Talk about a video hurting Kerry

I predict numerous accusations of bias and lying against the makers/talkers of this video present in this thread.

I’ve gotta say, though, that video hurts Kerry so much, Heinz Ketchup is gonna take a loss next quarter…

Except not one single man who claims to have served with John Kerry, did serve with John Kerry on the swiftboat. So another paid for lie by the republicans.

I have a new theory, they are going so negative in an attempt to just turn off every single voter. At this point, I barely feel like watching any of this, it is just bullshit followed by horseshit.


Hey, at least Kerry has plenty of guys who can attest that he actually showed up for duty.

Malderi, your bomb throwing is getting tiresome.

Especially when, after you yell “fire in the hole!”, they all turn out to be duds.

Me? Bomb throwing? <sneaks off with several more fuses hidden in pockets>

At any rate, this video should be rather devastating, true or not. One showing of this on a prime-time T.V. show for Joe Sixpack would severely hurt.

Who would it hurt? The Bush campaign? This kind of brutal negative attack can have very serious consequences for the side showing them.

Chet actually describes the political formulation behind it fairly well. But Bush, who obviously dodged service in Vietnam entirely, and a total collapse of public trust, can’t afford to be assoicated withg this kind of nonsense in any way.

At this Bringing up questions about Kerry’s war record only serves to highlight the problems with his own…

Malderi, lets assume you are right about the impact. Let’s assume that Joe Sixpack believes the false implications, doesn’t know the truth about the Swiftvet organization (or whatever their full name is), and that the explanations of the truth are all too long winded and complicated to rebut the charges. Let’s assume that the lie/smear attack works. Is that honestly how you want the country to be governed?

Honestly: you want voters to be swayed by an ad that leads to demonstrably false implications, from biased sources, and that gives a false impression of John Kerry, a man who did in fact volunteer for military service in Vietnam no matter what else you think about him? Is that what you really want?

Look, I know everybody lies and spins, and gives misleading implications and false impressions. But the Republicans have gotten so blatant, so vicious, so far into false impressions, that I believe it is seriously dangerous for our country.

Mark my words, if Bush wins this election on the basis of the brutal, negative, smear campaign his side is now waging, things in this country will be pretty damn ugly.



I went and read the whole “swift boat sight”. The best they can really claim is a bunch of other skippers didn’t like Kerry and thought him unfit. The most damning information they have is that he criticized the war effort and discussed atrocities. They go into detail about a reasonable contesting of Kerry’s first purple heart but seem silent on his other two purple hearts, as well as his bronze and silver star.

The right should really stay away from this topic. As a litigator would always tell you, stay away from elements that expose weaknesses on your side. While John Kerry was maybe getting a purple heart he perhaps didn’t one hundred percent earn, George Bush was knocking up waitresses and at very least, not showing up for various aspects of his duty stateside. I’m not trying to draw the comparison here, I’m just saying the right trying to draw it is, at the end of the day, far more damaging to them then Kerry.

And if they really want to sink their own boat, go to the linked site where the kerry evaluations pdfs live ( and read the tortured "Hey, those fitreps might look great, but they actually really suck! at (

Are you knew to politics ?

Except that it doesn’t seem to be making a difference at all. Polling numbers for months now have shown that Bush is (bizarrely) more trusted when it comes to things like national defense. I don’t see the Kerry=Nam Hero, Bush=Lying AWOL Coward angle making any difference to this campaign at all, at least so far. Kerry’s war record certainly isn’t making him more credible as a strong leader, and if people were really concerned about Bush’s shameful, I’m Rich So I Don’t Have to Go to War bullshit, it would be affecting his polling numbers when it comes to national security. Because of these numbers, I’m not surprised that the Bush team is saying to hell with the risks and making the Nam stuff an issue.

This is the biggest reason why I thing Bush is going to win in November. Kerry’s biggest strength is his war record, and he still can’t seem to top an absolute clown like Bush when it comes to key issues like national security. If he can’t at least crush Bush in that arena, what chance does he have overall.

For the record, I really, really hope that I’m wrong.

Chet, do you have a site that describes this whole thing?

It has made a difference, Brett. For various reasons, an “average” race would have the GOP candidate up by 10 at least on national security. That Bush can barely keep up with Kerry means he’s taking serious hits on it. is a good first stop, though there are probably much more in-depth refutations of the group’s latest fabrications.

Good articles linked, too.

There’s no doubt that Bush’s numbers are continuing to soften. If he needs the undecideds to win he’s in a lot of trouble:

For the better part of four months, this race has been effectively tied, with the two candidates running at about 45 percent or 46 percent, give or take 3 percentage points, depending upon the poll, the week, and the events leading into the survey. Since Kerry’s choice of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina to be his running mate, the Democratic ticket has ticked up about 2 to 4 points, and is ever-so-slightly ahead in most polls. The mistake that many make is to assume that a tie in the polls means that the two candidates have equal chances of winning. Not so.

An axiom in politics is that undecided voters rarely end up casting their ballots for well-known, well-defined incumbents. If a well-known and established incumbent picks up one-quarter to one-third of the undecided vote, he is lucky indeed. Just a cursory look at the current pool of undecided voters suggests that Bush is unlikely to get even one-quarter of the undecided vote.(…)

Among all registered voters, 41 percent agreed with the statement that the country was headed in the right direction, while 56 percent thought it was off on the wrong track. But among undecided voters, only 18 percent said that the country was headed in the right direction, and 75 percent said it was on the wrong track.(…)

On Bush’s job-approval rating, 49 percent of those surveyed approved of the president’s overall performance, and another 49 percent disapproved. But among undecided voters, only 22 percent approved, and 69 percent disapproved.

Meanwhile, McCain has stepped out to defend Kerry from the Smear Veterans for Lying:

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

“I wish they hadn’t done it,” McCain said of his former advisers. “I don’t know if they knew all the facts.”

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, “I hope not, but I don’t know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.”

Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, “I can’t believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt.”

The White House did not immediately address McCain’s call that they repudiate the spot.

I still find it funny that the same groups that spit on Vietnam veterans coming back from the war are now thinking it’s a great thing the President would be one them.

Yes, there are all sorts of logical flaws in that statement, but I still get a chuckle whenever I think of it.

Honestly, though, some of the best war presidents - Abe Lincoln, FDR - were never a member of the military until they commanded it. Being a veteran isn’t exactly necessary, and I still find his actions after Vietnam to be terrible. Running on a platform designed after something he himself disgraced doesn’t seem too honest to me.

What groups would those be?

And why is it poor conduct to publically question and criticize American leadership? It’s not like Kerry was railing against the soldiers post-Vietnam; he was railing against the corrupt administration that was getting his fellow soldiers killed for no good reason.

Kerry disgraced the Vietnam war? I want to hear this one. Especially seeing how John McCain disagrees and all.

I often wish that we could split this country in two so that scum like Maderi could get the administration that they deserve.

As it stands, though, if he gets the administration he should, then I have to get the administration that he deserves, and that’s just not kosher.

Anax- Malderi is a Republican version of Mayer, nothing more. Scum? Come on.