I found this summation of what has been going on during the 2004 campaign to be disturbing as well as disgusting:

--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6631134

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - No matter who wins Tuesday's election, the 2004 presidential campaign will go down in history for its record volume of distorted messages, misinformation and outright mendacity, analysts say.

The lavishly financed but deadlocked race between Republican President Bush and Democrat John Kerry has given rise to an unprecedented number of political television spots -- over half of which appear to contain serious distortions.

Analysts also say the candidates and their surrogates have stretched and twisted the political debate into a series of daily attacks that are often repeated by media outlets with little regard for their accuracy.

"Add it all up and you really do have to wear hip-waders. Never before in American history have we seen this level of propaganda and distortion," said Charles Lewis, director of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and a leading authority on dirty politics in America, said voters are being exposed to record levels of political distortion through the sheer number of TV ads.

More than 750,000 political TV spots dealing with the presidential race are expected to have aired by Election Day, nearly double the number that ran in 2000, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a research group sponsored by the University of Wisconsin.

The percentage of TV ads with misleading messages is also up from a record 50 percent set in the 1996 presidential race, Jamieson said.

"It was higher than that during the primary season, largely because the Bush campaign was running 75 percent of its ads on the attack and virtually every attack ad had at least one serious distortion," she said.

Deceptive politics has surged this year, as Republicans and Democrats marshal huge financial resources to the tasks of shoring up political bases and appealing to undecided voters.

SEPT. 11 ALTERS CAMPAIGN

Total spending on the presidential race by the two campaigns, the two major parties and a host of advocacy groups is expected to top $1.2 billion, the Center for Responsive Politics estimates.

Presidential historian Joan Hoff said this year's election campaign has also been skewed by an aura of fear created by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"There's simply been a move to the right on the part of all the media, including PBS (Public Broadcasting System), since Sept. 11," said Hoff, who teaches history at Montana State University.

"Just as they were reporting weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they're taking these ads and reporting them without much analysis or factual comment," she said.

FactCheck.org, the campaign watchdog Web site run by Jamieson's Annenberg Center, has logged nearly 100 misleading ads and other acts of misrepresentation by the two campaigns or their candidates this year.

The list runs the gamut from a Bush-Cheney ad warning that Kerry would throw America to the wolves to a Kerry-Edwards claim that Bush would cut Social Security.

On the whole, analysts say Bush's use of distortion has been more audacious than Kerry's. But the Massachusetts senator has left much of the dirty work to outside advocacy groups whom Jamieson blames for one of the most serious attacks of the campaign.

"You've got to come back to the 527 ads that accused the president of lying to take us into war. It's probably the most serious charge you can make," she said, referring to the so-called "527" groups that work independently from the candidates.

"But I don't think you can warrant that inference from the available evidence," she said. "So I think that is a deceptive claim."

The Wisconsin project noted the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth generated national controversy over Kerry's war record with a relatively small airing of 739 aggressive spots. The media attention they received was so widespread that the Kerry campaign was forced to publicly defend his record.



Reuters
Oct 27 2004 1:03PM
-------------------------------------------------------

Many of us are holding our noses and voting "the lesser of two evils", including myself.

But this, THIS is what American Politics has degenerated to.

Are we really better off throwing our votes to one of these two parties instead of voting what we know is right and going with someone else or are we just being pragmatic?

[tecoyah]

Indeed....this sums up a situation that is somewhat disturbing. My hope is that we , as a country manage to come together and repair that which allows this to happen.....we all need hopes.

[Halx]

And it still amazes me that people remain so tightly affiliated with the main parties. Especially in here. Do they not know that they are being lied to by both? How could you possibly throw your support to someone who knowingly deceives you?

Or is this article just another trick by the liberal media?

[ARTelevision]

The fact that I see politics as an exercise of power and not a pursuit of truth makes this a non-issue for me.

I don't look for "truthfulness" in political rhetoric. I look for the underlying power relationships existing in the world and I make my political choices and allegiances accordingly.

[Booboo]

Nice post... I think we are all just going to have to wait and see how things turn out when this is all over.

[Seandq]

Really. As a moderate, I'm not sure if I can support Bush again in another term, but I'll try..for maybe up to two hours.

[Bill O'Rights]

A year of passion has come to a boil, and what will come of all this on Nov. 3? Some will pick up the morning paper and save it for a souvenir, and the others will wrap up the garbage in it.

What will reconcile us is what has always restored our sanity, and that is the plain pleasures of the physical world, our common love of coffee, the world of apples, the movements of birds, the lives of dogs, the touch of skin. Music. Dancing to music. Shooting baskets. Shooting conservatively, scoring liberally. Lacing up our skates, gliding through the dusk. Having worked ourselves into a fever over the future of Western civilization, we will now begin enjoying our oatmeal again, with raisins, chopped apricots and honey from bees that grazed in meadows of clover. The beauty of engagement is disengagement. You simply put on your jacket and walk out the door and find good health. There is no fever that a 10-mile hike can't cure.

Courtesy of Mr. Garrison Keillor, and Time Magazine, Vol. 164 No. 18

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

A year of passion has come to a boil, and what will come of all this on Nov. 3?

This one will go well past Nov 3, just like before.

I like the rest of the post. Is there a "What's wonderful" thread for more of the same? If not there should be.



I bet factcheck and snopes have seen their traffic go up ten-fold or more in the last 8 months.

[docbungle]

I think this goes hand in hand with Halx's post in philosophy:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=73989

regarding our view of history. There are a lot of people on this planet doing their best to make you believe what they want you to believe, regardless of it's truthfullness. Many people after this election will be living in completely different realities, complete with alternate histories that may or may not have existed. Events that never happened will be told to grandchildren and become part of their lives.

[Flyguy]

Originally Posted by Halx

And it still amazes me that people remain so tightly affiliated with the main parties. Especially in here. Do they not know that they are being lied to by both? How could you possibly throw your support to someone who knowingly deceives you?

Or is this article just another trick by the liberal media?

True, but really, as far as now is concerned what choice do you have? There are forces in the government keeping any third party out of the mainstream. Look at the last debate, the third party candidates demanding to be included in the debate were excluded. Why? I believe that government forces want America to remain on a two party system. They're afraid that if too many people begin to listen to an alternative, they'll support that party more and more and eventually the Democratic and Republican Party will be reduced to third party status.

I don't really like either party myself. But I voted for Kerry because his views are more aligned with my own and his priorities are up there with mine as well. Plus, in this election anyway, any third party doesn't stand a chance in hell so I have to align with the party that most represents my views until America wakes up.

Oh, and I hate Bush too.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Flyguy

True, but really, as far as now is concerned what choice do you have? There are forces in the government keeping any third party out of the mainstream. Look at the last debate, the third party candidates demanding to be included in the debate were excluded. Why? I believe that government forces want America to remain on a two party system. They're afraid that if too many people begin to listen to an alternative, they'll support that party more and more and eventually the Democratic and Republican Party will be reduced to third party status.

and whats all this say about the american people?

[Mephisto2]

I don't think it should come as any surprise that both sides engage in "negative campaigning". This has been the case in American politics for years and has gotten much worse since the past few years. We can debate the reasons, but there are certainly some underlying drivers for this.

These include

The Republican Right's "witch-hunt" (or campaign) against Clinton over a blow-job
The close win of Bush over Gore in 2000
The sense of "victimhood" that permeated the Democrats after that
The divisive nature of the war in Iraq (half of Americans really do have issues with Bush's policies here)
The fact that negative campaigning works

It's a sad state of affairs and one that has recently reared its ugly head in Australian politics. Campaigning here (and in the UK and Ireland where I come from) originally was "positive"; that is, it offered the electorate a set of alternate policies, a different vision, a choice. However the Howard government didn't do this, but simply attacked the opposition Labor Party in the campaign using scare tactics. It worked. They won when most people expecte them to lose, as people reacted to the negative messages with which they were bombarded.

I don't like what negative campaigning does. I don't like the skewing of facts, the mispresentation and the downright lies used in some adverts. I can't see any way to "fix it" though. I think, like annoying people on cellphones in public, it's become a fact of life.

Thoughts?


Mr Mephisto

[Flyguy]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and whats all this say about the american people?

It says that the average American is a brainless sheep who can't think for himself and needs to have everything spoon fed. And that's the truth.

[Lebell]

I guess on the positive side of things, your side (whichever side that is) isn't as bad as the other side says it is...

[guy44]

The reason there is so much distortion is that the media hasn't done shit to call them on it. If the media would take a candidate to task for lying, then lying would stop. But when was the last time that happened? The closest you get is a piece like this one, a week before the election, reporting on the trend overall.

When the media does its job again, this will stop or at least slow significantly.

[Willravel]

Lebell, good post, as usual.

So what can we do about it? Obviously voting third party hasen't made a difference. We've tried writing to the broadcasting companies. I've written ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, and most of the news networks personally. Deaf ears. I've written my local representatives. Everyone from city officials to the governor have gotten wonderful letters from me. We have countless websites that outline what's wrong. Does it effect anything to a degree of change? It sure doesn't seme that way. TFP is a great community, don't get me wrong, but it seems so small in the political arena. I ask again, so what can we do about it? Grassroots news organizations are local at best and are discredited by major news conglomerates. Bush has on several occasions said that conspiracy theories are the enemy of America.

It's starting to feel like a lost cause. If anyone has an idea as to how one could spread information on a national scale, let's hear it. Until we do something about it, all we're doing is talking.

IMO.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I guess on the positive side of things, your side (whichever side that is) isn't as bad as the other side says it is...

As Homer Simpson says, "Hehehe... it's funny because it's true"


Mr Mephisto

[dy156]

This is really in response to Halx, Lebell, and other third party idealists:
Why do some of us that aren't happy stick with our party? because if you acknowledge that neither side is perfect, you make a decision about whether you'd be better off voting for the guy that you agree with 60% of the time, the guy that you agree with 40% of the time, or the guy you agree with 80% of the time but doesn't stand a chance of winning and by doing so you know that you'll be helping the guy out that you agree with only 40% of the time. Hey, I admire your idealism.
But it's a truly self-centered utilitarian decision for me. And yes, politics has gotten dirtier lately than it used to. McCain Feingold was poorly thought out.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dy156

This is really in response to Halx, Lebell, and other third party idealists:
Why do some of us that aren't happy stick with our party? because if you acknowledge that neither side is perfect, you make a decision about whether you'd be better off voting for the guy that you agree with 60% of the time, the guy that you agree with 40% of the time, or the guy you agree with 80% of the time but doesn't stand a chance of winning and by doing so you know that you'll be helping the guy out that you agree with only 40% of the time. Hey, I admire your idealism.
But it's a truly self-centered utilitarian decision for me. And yes, politics has gotten dirtier lately than it used to. McCain Feingold was poorly thought out.

It's thinking like this that makes the primary parties feel assured of their 'base' and removes any fear from them about people straying to 3rd parties.

[Halx]

idealism is what keeps my soul content

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Halx

idealism is what keeps my soul content

That and TFP, right?


Mr Mephisto

[flstf]

By voting for either one of the major parties we are letting them know loud and clear that we approve of them and their tactics. Negative ads, distortions, etc... work, because of our support (votes). They know what makes us tick, otherwise we would vote 3rd party or stay away from the polls in droves.

[archer2371]

I point to the earlier elections as the worst ones, this one pales in comparison to the barbs that Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and everyone threw at each other, they just weren't as overt about it, ('cept in Hamilton's case, got his ass shot, shot!) I actually find them to be the most interesting political battles in all of American History, but that's another story.

[Mephisto2]

Well remember Lincoln had to sneak into Washington because his supporters felt he would be assassinated!

To be honest, Lincoln's first election caused a considerably greater amount of divisiveness than this one!


Mr Mephisto

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

To be honest, Lincoln's first election caused a considerably greater amount of divisiveness than this one!

Well done on the understatement.

Karl Rove and fellow "win at all costs" cretins have vastly upped the ante as far as negativity goes...

'94 - whisper campaign that Gov Richards was a closeted lesbian
'00 - whisper campaign that Sen McCain fathered black babies out of wedlock, and was a Manchurian Candidate, brainwashed by the Vietnamese
'00 - successfully branded VP Gore as a liar and serial exaggerator
'02 - successfully recast Sen Cleland as a traitor beholden to Bin Laden and Hussein, a man that left 3 limbs behind in Vietnam
'04 - successfully branded Kerry as a wishy-washy flip-flopper who never knew where he stood - thankfully the real John Kerry showed up for the debates and managed to blow away this caricature

These are just the tip of the iceberg - and no where have I heard of equivalent Democratic tactics. If anyone has heard of them, seriously, I would LOVE to hear them.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk

These are just the tip of the iceberg - and no where have I heard of equivalent Democratic tactics. If anyone has heard of them, seriously, I would LOVE to hear them.

My favorite negative TV ad was the one the Democrats ran against Goldwater. It showed a little girl in a field picking flowers, then her and the whole countryside was obliterated by a thermo-nuclear blast. That's what will happen if you vote for Goldwater, LOL.

There are many examples of character assasination on both sides. Remember when they tried to "Bork" Clarence Thomas.

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by flstf

My favorite negative TV ad was the one the Democrats ran against Goldwater. It showed a little girl in a field picking flowers, then her and the whole countryside was obliterated by a thermo-nuclear blast. That's what will happen if you vote for Goldwater, LOL.

There are many examples of character assasination on both sides. Remember when they tried to "Bork" Clarence Thomas.

A disengenous TV ad to be sure, but not quite on the par with what I was talking about. As for the Clarence Thomas hearings, I *do* remember those, and how Republicans called Anita Hill everything from a pathological liar to a nymphomaniac. So as far as character assassination goes, that was a pretty effective smear job. Anything else?

[maypo]

posted by halx
And it still amazes me that people remain so tightly affiliated with the main parties. Especially in here. Do they not know that they are being lied to by both? How could you possibly throw your support to someone who knowingly deceives you?

It seems a lot of people think a third party would be somehow purer and avoid all the negativity of the two party system. I think they too would become corrupted in the exact same way. In order to generate enough votes they too would begin to waffle on issues and provide innocuous sound bites. Needing money they would cozy up to corporations and individuals.

posted by ARTelevision
The fact that I see politics as an exercise of power and not a pursuit of truth makes this a non-issue for me.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk

A disengenous TV ad to be sure, but not quite on the par with what I was talking about. As for the Clarence Thomas hearings, I *do* remember those, and how Republicans called Anita Hill everything from a pathological liar to a nymphomaniac. So as far as character assassination goes, that was a pretty effective smear job. Anything else?

Dukakis & Willie Horton

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by smooth

Dukakis & Willie Horton

I was actually looking for some Democratic smear jobs that aren't 40 year old history, but since no one on the right has come up with one, how about some current events - this smear is happening right now to the Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky:

link, requires registration

A top state Republican called Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Dan Mongiardo "limp-wristed," and another GOP state legislator said she questions whether "the word 'man' applies to him" in speeches during Sen. Jim Bunning's campaign bus tour yesterday.
Both state Senate President David Williams of Burkesville and state Sen. Elizabeth Tori of Radcliff denied they intended to raise questions about Mongiardo's sexual orientation -- though Tori later said that if any listeners thought she was referring to his sexuality, "so be it."

...

Williams at least twice yesterday described Mongiardo, a 44-year-old Hazard physician, as "limp-wristed" -- once last night in Owensboro and earlier that day in Elizabethtown.

In an interview after the Owensboro rally, Williams denied he used the phrase to imply that Mongiardo is gay.

"'Limp-wristed' denotes weakness. It's not a sexual slur," Williams said. "I'm not going to have them limiting my choice of vocabulary, my freedom of speech," he said, referring to Bunning's opposition.

"Besides, I don't understand the Democrats on this one," Williams added. "I'm not saying anything about anyone's sexual orientation. But if I were -- are they saying that's pejorative, that it's bad to be homosexual? I don't think they would say that, but how can they have it both ways?"

Recently, Williams had criticized candidates in an Eastern Kentucky state Senate race for trying to play "the homosexual card" by raising questions about each other's sexual orientation.

At the Elizabethtown stop, Tori, the state Senate majority whip, said "I served with Dr. Dan -- let me tell you he is not a gentleman. I'm not even sure the word 'man' applies to him." The comment drew laughter and applause.

In a telephone interview last night, Tori repeated her comment and volunteered, "The remark is a little ambiguous, isn't it?"

Tori said that she doesn't consider Mongiardo "a man" because he "has never taken one step to help us on a major issue" in the state Senate. "All he does is whine."

She said that to many people, being a "man" means "being in control, being a leader."

"I don't know anything about his sex life," she said of Mongiardo, who is unmarried. "I didn't say it that way." But, Tori added, "It's up to the person who hears it to decide" what the remark means.

See this link for more Classic Rovian tactics.

[Lebell]

Too bad some are insistant upon making this a partisan thread.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Too bad some are insistant upon making this a partisan thread.

Those people suck, you should ban them all!

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Those people suck, you should ban them all!

As the wise man said, be careful what you wish for, you may get it

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Lebell

As the wise man said, be careful what you wish for, you may get it

I couldn't be so lucky

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by Lebell

Too bad some are insistant upon making this a partisan thread.

No, Lebell. I am, in fact, truly interested in hearing about Democratic smear jobs, in the interests of keeping this "non-partisan". Find 'em and I'll read 'em.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk

No, Lebell. I am, in fact, truly interested in hearing about Democratic smear jobs, in the interests of keeping this "non-partisan". Find 'em and I'll read 'em.

They were posted in the original article. Others have added to them.

If that won't satisfy you, I don't know what else to say.