Kerry TV Ad Pins Veterans' Attack Firmly on Bush
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry TV Ad Pins Veterans' Attack Firmly on Bush
I'm sure many of you have been following this issue as closely as I have. Where I stand so far is that there are clear Republican connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--and I don't think anyone would disagree with me there---however, simply because Bush is a Republican does not prove that he has direct connections with the SBVfT.
The allegations are that (a) the primary contributors are Republican and (b) one of the Vets in the television advertisement is actually on the Bush campaign.
The first point gives little credence to the idea that Bush is in some way responsible for this. This can be cleared up with an example of an hasty generalization: All husbands are men. Some husbands kill their wives. Therefore, all husbands kill their wives. Of course, this is absolutely false; and I only note it to confirm the idea that because some Republicans condone this behavior, we cannot therefore conclude that all Republicans condone this behavior.
The second allegation, however, is more problematic. I briefly watched part of an interview with an attorney for the Democratic party and someone with the Republican National Party (his title escapes me at the moment) this morning. Basically, the Kerry campaign has filed charges against Bush to the Federal Election Commission concerning this issue and the alleged evidence is this man who is allegedly, part of the Bush campaign. The rebuttal is that he is merely a "low level volunteer." If the FEC finds the Bush campaign involved with the SBVfT it will be quite a conundrum for the RNP and could cost the election in my opinion.
As a final thought, I won't rule out the possibility, however, based on how this has all played out and the reactions of the RNP to the initial advertisement, I don't see a direct connection. But even the indirect connection could prove to be detrimental
I'm sure many of you have been following this issue as closely as I have. Where I stand so far is that there are clear Republican connections to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--and I don't think anyone would disagree with me there---however, simply because Bush is a Republican does not prove that he has direct connections with the SBVfT.
The allegations are that (a) the primary contributors are Republican and (b) one of the Vets in the television advertisement is actually on the Bush campaign.
The first point gives little credence to the idea that Bush is in some way responsible for this. This can be cleared up with an example of an hasty generalization: All husbands are men. Some husbands kill their wives. Therefore, all husbands kill their wives. Of course, this is absolutely false; and I only note it to confirm the idea that because some Republicans condone this behavior, we cannot therefore conclude that all Republicans condone this behavior.
The second allegation, however, is more problematic. I briefly watched part of an interview with an attorney for the Democratic party and someone with the Republican National Party (his title escapes me at the moment) this morning. Basically, the Kerry campaign has filed charges against Bush to the Federal Election Commission concerning this issue and the alleged evidence is this man who is allegedly, part of the Bush campaign. The rebuttal is that he is merely a "low level volunteer." If the FEC finds the Bush campaign involved with the SBVfT it will be quite a conundrum for the RNP and could cost the election in my opinion.
As a final thought, I won't rule out the possibility, however, based on how this has all played out and the reactions of the RNP to the initial advertisement, I don't see a direct connection. But even the indirect connection could prove to be detrimental
¶ Blogged at 10:27 AM - Linkback - 
Hi! My name's Adam Donaghey and this is my weblog. 
The Abductors (producer)
9 Comments:
I do not se how it is relevant whehter an attack comes from a republican, incidentally the swift boat vets from what I can tell, are no fan of republicans, but this is irrelevant.
When Bush gets attacked is there ever a concern that the attackers are linked to the democraic party, o course not, its irrelevant,
For some reason motivations become relevant when demcorats get attacked.
ITs yet another annoying double standard.
Anyway repty check out this link
A democrat leaning writer analyzes the speeches at GOP convention that has not happened yet.
Yes democrats really do assume people are stupid, and fortunately it is too often a safe assumption. Hopefully people start smartening up.
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006531.shtml#006531
Craig,
Yeah, unfortunately, it is an obvious double-standard. Liberals have been attacking Bush for years, yet they cry like proverbial victims when they get it disched back to them. Or so the trend seems now.
Differing from you, Craig, I was actually pro-Clinton. And I think the Media-Left could really learn something from the way he--and our current President--take attacks. In both cases, instead of vehemently defending themselves and furthermore slandering their opponents by instead blaming them for their faults, they moved on and dealt with real issues.
Was Kerry in Cambodia or not? Kerry certaintly needs to at least hold a Q&A with the press if he is going to come out of this with any salvaged credibility. Of course the problem with answering the charges from the SBVfT, he will have to talk about what is really pissing off the Vets, mainly idiotic comments made about war in general and specific bastardizing of soldiers still fighting on the ground.
Exactly Czar. This is a great example of a campaign which not only uses the negative information to its advantage (by deflecting EVERY other issue with it), but also tricks so many into thinking Kerry is the victim here--and not only that, but that Bush has orchestrated all of this. This is what I don't understand. Where are the prudent people?
And was Bush in Alabama or not? He should really hold a Q&A or something...
To the above commentor:
Bush is not making his war record an issue. Kerry, however, is making his war record an issue. I couldn't care less if Bush served or not--why? Because his campaign does not rely on it.
Bush isn't making his war record an issue. And furthermore, I don't care about his war record (lack therof); I care about what he's doing NOW.
Of course this is a bit silly, but bear with me: imagine Charles Manson is running for president, and chooses not to make an issue of the Manson Family. Furthermore he has been spending the last few years caring for orphans and volunteering at a soup kitchen.
Would your position be tenable then?
Extra points: answer without using the phrase reductio ad absurdum.
Well, you're right on one point: it is a bit silly.
It's a bad analogy. Charles Manson orchestrated the murders of several human beings. He's also insane. George W. Bush was smart enough not to go to war. I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to want to go to war, and I'll do anything to get out of going. It's just not my bag.
Post a Comment
<< Home