NYT Editorial: Politics as Usual

[kskiska]

It may seem outlandish to launch a campaign broadside by television ad and book flackery devoted to discrediting the respectable Vietnam War record of Senator John Kerry, who has five combat medals. But that is exactly what a Republican-financed group of partisans is doing in presenting itself as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and tattooing the Democratic presidential nominee with accusations of lying about his service and war wounds. Never in Mr. Kerry's command, but claiming to have served near enough, its members are trying to contradict the firsthand accounts of his crewmates who are vouching for his war record.

In a way, this political assault may merely be a knife-edged compliment to the effectiveness of Mr. Kerry's stratagem of tirelessly - some might say tiresomely - highlighting his wartime service. The attack ads and the book, "Unfit for Command,'' are a visceral part of the anti-Kerry campaign in the battleground states. The assault is gaining attention, with Internet and cable television zealots debating combat minutiae and even whether Mr. Kerry enacted wartime events with his political future in mind or held secret meetings with Communists.

(snip)

Senator John McCain, the Vietnam hero who was smeared by one such "independent" stealth group in the 2000 campaign, has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans' attack as dishonest and dishonorable, declaring, "The Bush administration should specifically condemn the ad." So far that hasn't happened. We can only hope the senator brought the point up as he campaigned last week with Mr. Bush.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/opinion/19thu2.html?ex=1093579200&en=d64faf59bd63ca27&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[Snellius]

1. Typical of the Times to throw in a reference to MoveOn.org

The Times always seems to think that "liberal" means that, if they criticize one side, they are obligated to point out "But the other side does it too." Neglecting to verify that the MoveOn ads about Bush's National Guard service, unlike the attacks on Kerry's heroism, are basically the truth. This issue isn't really about loopholes in the election law, it's about simple values of honesty and integrity.

[PATRICK]

3. Dirty Dancing

One side slings mud, but with enough pretended "covert" obfuscation so as not to disturb the sportscasters turned electoral adjudicators- the media- from noting that if the victim fights back they are 'both the same" although, interestingly the cleanest one of all is the hypocrite who started the mess behind the scenes.

In a campaign where all the dirty ops are tired Nixon hacks telegraphing their rabbit punches using the same historical methods of the shameful past, what is obvious to any one on any side is that Bush will fight dirty and cheat. Yet, for the sake of some mythical "contest" for which the yawning press is looking for ratings, they are making absolute blind fools of themselves by not noting the obvious themselves- much less exposing and condemning it.

There is no referee. A Bush surrogate lobs a mind numbing projection grenade. Kerry is on the defensive. The blow is analyzed for the sake of the damage it has done, not at all that is a lying crime. Any person who notes that simple fact- who is not dismissed as a Kerry supporter- is looked upon with surprise and ignored.

Also, might one dare to remember that ultimate coward, George McGovern whom the Nixon style campaigners heaped scorn upon for merely flying his required WWII bombing runs? The public won't remember that. Nor will those little questions about Bush Sr. and Jr. in the service see much light.

Dirty, depress, confuse. They prefer all that to seeking positive votes because they know they don't have the hearts or minds of most Americans and cannot rationally in any way compete fairly. Most Americans recognize that too despite not ever hearing their TVs or papers whisper the truth.

[Moderator]

2. Kick

:kick:

[Cocoa]

4. why is the NYT so reluctant to make a point?

this just retells the story, with a disapproving tone, but doesn't SAY anything about it.

edit: and the title says something wrong; this Bush campaign is unprecedentedly negative, especially for an incumbent.