He Should Have Stuck To Viagra.

Remember Bob Dole's recent appearance on the Wolf Blitzer show? The one where he said, about the SwiftVets controversy, that "not every one of these people can be Republican liars. There's got to be some truth to the charges"? Slate got a copy of the raw camera feed from the CNN studio, so you can see what he said when Kerry's ad was airing and the mic was turned off. Check it out.

Comments

[Slartibartfast]

Won't play for me; no idea why.

[Slartibartfast]

From the article, though, I gather this: Dole thinks the SwiftVets have a point, but thinks that the attacks against McCain were shameful. Is this really the point you want to make?

[CJM]

Dole isn't an idiot, Slarti - that is, he's old enough to know what a smear campaign looks like. And he's commended John Kerry and his war record before. Are you making the argument that for thirty years Bob Dole never read anything on Kerry's service until he saw a Swift Boat ad and then, gullible naif that he is, was completely taken in by it? Dole recognized the smearing of McCain for what it was because he wasn't sent out by the White House to play hatchet man against John McCain. Dole isn't stupid. He's just another partisan hack.

[Blue]

CJM,

Could you provide some proof about how McCain was actually smeared?

Do you have any quotes or anything like that?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Isn't Dole saying that he thinks certain ads against McCain were unfair, but that the SwiftVets ads aren't? Since they are different ads about different actions about different people, I don't see the alleged contradiction.

The SwiftVets ads still aren't as sleazy as the NAACP ad which directly equated Bush with the guys who tied Byrd to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him to death. But I suppose stirring up racial animus isn't as bad as questions about puffing up a war record that Kerry has made completely central to his campaign.

[Hal]

I don't know. Different bullets at different times by different guns with the same finger on the trigger are the same thing.

Really, now. This is truly an argument from ignorance.

[JadeGold]

Could you provide some proof about how McCain was actually smeared?

Bush ran a number of smear campaigns against McCain in 2000.

In the SC primaries, Rove put out a telephone push poll which asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

There was also the group--funded by Merrie Spaeth of SwiftBoat fame--that claimed McCain was the "manchurian candidate" and that his POW experience was less than honorable; that he had cooperated early and often with his captors and spent his captivity in more favorable conditions. This same group claimed McCain's captivity had rendered him "unstable."

There were also campaigns that McCain's wife was a drug addict (based on a previous admission from McCain's wife that she'd been, at one time, addicted to painkillers) and that McCain was perhaps a bit too gay-friendly for a reason.

[JadeGold]

The SwiftVets ads still aren't as sleazy as the NAACP ad which directly equated Bush with the guys who tied Byrd to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him to death.

Nonsense. Nowhere in the NAACP-Mullins(daughter of James Byrd) ad was Bush equated to the murderers of James Byrd. Here's the ad's transcript:

On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black.

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation.

We won’t be dragged away from our future.

Second, most of the SwiftBoat charges are contradicted by official US Navy records, eyewitness testimony, and, in some cases, by those making the charges.

OTOH, we do know--without dispute--James Byrd was murdered, horribly, by several racists for no other reason than the fact he was black. We also know, again without dispute, Renee Mullins approached a then-Gov. Bush, begging for his help in strengthening hate crimes legislation in the state of Texas and that Bush blew her off with a curt, "no."

[Blue]

Jadegold,

I've heard of the push calls... Can you show me some proof that was actually in the phone call? Can you cite someone who received that call?

I think you are repeating Urban Legends

I'm not saying it wasn't a tough campaign. Both sides were tough.

I am just tired of hearing about all the bad things done and nothing ever substantiated.

[Blue]

Apolgies, I know this discussion isn't really relevant on this thread, but I just hear the same old line I couldn't help it.

National Review's own Byron York has debunked the other "McCain was smeared in South Carolina" charge. McCain mainly alleged that the Bush campaign was calling voters in a dirty "push poll" and telling them, "McCain is a cheat and a liar and a fraud." McCain's charge was based on the testimony of one 14-year-old boy. The Bush campaign released the script of the advocacy calls it was making, and the script said only, "Don't be misled by McCain's negative tactics." Asked by the Los Angeles Times to provide voters who had received the smear calls, the McCain campaign unearthed only six. According to the Times, of the voters it could reach, "three described questions that, while negative, appear to have been part of a legitimate poll. Another said she heard no negative information at all."

[CJM]

But I suppose stirring up racial animus isn't as bad as questions about puffing up a war record that Kerry has made completely central to his campaign.

Stirring up racial animus is pretty bad, Sebastian. And of course, George Bush has never stirred up racial animus - by, say, using a recess appointment to elevate an ardent supporter of cross-burners to the federal bench on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See, I can do "look over there!" too.)

The point of showing the video is that Bob Dole is acting as a hypocrite. He knows damn well that the smear campaign against John McCain - that alleged, among other things, that his time as a POW had made him too "unstable" to be president, and that his adopted Bangladesh-born daughter was his "illegitimate black child" - was rooted in utter falsehoods, as much as the Swiftvets campaign is. And if you want to start a debate about whether SBVFT are lying and deliberately misleading voters on everything from the awarding of Kerry's medals to the universal praise of his contemporary commanders to Cambodia - where John O'Neill evidently served both in Cambodia and never entered the country - I'd be more than happy to engage you, although I have a hard time believing that someone as intelligent as you could actually believe statements which fly in the face of thirty-five years of established Navy record.

As for Kerry making his service central to his campaign - aren't Republicans always clamoring for the importance of "character"? Wasn't George Bush's history as a born-again-saved-by-God-from-the-clutches-of-alcohol touted right and left as an example of his fine moral standing? Today Bush isn't running as the Man With The Plan for the next four years. He's not running on policy, or ideas to solve any of the problems he's created. He's running on his own fabricated image as the honest, brush-clearin', rough-ridin' cowboy with deep heartland values. He's proposed no new ideas for stabilizing Iraq or Afghanistan (which he claimed was a "rising democracy" - I hope he's just pushing an outright falsehood for political gain here; the notion that the president could be so ignorant as to actually believe this is deeply disturbing). His Iraq policy does not extend beyond continuing to argue for the war. And why should he offer policy points or a detailed plan for building Iraq? Bush's handlers know full well that the biggest thing Bush has going for him is his likable "persona", the imagecrafting that substitutes the appearance of strength for actual security.

Now conservatives seem to be suddenly fulstered at the notion that John Kerry could use his own biography to score points in the nebulous areas of Image and Character. Well, sorry, folks, but you guys were the ones who started playing this game - defining "integrity" in the White House as a man who'll lie to the country about the case for going to war, whose people will compromise national security and out CIA agents to score a few quick political points, whose Secretary of Defense creates an atmosphere of torture and rape in the US military, but who won't ever get a blowjob from an intern. When you start clamoring for George Bush to climb out of his cowboy hat and his flight suit and actually come up with solutions to his own policy failures, I'll start taking your calls for Kerry to softpedal his war record seriously.

[Blue]

CJM,

It seems to me the real issue is that your thoughts on McCain and what happened in SC are founded on utter falsehoods.

Could you cite some proof somewhere somehow? Or stop making the claims

[Edward]

Blue,

how about some cites from you too: National Review's own Byron York has debunked the other "McCain was smeared in South Carolina" charge?

[Blue]

Edward,

I'm pretty sure that in this country the basic practice is innocent until proven guilty...

I'm not using the claim that those "events" happened to support any particular position that I have.

All I said is that I think he is repeating Urban legends... and using it as a basis for his opinion. I would like to know where he gets that information from and if it has any credibility.

Please feel free to conclude that the National Review and Byron York are not presenting the truth in their research and that the L.A. Times has tons of proof to the contrary and just didn't give it to them because the love Bush so much.

CJM seems to be using them as proof positive.

Unrelated, did you see somewhere on this blog today where someone posted something about O'Neill calling Bush and empty suit? I know I saw it, but I just can't find it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Jadegold, the transcript is pretty awful no? But the images are even worse. Nothing but the truck, the chain, and something unfilmed being dragged. Don't try to tell me that isn't suggestive in exactly the why I described unless you have an amazingly good alternative explanation.

Supporters of crossing burners? I suspect you know almost nothing about the case in question if you think that is a fair description. Or perhaps you don't care if it is a fair description? In the case in question the prosecuter had pled out with the mastermind of the crime for a shockingly light sentence and was prosecuting a spur-of-the-moment accomplice for a much harsher sentence. The judge questioned that arrangement. I don't think that translates from what you suggested. Funny how you can decry the SwiftVets when a paragraph before you are using the same techniques that you accuse them of. You apparently think those techniques are ok, so what are you complaining about?

[Blue]

Completely unrelated... but now I am really upset... I just got spammed by the RNC.

Some crap called The Weekly Team Leader from my dear friend Ed Gillespie.

I admit I support Bush for president, but getting spammed by 'em is enough to turn me the other way. If this continues I may have to rethink my vote.

[Harley]

Blue...

I'm guessing this won't satisfy you, but follow some of the links. It's sort of a clearinghouse for the South Carolina smear campaign, including the moderately infamous caught-on-mike moment for GW. Here.

One thing that will seem familiar. Like all smears that benefit a Bush pol, plausible deniability is always built in. Makes it easier to defend, as you no doubt know. But that doesn't mean it isn't right out of the Atwater playbook.

[Blue]

Harley,

Interesting link. I didn't see many things that looked substantiated other than this one...

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage."

But, I didn't see anywhere that this behaviour or those of others was sanctioned by Bush or connected to his campaign. That seemed a pretty consistent them with all the other links.

I don't condone this behaviour at all. It's dreadful.

But this behaviour happens. It's pretty much the same tactics that moveon.org and others use. It's all bad.

I don't see how Kerry can control moveon.org or how Bush can control his fringe elements.

[JadeGold]

Somehow, I can't bring myself to believe much of anything Byron York puts out, especially after York's embarrassing public spanking concerning his allegations of voting improprieties in South Dakota in the 2002 Johnson-Thune Senate contest.

A McCain campaign manager, hardly an objective source, does < a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/">name some names however. The story concerning the push polls, including the black child smear and others, was repoted in TIME, the NYTimes, the New Yorker, and other publications.

[JadeGold]

Don't try to tell me that isn't suggestive in exactly the why I described unless you have an amazingly good alternative explanation.

As you wish. But don't try to tell us the ad remotely suggested Bush could be equated with the murderers of Byrd.

Renee Mullins lost her dad under horrifying circumstances. Under circumstances in which not just an individual--in this case, her father---was harmed but a community was threatened. She merely went to her elected official asking that he assist her in seeing that others who might act on their thoughts in unacceptable ways, by targeting a community for violence, are punished accordingly. And she was rudely and summarily rebuffed.

Imagine--if you were the victim of a crime. A crime which not only violated your sense of security but that of others in your neighborhood. Understandably, you'd feel hurt and anger. But imagine if you went to the authorities to ask for some greater level of protection or diligence and they gave you a flat "no."

How'd you feel?

[praktike]

Blue: how about the time Bush appeared on stage with Ted Sempley?

Was that awesome or what?

[Blue]

Praktike,

Interesting comment... why don't you post some of the comments that he made... maybe we could even get some original source to it.

Then maybe you could really show everyone how bad it was...

And while we are at it, we can post some comments from Bond over at NAACP... and then of course Kerry's praise of him.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

Bond's remarks came at an opening of the liberal Take Back America conference, a three-day event that has drawn more than 2,000 liberals from across the country to the nation's capital. Bond spoke moments after MoveOn.org founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd received a rousing ovation from the partisan crowd.

And Kerry's comments about his good ole buddy:

"Julian Bond sent electricity through this country when he burst on the scene when he was a young man," Kerry said. "I remember watching him set an example for our country, and he's still setting an example for our country. He is eloquent. He is powerful."

Can't we just agree that all of this rhetoric is bad and both sides are guilty?

Heck, many at this website are just as guilty... I have heard many here express hatred of the Bush administration and that Bush is evil and that he is a moron. All those types of comments are over the top and should be stopped.

Oops... I just discovered a link between Kerry and the 527's... Kerry connected to Bond... Bond connected to Moveon.org... Kerry obviously is in colusion with Moveon.org

[Phil]

Imagine--if you were the victim of a crime. A crime which not only violated your sense of security but that of others in your neighborhood. Understandably, you'd feel hurt and anger. But imagine if you went to the authorities to ask for some greater level of protection or diligence and they gave you a flat "no."

Weren't two of those guys sentenced to death? What "greater level of protection or diligence" could possibly be warranted? Death plus ritual dismemberment? "Drag someone behind a truck, and you face the death penalty" seems about as tough as you can get, but maybe I just don't understand the subtleties of criminal law.

[CharleyCarp]

Phil:

It's not just the penalty. It's the charge. I can see why folks would want the racial nature of this crime made an explicit part of the formal response of the state. Indeed, if you want to make sure that people who drag people behind trucks for racial reasons get more disapproval -- and stiffer sentences -- it makes perfect sense to have their motivation made a part of the crime itself. Makes all sorts of evidence relevant that might otherwise get excluded as too inflamatory.

While a crime might have death as the maximum penalty, that does not mean that it's going to be the penalty that gets imposed on any given cases. You'll be more likely to get it though, if you put all the really ugly stuff into evidence.

Of course, even in Texas, a sentence is not the end of it. Up until execution, sentences can be changed, either judicially or through whatever form of executive clemency they have in TX (if any -- I have the impression that Gov. Bush didn't think he had much power in that direction. Then again, he doesn't seem to be doing much with his federal power either, compared say with Reagan or with his Dad). If there's a boatload of really ugly evidence that's been put before a jury, and they've convicted, it seems like it might well be more difficult to grant clemency.

Obviously this isn't going to make a difference in every case. But there will be a great many cases where it will make a serious difference that there is a crime of this type that can be charged.

[Blue]

" But there will be a great many cases where it will make a serious difference that there is a crime of this type that can be charged."

Okay how many people think there are a GREAT MANY of cases like this one...

I think you just helped make the case for not creating a new law after this horrible crime.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Imagine--if you were the victim of a crime. A crime which not only violated your sense of security but that of others in your neighborhood. Understandably, you'd feel hurt and anger. But imagine if you went to the authorities to ask for some greater level of protection or diligence and they gave you a flat "no.""

There are a lot of reasons why hate crimes bills are a poor idea. Ms. Mullins could feel as bad as she wants about Mr. Byrd's killers only getting the death penalty without the label of 'hate crime', but she didn't make those commercials by herself. The NAACP made them. The video on the ad is all about the truck and a chain dragging. The ad ends with "We won’t be dragged away from our future."

[Gromit]

Blue: And while we are at it, we can post some comments from Bond over at NAACP... and then of course Kerry's praise of him.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

Highly charged rhetoric, to be sure. But I see nothing objectively false in it, rhetorical hyperbole aside. It should be obvious that Bond doesn't mean Bush (presumably?) is ignoring everything in the constitution, only parts of it, and "swastika" and "Taliban" are clearly metaphorical. Sampley, on the other hand, has insinuated that McCain is a KGB spy.

[Darth Cuddly]

Charley Carp,

What are you trying to say? Is there some possible mitigating or aggrevating factor for dragging a guy behind a truck until his body basically disintegrates? Is "they did it because he's black!" going to get this case over the final hurdle of sentencing with the death penalty? I mean, how does identifying a racial motive make this crime any worse than it was?

Also, how does the existence/non-existence of hate crime legislation prevent any of the ugly stuff from coming out in a court case? I'm not a lawyer, so I honestly don't know but I figured showing motive is standard in a criminal case.

Lastly, I think you can shelve the hate crimes legislation. To tell me that the guy who kills me due to race gets an extra beating but the guy who kills me for my wallet ain't quite as bad just doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Blue]

Gromit,

One mans highly charged rhetoric is another mans... hateful and dishonest things to say. But, I suppose if one supports the over the top statements it's okay then.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side"

That is objectively false. As is the rest of his comment.

And hey while, we are at it... McCain could be a KGB spy... go ahead prove me wrong.

I would hope that you could see how absurd these kind of comments are.

I am pretty sure that he is insinuating what he truly things of the administration in his comments. I think he really believes it. I think many people really hate the Bush administraiton and think it is evil.

And I think for all the talk at this site about how we should move past these kind of comments... people on the fringes won't because Kerry and it seems you... and idiots on the other fringe seem to support people who make those mean spirited and false accussations.

It's a shame.

[CharleyCarp]

Blue:

I think we have a simple disagreement of fact. I think there are a great many assaults that are racially motivated (or motivated by other forms of hate for protected groups) and you seemingly don't. If you're right, there's very little harm from having a hate crimes statute.

Darth:

Motive is not usually an element in a criminal offense, and it the judge thinks that the evidence given about motive will unduly inflame jurors -- that it's probative value is outweighed by its inflamatory nature -- the evidence can be excluded. This balance is changed when you make the hate an element of the offense, because the probative value of the evidence is changed.

The point of hate crimes laws, it seems to me, is to put hate itself on trial. And to create a greater social stigma to a class of crime that has, historically, been viewed as less stigmatizing by both perpetrators and by a significant slice of the community.

(I'm not saying that any of the people arguing against hate crimes in this discussion are in any way tolerant of hate crimes, or that GWB was tolerant of the crimes themselves. I think it is fair to say, though, that there has been in our society a sufficient number of people that share the hate, or at least sympathize with it enough to regard the assault on a hated person as less serious than, say, an assault on me.)

Sebastian:

There are problems with all laws (including treaties, to refer to an earlier thread). Law is always a work in progress, and no one ever thinks that enactment alone will solve the problem at which the law is directed. I'm not aware of any actual harm done to society from the existence of hate crimes laws -- but if you have examples to share, I'm willing to listen.

As for the NAACP ads, I don't like this form of politics from either side. I suppose the legitimate point of the ad was to strike at the "compassion" of compassionate conservatism, an area of some vulnerability for the Gov., and I agree that it could have been drowned out by the inflamatory nature of the crime.

CC

[Phil]

Charley--

I understand the motivation behind hate crime laws -- even if I disagree with them, and I don't always; I blow hot and cold on them -- but the simple fact remains that in the case of Mr. Byrd's killers, they received the ultimate penalty. Hate crime laws would not have made a whit of difference. In fact, they may have made things worse, if the defense could have put in the jury's minds that they might have been putting someone to death not for murder, but for hating somebody.

[JadeGold]

Phil: You keep returning to the fact that Byrd's killers received the maximum possible penalty for their crimes, thus, hate crime legislation isn't needed. But the fact is that most hate crimes aren't capital crimes. Therefore, you're suggesting that we treat someone who paints swastikas on a synagogue the same as some kid who spraypaints "Lakers Rule!!" on a neighbor's garage door.

the defense could have put in the jury's minds that they might have been putting someone to death not for murder, but for hating somebody.

Not really. Nobody on a jury is going to forget there's a dead body and that person died because somebody killed them.

As to motivation, our justice system looks at motivation all the time when judging the severity of a crime. A person who plans for some extended period time to kill another will be judged more harshly--and rightly so-- than someone who kills 'in the heat of the moment' or accidently or while impaired.

But this discussion is moving OT; the topic should return to Sebastian's claim the NAACP equated Bush to the murderers of James Byrd--an assertion he has yet to defend.

[Phil]

You keep returning to the fact that Byrd's killers received the maximum possible penalty for their crimes, thus, hate crime legislation isn't needed. But the fact is that most hate crimes aren't capital crimes.

Then for the NAACP and Mr. Byrd's daughter to hang their hats on a particular set of crimes that were isn't very smart.

Therefore, you're suggesting that we treat someone who paints swastikas on a synagogue the same as some kid who spraypaints "Lakers Rule!!" on a neighbor's garage door.

Pretty much, yes.

the topic should return to Sebastian's claim the NAACP equated Bush to the murderers of James Byrd--an assertion he has yet to defend.

Look, it's really simple: If someone posits the following analogy:

Not having a hate crime law: Having my father killed :: ? : My father's killers

What goes in the spot where the question mark is?

[JadeGold]

Then for the NAACP and Mr. Byrd's daughter to hang their hats on a particular set of crimes that were isn't very smart.

They weren't. In matters of public policy, it is commonplace to illustrate the need (or lack of need) for legislation using a circumstance that has received a lot of media attention. Undeniably, the horrific circumstances of the Byrd case fit the bill. But let's not pretend the hate crimes legislation being pushed by Mullins/NAACP merely involved capital offenses.

Pretty much, yes.

Let's be clear as to your position. If a group of white robed men burned a cross on your black neighbor's front lawn--you'd aver that these men were--at most--guilty of petty vandalism?

>

[Blue]

Charley,

I am not so sure we disagree too much, then. I was only saying that cases like Byrd are rare. And to make a law based on such an exceptional case seems ineffecient to me and hurts the overall system.

I don't have any doubt there is racially motivated crime out there. I've been robbed at gun point before. I guess I should say attempted robbery. My brother couldn't see the gun the robber was pointing at me and started yelling and threatening the guy to leave us alone. He did. I am certain we were targeted because we were white in a black neighborhood.

But, I am more than open minded in this area. I don't have strong feelings either way. Categorizing a crime as a hate crime seems to be a very subjective thing also and very political.

Just somethings I pulled up in a quick search

http://www.ncjrs.org/hate_crimes/facts.html

Of the 7,459 single-bias incidents in 2002, racial bias accounted for 48.8 percent, religious bias motivated 19.1 percent of incidents, sexual-orientation bias provoked 16.7 percent, and bias against an ethnicity or national origin caused 14.8 percent. (Hate Crime Statistics, 2002, Federal Bureau of Investigation).

During 2002, there were 9,222 victims associated with 8,832 hate crime offenses. A study of victim data for single-bias hate crimes showed that racial bias motivated the crimes against nearly half-49.7 percent-of all the victims. Offenders committed crimes against 18.0 percent of hate crime victims because of religious bias, 16.4 percent due to sexual-orientation bias, 15.3 percent because of ethnicity or national origin bias, and 0.5 percent due to disability bias.
(Hate Crime Statistics, 2002, Federal Bureau of Investigation).

"A breakdown of the data for the 9,222 hate crime victims in 2002 showed that 64.6 percent (5,960) were victims of crimes against persons, 34.8 percent (3,213 victims) were targets of crimes against property, and 0.5 percent (49) were victims of crimes against society." (Hate Crime Statistics, 2002, Federal Bureau of Investigation).

more...

In 1995 0.004% of the population was affected by hate crimes.

The FBI reports that 2,899 blacks, almost 1,400 homosexuals, more than 1,000 Jews and 891 whites were victims of "hate crimes" in 2001.

So that 49% of hate crimes commited includes all races.

Jadegold,

Why do you want to try and make Phil say something that he did not say. That happens so much... I am starting to suspect people do that here because they are insecure about their own positions...

Let's review the facts please...

Therefore, you're suggesting that we treat someone who paints swastikas on a synagogue the same as some kid who spraypaints "Lakers Rule!!" on a neighbor's garage door.

"Pretty much, yes."

Now, why do you want to make something up about that comment.

A bunch of men getting together in robes and burning a cross in somebody's front yard is really a different matter all together.

Just for the record, I am not completely sure where I fall on Hate crime laws. In general I think they are okay. My real beef is that we have too many laws. The law needs to be simplified. I feel that way about taxes too.

And I think even to the casual observer the NAACP ad was saying elect Bush and if you are black then this is your future. It was horrible and should be condemned by all sides.

But, it seems many only condemn that type of shameless behaviour if it hurts their own cause. If it helps them... well then it is just metaphorical.

[JadeGold]

Blue: To my mind, there's no difference between painting swastikas on a synagogue or burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family's home. The intent and motivations are pretty clear; it's an attempt at domestic terrorism. That is, they are crimes where the target is not the victim; the target is a much larger community.

Do you seriously consider someone spraypainting "Lakers Rule!!!" on your garage to be the equivalent of swastikas on a synagogue?

[Blue]

"Do you seriously consider someone spraypainting "Lakers Rule!!!" on your garage to be the equivalent of swastikas on a synagogue?"

No, and I don't think I ever implied that either. But, they are both vandalism.

I do feel opposed to hate crime laws because they are so easy to manipulate and are such political issues.

And btw, saying that you hate the Bush administration or staging violent protest is also an attempt at domestic terrorism.

Don't you get the point about why we need to be careful with creating a law about everything?

[JadeGold]

But, they are both vandalism.

Just so I'm clear as to your position--are you saying the penalty for painting swastikas on a synagogueshould be the same as your garden-variety petty vandalism?

I do feel opposed to hate crime laws because they are so easy to manipulate and are such political issues.

Everything's a political issue from the price of milk to Olympic judging. But you haven't offered any evidence that hate crime laws are any easier to manipulate than any other laws.

And btw, saying that you hate the Bush administration or staging violent protest is also an attempt at domestic terrorism.

No and maybe. One is free to hate anyone or anything they wish; it is only when they act on that hatred in a violent way that it becomes a problem. Additionally, terrorism (as noted earlier) isn't necessarily aimed at the victims--it's target is intended to be much larger.

Don't you get the point about why we need to be careful with creating a law about everything?

Nobody is proposing "creating a law about everything."

[Blue]

"Just so I'm clear as to your position--are you saying the penalty for painting swastikas on a synagogueshould be the same as your garden-variety petty vandalism?"

It depends on the circumstances. I have seen many young kids do dumb things. And most of these crimes are committed by young kids. I would have to look at the individual case and make a decisions. Hence, another reason I am not sure hate crime laws are not necessarily the best answer.

"But you haven't offered any evidence that hate crime laws are any easier to manipulate than any other laws."

You're right. That's why I said I "feel". I do feel that in the U.S. today that the law is being manipulated and subverted.

"Nobody is proposing "creating a law about everything.""

Point take, but if you look at the legal system it is heading in a direction were it will effectively be that way. At some point we will have so many laws our courts will not serve the people well. If we aren't already there.

[Phil]

JadeGold, I'll have an answer to your question right after you complete my analogy question.

[Jonas Cord]

Burning a cross on someone's lawn is understood to be a threat; making threats is already against the law, hate crime or not.

I am not convinced that a victim of random violence, vandalism or intimidation has had less of a crime done to them than those who have suffered from the aforementioned crimes for reasons of hate.

[JadeGold]

Phil:

I'm not that concerned about an answer to be honest. And I'll confess your analogy(?) made no sense. You seem to want someone to put 'Bush' in the question mark; however, you're analogy(?) is flawed on several levels.

[Phil]

It's not my analogy -- it's the NAACP's. Granting for the purpose of discussion that English is your first language, I'll quote from the ad copy:

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

From this, we can construct an analogy:

"Gov. Bush refusing to support hate-crime legislation" is to "my father being killed [all over again]" as ___________ is to "the men who killed my father."

If you're now granting that it was a disingenuous and poisonous ad, that's fine. I agree. But you seem to be going out of your way to avoid the point.

[Gromit]

Blue: "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side"

That is objectively false. As is the rest of his comment.

Bush defers to the states not only on policy toward the confederate battle emblem (which is a somewhat defensible position from a civil rights standpoint) but on his own gut reaction (which is morally indefensible, in my opinion). I live in one of the states where this is a very touchy subject. Our Democratic governor was ousted in large part by white conservatives who were angry that he brokered a deal to diminish the emblem's prominence on the state flag. My brother-in-law has a bumper sticker on his beer fridge that features the emblem next to the words: "If I had known, I would have picked my own cotton." (It makes no sense, yet it still manages to be deeply offensive.) If you think the above statement is objectively false, then I doubt you have much familiarity with the issue.

As for Bond's other charges, do I really need to go find you some evidence that Bush's most ardent supporters are religious fundamentalists who want to constitutionally ban gay marriage?

And hey while, we are at it... McCain could be a KGB spy... go ahead prove me wrong.

I've provided you with evidence that Bush is unwilling to publicly denounce the use of the confederate battle emblem by state governments. What have you got for me?

[JadeGold]

Sorry, Phil, it's an analogy(?) of your own creation. Not the NAACP's or Ms. Mullins'.

The text of the ad is upthread if you'd care to review it.

As I noted earlier, in a response to Sebastian:

Imagine--if you were the victim of a crime. A crime which not only violated your sense of security but that of others in your neighborhood. Understandably, you'd feel hurt and anger. But imagine if you went to the authorities to ask for some greater level of protection or diligence and they gave you a flat "no."

How'd you feel?

[Gromit]

I'm not going to touch the hate crimes stuff, because I am extremely ambivalent on the issue. But I will say, based on the transcript, that the NAACP ad sounds uncomfortably similar to the Max Cleland/Osama bin Laden ad that got Saxby Chambliss elected here in Georgia.

[JadeGold]

But I will say, based on the transcript, that the NAACP ad sounds uncomfortably similar to the Max Cleland/Osama bin Laden ad that got Saxby Chambliss elected here in Georgia.

Gosh, I don't recall pictures of a cropped George W. alongside pictures of Byrd's killers in the ad. I also don't recall statements by Ms. Mullins suggesting Bush's refusal to sign legislation led to Byrd's murder.

For the record, once Bush was appointed to the WH, Texas did pass the hate crimes legislation advocated by Ms. Mullins and the NAACP in 2001--by a GOP Governor and a GOP legislature.

[JadeGold]

BTW, many conservative pundits--including Andrew Sullivan--have noted Bush isn't opposed to hate crimes legislation. Sullivan is convinced Bush believes hate crimes legislation deters such crimes. (Full disclosure: I don't believe harsher criminal penalties have any significant deterrent effect)

But in this instance, the law advocated by Ms. Mullins and the NAACP included gays. And Bush wasn't willing to take the political risk on that.

[blue]

Gromit,

Interesting to hear you are in GA. My family can trace it's roots back in GA to the time when it was still just a penal colony. (Did you know that it was?) So it is safe to say my southern roots run pretty deep. Even my Great Grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee.

In other words, it would be difficult for me to know the flag issue better. But, it really isn't the issue here.

As a side note, I went to GA Tech... enjoyed going to BackStreet and still own the top of a mountian overlooking Clayton, GA.

I have to admit I dislike the flag debate. I can understand why some have a problem with it, but at the same time I am quite proud of my heritage. I can see how some might find it offensive and I can see how some might be proud of it.

His comment wasn't about the flag... it was about their idea of equal rights. I find his choice of words to be offensive and classic example of smearing you opponent.

"I've provided you with evidence that Bush is unwilling to publicly denounce the use of the confederate battle emblem by state governments."

But that doesn't say anything about his idea of equal rights. You haven't provided anything. That isn't any proof at all.

Okay let me try... John McCain was held by communists and tortured. The KGB is communist. The KGB needed spies. They turned John McCain into one. Disclaimer: I don't have any issues with John McCain.

The use of the Confederate emblem on flags isn't necessarily a racist decision by people today. It may have been in the past and it may even be for some today. But, most are just proud of their historical roots.

But, Bond's choice of words was an intentional smear and is obviously false being that Bush has appointed Powell and Rice to some of the most powerful positions. It is said that Bush is closest to Rice who is arguably one of the most influential and powerful woman in the world and history.

[Phil]

JadeGold, I can only assume at this point that you're just being purposefully stubborn. I quoted from the ad itself. I can read just fine.

If you're going to propose that one action "is like" a second action, it is reasonable to assume that the person doing the first thing is posited to be like the person doing the second thing, or motivated by the same things. I am not the smartest person around, but you cannot convince me that that is not the impression that the ad was meant to leave.

As far as the Confederate flag issue goes, I find myself more in agreement with Bond than not. It's as offensive to me as would be a German flying the Nazi flag, not because he hates Jews, but because he's proud of how hard Großvater fought for the Reich. One cannot be divorced from the other. Fighting to preserve evil is itself evil. On free speech grounds, I cannot condemn it or fight to prevent it; on moral grounds, it's sickening.

[JadeGold]

Sorry, Blue, but pretending the Confederate flag is about heritage is revisionism of the highest order.

It's the banner under which the confederacy fought to preserve slavery. Moreover, GA adopted the Stars 'n' Bars s part of its state flag in 1956 as a direct gesture against desegregation and civil rights.

[Blue]

Phil,

I think Gromit does have a point when he talks about being familiar with the flag issue.

I can completely understand you perspective, but even Robert E. Lee didn't fight for the South to defend slavery. He fought because he was from Virginia.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword... "

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former."

There is historical evidence that my own family from Atlanta thought slavery was wrong and didn't have slaves.

I just have a different perspective of what it means to be a Southerner...

[Blue]

Jade,

Well, then I guess ole Rober E. Lee was a revisionist back during the time when it was actually happening.

[Slartibartfast]

It's the banner under which the confederacy fought to preserve slavery. Moreover, GA adopted the Stars 'n' Bars s part of its state flag in 1956 as a direct gesture against desegregation and civil rights.

Holy ****. JadeGold and I agree on something?

[JadeGold]

Blue: IMO, it's somewhat ironic that James Walker Lindh got 10 years for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and Robt. E. Lee is regarded as a folk hero for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I hate to break it to you but you really should the proceedings of the Confederate States as they held conventions over the issue of secession. With little exception, the sole issue(s) for secession were: the Northern states' hostility to slavery and the Northern states' refusal to observe fugitive slave laws.

[Blue]

Jade,

"James Walker Lindh got 10 years for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time"

What can I say... I am overwhelmed by that response.

Genghis Khan is a hero to the Mongols.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/genghis

Make of the Civil War what you want, but Robert E. Lee kicked serious ass with very little. As a matter of fact, the Reb's as a whole kicked some serious ass with very little to work with. Now that doesn't make them role models, but they were excellent warriors.

I'm not trying to defend slavery by any means. But, there were many Southerners who fought bravely and valiantly because the South was there home. Robert E. Lee is just one example.

Thanks for the advice on reading about the South, but I'm pretty sure I got Southern History covered.

[Gromit]

This is veering way off topic. The point is, Blue called Bond's accusation objectively false, but offered only subjective arguments against it. Had the SwiftVets offered only subjective views, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they offered many objective claims that have been countered by the best evidence available. What in the bond quote is objectively false?

[Blue]

Gromit,

Yes, Gromit... anyone who is objective knows that it is a false statement intended to smear Bush.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side..."

You nor he can offer any proof that this is their idea of equal rights. No one has offered any objective proof that is a true statement.

Bonds statments cannot be reconciled with the fact that Bush has put Black Americans into some of the most powerful positions in history. That's not subjective it is objective. So if his idea of equal rights is to give them more power and higher profile positions than any president in history it cannot be equated to a Conferate Swastika.

Hence his statment is objectively false.

[hilzoy]

I totally agree with Gromit, both about veering and about disanalogies. As I see it, we need to distinguish several things.

First, saying something negative. This need not be bad at all: e.g., if I say that Hitler caused the deaths of millions, I am stating a fact, not "smearing" Hitler.

Second, hyperbole: saying something that exaggerates a truth, in a context in which what you say will be not be taken literally. (E.g., Bush "has declared war on poor children" -- no one who hears this is likely to take it to mean that Bush has literally introduced into the Senate, and had passed, a declaration of war on poor children. "A damning confession": no one who heard this would think the speaker had consulted God and ascertained that this confession would consign the person who made it to hellfire for eternity. Etc.) Hyperbole can be bad -- I, for instance, can figure out who Bond is referring to as the Taliban wing of the Republican party, but would not have used that term - but it is not always bad. ('Damning confession', for instance, is not bad.)

Third, lies. You say something, you know it's not true, and in context it will be taken as true. E.g., "John McCain fathered an illegitimate child." That's not an exaggeration of anything. And what makes it wrong is not that it's negative, but that it's a lie.

When I look at the Bond quote, the reference to the Taliban is the only thing that strikes me as over the top hyperbole. And there is nothing there that's a lie. By contrast, the SwiftVets, or at least their organizers, lied. To my mind, this is a very important distinction.

[JadeGold]

Make of the Civil War what you want, but Robert E. Lee kicked serious ass with very little. As a matter of fact, the Reb's as a whole kicked some serious ass with very little to work with. Now that doesn't make them role models, but they were excellent warriors.

This is part of the Lost Cause Myth perpetrated, post-war, by Jubal Early.

[Blue]

It was Christmas 1968, and he heard President Richard Nixon denying that we had troops in Cambodia while he himself had been sent there. It was seared into his memory.

Nixon was not President. Kerry lied. Hence, he is a liar.

"Kerry's Silver Star -- its unauthorized "V" for valor which "makes it facially false, they say, and at variance with official government records." That's because Silver Stars are given for gallantry and never are accompanied with a combat "V," which would be redundant. But Kerry's DD 214, or "Report of Transfer and Separation," displayed on his website, shows the "V."

So Kerry or at least his organizers, lied. To my mind, this is a very important distinction.

[Blue]

It seems to me that many here are willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt...

It seems to me that many here are willing to give Bond the benefit of the doubt...

It seems to me the some here are willing to give Walker the benefit of the doubt...

And it seems to me that many here are willing to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt...

How 'bout showing Bush just a little?

[Gromit]

Blue: It was Christmas 1968, and he heard President Richard Nixon denying that we had troops in Cambodia while he himself had been sent there. It was seared into his memory.

I've only seen Kerry claim that he was in Cambodia in '68. To my knowledge, he neither specified the date the President lied, nor even which President did the lying (though most folks assume he meant Nixon). Certainly, what I've read of his '86 Senate speech doesn't bear out your interpretation. However, if you have different info, please share.

[Phil]

I've been giving Bush the benefits of the doubt since Campaign 2000. Not that I'm giving it fully, completely to Kerry now -- only on certain matters -- but please do not imagine that one precludes the other.

[Blue]

Gromit,

Whatever... it's in the Congressional Record. We both have obviously read it and reached different conclusions. I guess it's true he could be talking about all of those other president's that were known for denying we had troops in Cambodia.

But, maybe you would like to see this statement from the Boston Globe...

Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

If you want to defend Kerry about something that even he doesn't deny that he was saying or meant that's fine with me, but it doesn't look intellectually honest.

Phil,

I agree completely and have a similar stance.

[blue]

Gromit,

I wasn't implying that Kerry was watching T.V. or listening to the radio on Christmas Eve...

Only that he was in Cambodia in '68 and that he associates his Cambodia experience with Nixon's comments.

Even though Nixon wasn't even president when he was supposedly in Cambodia.

[Gromit]

Blue, thanks for the additional quote confirming that he did mean Nixon.

Blue: I wasn't implying that Kerry was watching T.V. or listening to the radio on Christmas Eve...

Only that he was in Cambodia in '68 and that he associates his Cambodia experience with Nixon's comments.

And that is precisely how I interpret his claims. But then you somehow go off the rails:

Even though Nixon wasn't even president when he was supposedly in Cambodia.

You're refuting a claim that was, to my knowledge, never made. Kerry only put a date on his presence in Cambodia.

[Blue]

Gromit,

That's the point though, Kerry keeps relating his time in Cambodia to Nixon's comments. That is the problem. I'm not the one relating them... he is. That's misleading and that was [art of my point. His comments can easily be interpreted as misleading.

But even that is not my main point. My core point is that both sides parsing words like this is not a good exercise.

So many here consistently do it to Bush, I was only pointing out that it could be done to Kerry just as easily and in the same way that many here do it to Bush. And one could easily reach the conclusion that Kerry and his campaign lie. Just on another thread here they are doing it to Laura Bush.

When one doesn't give another any benefit of the doubt whatsoever anything coming out of the mouth is either a lie or misleading. That's just not good for anyone.

I personally don't think Kerry is a liar. I think he misspoke a couple of times and embellished a little and maybe was into self-promotion too much, but I thik most could be said to be guilty of the same things.

I also don't think Bush or Cheney are liars.

[Gromit]

Blue: That's the point though, Kerry keeps relating his time in Cambodia to Nixon's comments. That is the problem. I'm not the one relating them... he is. That's misleading and that was [art of my point. His comments can easily be interpreted as misleading.

How is it misleading? Of course the two are related. Kerry was in Cambodia. Nixon said our troops were not in Cambodia, and it is now a matter of historical record that he lied. There is nothing whatsoever that is misleading in that.

[Blue]

Fromt the record:

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

Are you really so sure that isn't misleading? It is to me.

Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:
JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.