PDA

View Full Version : Republicans Swift Boat General Wesley Clark


TwinSwords
07-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Can you count all the lies Republicans and their media enablers tell in this short video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRwsk56lN44

Can you watch this and still claim with a straight face that the media is liberal? Of course you can't. And of course you don't really believe Clark said anything that was even remotely offensive—and neither do any of these lying Republicans with their fake outrage. This is a calculated hissy fit, and nothing more. This is how the media ensures its favored candidates win elections.

Republicans suck.

AemJeff
07-01-2008, 10:22 PM
The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, or whatever their official designation was, may have been lying sacks of doo-doo, but they have gifted us with the nice, concise verb "to swiftboat." As such, it's a hell of a lot easier to economically refer to this kind of shameless bullshit, and therefore a lot easier to blunt the effect it has.

look
07-02-2008, 12:02 AM
Can you count all the lies Republicans and their media enablers tell in this short video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRwsk56lN44

Can you watch this and still claim with a straight face that the media is liberal? Of course you can't. And of course you don't really believe Clark said anything that was even remotely offensive—and neither do any of these lying Republicans with their fake outrage. This is a calculated hissy fit, and nothing more. This is how the media ensures its favored candidates win elections.

Republicans suck.

Obama throws Clark under the bus:
The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama today rejected a statement by retired Gen. Wesley Clark who questioned whether John McCain's "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down" qualified him to be the next commander-in-chief.

With his biting statement, Clark, a former four-star general and often mentioned potential running mate for Obama, might have hurt his chances of becoming the No. 2 on the Democratic ticket.

In a speech today in Missouri, Obama seemed to try distance himself from Clark's remarks, although he didn't mention the former NATO general by name.

"For those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama said. "And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

Ouch.

Separately, the Obama campaign issued a statement distancing the senator from Clark's statement.

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/mccain_camp_calls_clark_commen.html

TwinSwords
07-02-2008, 12:35 AM
Obama throws Clark under the bus.

I swear, you'd think the Democrats are all getting their plays from the same capitulation handbook. This just shows weakness, and an unwillingness to defend your own. A terrible move on Obama's part. Rick Perlstein described the problem (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conviction_politics) perfectly in the American Prospect four years ago:

Here is a better first step to retaking red-state voters. We talk about southern culture, blue-collar culture, NASCAR culture -- which overlaps, in complicated ways, with evangelical culture. Certainly one tenet they all share is this: When somebody punches you in the gut, you don't smile, stride halfway between his position and yours, and say that maybe the guy has a point. Behaving like that is precisely what has made the Democrats look so unsympathetically unfocused and confused to so many people. You have to convince them that you've got a fighting faith, too. Or else you can't fight.

bjkeefe
07-02-2008, 12:43 AM
Actually, I thought Obama's statement was pretty artful. He's essentially echoing Clark's main point by saying only that McCain's service in Vietnam was beyond question.

TwinSwords
07-02-2008, 12:44 AM
The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, or whatever their official designation was, may have been lying sacks of doo-doo, but they have gifted us with the nice, concise verb "to swiftboat." As such, it's a hell of a lot easier to economically refer to this kind of shameless bullshit, and therefore a lot easier to blunt the effect it has.

That's a good point. It's worth remembering at times like this that the public is largely immune to the media's calculated fits of hysteria.

TwinSwords
07-02-2008, 01:06 AM
Actually, I thought Obama's statement was pretty artful. He's essentially echoing Clark's main point by saying only that McCain's service in Vietnam was beyond question.

Are you referring to yesterday's statements, or today's?

I agree today's brief remarks were artful and appropriate, garnering headlines such as "No Apologies From Obama For Wes Clark's Comments (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/no_apologies_from_obama_for_we.php)."

That's the way it should be done. It shows strength, and the leader's willingness to defend his team. But in making these remarks, Obama was walking back these earlier statements:

Omama campaign, Monday:

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

Obama in Missouri, Monday:

"And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides. We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Full stop."

In my opinion, the latter two statements are properly described not as "artful," but as "hanging one of his leading advocates out to dry," and "throwing Clark under the bus." This kind of capitulation and weakness demoralizes the base and makes high profile advocates like Clark question whether they should put themselves on the line for Obama.

After all, everyone knows that this is how Republicans and the media play the game, ginning up fits of fake outrage in an effort to decapitate Democrats—one by one. Any Democrat who plays the game knows that they can be blindsided by one of these coordinated smears at any time. If they can't have confidence that the person they are working for will make the minimal effort to defend them, why should they put their necks on the line?

Americans will pick a strong fighter over a weak conciliator every time, and if Obama hasn't internalized that simple and completely obvious fact yet, he'd better, and soon. November is not far away.

The CW circulating now is that Clark is badly wounded and has taken himself out of the running for VP. For what? For making a completely obvious statement that even McCain himself would agree with. (McCain: "It doesn't take a lot of skill to get shot down.")

bjkeefe
07-02-2008, 01:56 AM
Twin:

I confess I'm unable to summon up the energy to follow this story closely, so I'm basing my impressions on just one story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01campaign.html) that I read.

My real problem with this whole thing is that I can no longer stand to hear anyone say "throw under the bus," and I'm sure every story on Clark will feature this phrase, without exception, from now on. It's this year's "candidate you'd like to have a beer with." It's hard to believe anyone thinks it sounds smart to say.

I dunno about the whole thing, though. Especially if you stipulate that Clark wasn't going to get the VP nod, he's managed to inject the main point pretty well into the MSM consciousness. Had it been a Republican doing it, we'd all be screaming about Rovian triple bank trick shots -- the message gets out there and keeps getting repeated, the candidate gets to act all high and mighty, the guy who really isn't that important to the campaign at the moment goes on a nice vacation. I mean, people act like Obama will be required to take Clark off his speed dial for life or something. So Clark doesn't go on TV and spin for a while. Big deal.

Seriously, I couldn't care less. I'm so sick of this whole faux outrage thing.

TwinSwords
07-02-2008, 02:08 AM
My real problem with this whole thing is that I can no longer stand to hear anyone say "throw under the bus," and I'm sure every story on Clark will feature this phrase, without exception, from now on.
LOL, you are so right. Though I used the expression myself, it's pure cliché.



I dunno about the whole thing, though. Especially if you stipulate that Clark wasn't going to get the VP nod, he's managed to inject the main point pretty well into the MSM consciousness. Had it been a Republican doing it, we'd all be screaming about Rovian triple bank trick shots -- the message gets out there and keeps getting repeated, the candidate gets to act all high and mighty
One of Josh Marshall's readers expressed this view (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202200.php) well, yesterday:

Am I the only one who thinks that the Obama campaign is winning big here and that the media is being played badly? The conversation has begun - "it's out there" as they say - does McCain's record as a (not-very-good) fighter jock and POW more than thirty years ago in some way qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief? At the same time, Obama "rejects the statement" and "honors and respects Senator McCain's service." How is Obama hurt by this? How is McCain? And now we can let the bloviators compare this honest question to what was done to John Kerry. Remember how Kerry's record was fair game because he brought it up and Bush and Rove pretended like they had nothing to do with the SBVT? Obama seems to have learned the new rules. As a friend of mine likes to say, if I were having any more fun, I'd have to be twins.



the guy who really isn't that important to the campaign at the moment goes on a nice vacation. I mean, people act like Obama will be required to take Clark off his speed dial for life or something. So Clark doesn't go on TV and spin for a while. Big deal.
Except, it doesn't appear that is happening. Even last night Clark was on the cable shows defending himself. He shows no sign of backing down. Once you engage the enemy, the only path to victory is to press forward. Retreat is a guaranteed formula for failure. Clark is showing us how it's supposed to be done. If we had more willing to stand their ground, we'd win more elections. Neither of us likes the character of American politics, but we must meet it where it is and not turn up our noses. Kerry tried to ignore the Swift Boaters for weeks, probably because he, too, was sick of the whole faux outrage thing. The key is to engage the enemy whenever he attacks.

My view is that collapsing into a heap whenever you're attacked only encourages more attacks. Maybe if Republicans were afraid of waking sleeping dogs, they'd think twice about swift boating our leaders. We have to smash them in the mouth before they'll learn that lesson, however. Personally, I was never big on tiddlywinks.

bjkeefe
07-02-2008, 02:31 AM
Twin:

I do agree with you about the Dems and their unwillingness to stand their ground, or to stand up for themselves, or to stand on principle. When I think about how they let the right wing own the flag, the entire national security issue, and "values," and let them turn liberal into a pejorative, just to name a few, it just makes me cringe.

Which, of course, is part of the reason why I haven't been a registered Democrat since 2000.

TwinSwords
07-02-2008, 02:36 AM
Twin:

I do agree with you about the Dems and their unwillingness to stand their ground, or to stand up for themselves, or to stand on principle. When I think about how they let the right wing own the flag, the entire national security issue, and "values," and let them turn liberal into a pejorative, just to name a few, it just makes me cringe.

Which, of course, is part of the reason why I haven't been a registered Democrat since 2000.

Not that it's any of my business, but have you ever voted 3rd party? I did; Nader in 1996. Living in Michigan, it was a safe protest. In 2000, however, the election was too close, so I voted for Gore.

I heard Nader give a lengthy speech on C-SPAN about a month ago, and despite all my antipathy towards him for throwing the election to Bush in 2000, he still makes waaaay more sense than any Democrat. (With the exception that he's not very politically realistic. He doesn't seem to get that you can't embrace a super-far left agenda in the United States.)

bjkeefe
07-02-2008, 03:13 AM
Not that it's any of my business, but have you ever voted 3rd party?

Not in a presidential election. Once or twice for Congress.

Nader? I lost respect (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/02/oh-ralph.html) for him long ago.

Thus Spoke Elvis
07-02-2008, 10:00 AM
I blame this more on the fact that Clark's comment was made on Face the Nation, a show nobody watches. The talking heads are all just commenting on the same edited clip, without having bothered to watch the whole thing.

That's pathetic, but not at all unusual.

bjkeefe
07-02-2008, 10:51 AM
I blame this more on the fact that Clark's comment was made on Face the Nation, a show nobody watches. The talking heads all just commenting on the same edited clip, without having bothered to watch the whole thing.

That's pathetic, but not at all unusual.

Good point.

MoveOn sent out an email yesterday containing a longer transcript that gives some more context:

BOB SCHIEFFER: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable.

John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.

But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe—could I just interrupt you?

CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

More here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/right-on-general-clark-do_b_109977.html).

look
07-03-2008, 01:17 AM
Twin:

I confess I'm unable to summon up the energy to follow this story closely, so I'm basing my impressions on just one story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01campaign.html) that I read.

My real problem with this whole thing is that I can no longer stand to hear anyone say "throw under the bus," and I'm sure every story on Clark will feature this phrase, without exception, from now on. It's this year's "candidate you'd like to have a beer with." It's hard to believe anyone thinks it sounds smart to say.

I dunno about the whole thing, though. Especially if you stipulate that Clark wasn't going to get the VP nod, he's managed to inject the main point pretty well into the MSM consciousness. Had it been a Republican doing it, we'd all be screaming about Rovian triple bank trick shots -- the message gets out there and keeps getting repeated, the candidate gets to act all high and mighty, the guy who really isn't that important to the campaign at the moment goes on a nice vacation. I mean, people act like Obama will be required to take Clark off his speed dial for life or something. So Clark doesn't go on TV and spin for a while. Big deal.

Seriously, I couldn't care less. I'm so sick of this whole faux outrage thing.bjkeefe throws "under the bus" under the bus. Details at 11:00.

bjkeefe
07-03-2008, 01:30 AM
bjkeefe throws "under the bus" under the bus. Details at 11:00.

And in a shocking new development, it's being reported that he backed up just to run it over again.

look
07-03-2008, 01:31 AM
LOL

'Night.

bjkeefe
07-03-2008, 01:38 AM
Gail Collins's op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/opinion/03collins.html) on the silliness of the right's reaction to Clark is pretty good. I especially liked this bit:

Clark was careful to say that he considered McCain a hero for his P.O.W. suffering and that he honored his service. This is a Democratic mantra that must preface every single mention of the presumptive Republican nominee. For instance: “We honor Senator McCain’s service. (Pause) His plan for the budget looks as if it was worked out by an elementary school math class in crayon.”

TwinSwords
07-03-2008, 08:53 AM
Gail Collins's op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/opinion/03collins.html) on the silliness of the right's reaction to Clark is pretty good. I especially liked this bit:

LOL, that is a good quote from Collins. She's right that you have to genuflect to McCain's service before saying practically anything else about him.

TwinSwords
07-03-2008, 08:54 AM
bjkeefe throws "under the bus" under the bus. Details at 11:00.

:-D

Good one. :-)