Here is a history of the polling numbers. Notice the dramatic sea change when the Swift Boat ads started. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-17-gallup-poll.htm Here are a collection of articles which buttress my point, Mulder. http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3864859&sourceCode=RSS http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/9507779.htm?1c http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5834313/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201680/posts http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04238/367395.stm OWNED
Actually, that is inaccurate. It should really read... Current: "we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us" Current: "and I am proud of that" ...because of the cut in between. He very well could have been talking about the same thing but it isn't clear in the commercial because of the editing. I don't get it either, though, JayZ...the commercial doesn't make any sense. I guess that is the point, though, in that it is designed to confuse and make it appear as if it is Kerry's fault, and not the editing, that you are confused.
Poll: These are general poll numbers and have NOTHING to so with the swiftees. The poll I mentioned stated that at their PEAK they had 30% believing their lies. Hardly overwhelming as you claimed. Articles: All these article talk about distractions. The NPR mentions that it "appears to be eroding numbers". True to a point after the first ad, before the lies could be disputed. Even before they were refuted by Kerry, less than half (44%) found the ads credible after the first time they heard them. There was a drop in the veteran polling according to NPR from 46% to 37% in favor of Kerry. On the msnbc article it stated that the swiftees were one factor that distratced the public. "John Kerry’s lack of progress in this week’s state polls illustrates the power of distraction. The Swift Boat Veterans controversy, two giant hurricanes and the Dan Rather document furor all pushed Kerry into the background at a time when he would otherwise have had a chance to press his indictment of President Bush." It never mentions them again. Are you gonna take credit for the hurricanes now too? Free Republic: "The effect of the Vietnam ads wasn't likely to permanently damage Kerry or prove beneficial to Bush in the long term, analysts said. The ads may have had their biggest impact with veterans, a majority of whom were predisposed to vote Republican." hmmm ya, preaching to the choir? and finally the Post Gazette Article. Wow, thanks giving me ammo. I really appreciate that... Swift boat ads push GOP veteran into Kerry camp Wednesday, August 25, 2004 By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Ed Belfoure, who flew helicopters as a Marine in Vietnam, is a registered Republican. But he promises to cross party lines in November to vote for Democrat John Kerry for president. Belfoure, of Washington, Pa., said yesterday he cannot abide the "despicable television ads" that donors to President Bush's campaign have aimed at Kerry. A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has attacked Kerry's service record in Vietnam. Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and three Purple Hearts in the war -- honors that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say he did not deserve. Belfoure, appearing yesterday with other veterans at a news conference at Kerry's Downtown Pittsburgh headquarters, called the ads slanderous and untruthful. "In their perverted attempt to discredit John Kerry, they have done a greater harm to all Vietnam veterans who for years have sought validation for their service to country," he said. About a dozen other military veterans sounded a similar theme. Jonathan Soltz, an Army veteran who served in Iraq last year, said the two combat medals Kerry received were awarded only after high-ranking Navy officers evaluated his battle record. To challenge Kerry's medals now, Soltz said, amounts to an attack on the integrity of the military system. Soltz, who is coordinating Pennsylvania veterans for Kerry, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of ducking military service in Vietnam, then tacitly supporting guttersnipe attacks on Kerry. Soltz said he believes such negative campaigning will backfire on Republicans. "All they have done is mobilized our base," he said. In Washington, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign disclosed yesterday that he has been providing legal advice for the Swift Boat group. Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign last week filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of illegally coordinating the group's ads. The Bush campaign and the veterans' group say there is no coordination. On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial. In an interview with The Associated Press, Ginsberg said the group "came to me and said, 'We have a point of view we want to get into the First Amendment debate right now. There's a new law. It's very complicated. We want to comply with the law, will you keep us in the bounds of the law?' I said yes, absolutely, as I would do for anyone." Ginsberg said he never told the Bush campaign what he discussed with the group, or vice versa, and doesn't advise the group on ad strategies. Rich Baker, a former Navy lieutenant who served with Kerry on Swift boat missions in Vietnam, agreed with the others at the Pittsburgh appearance. A Democrat from Scott, Baker voted for Bush in 2000 but said he will back Kerry this year. Baker called the criticisms of Kerry's wartime service "a smear tactic" that voters should repudiate. "I can vouch for John Kerry's courage and dedication," he said. Baker estimated that 75 to 100 men who served on Swift boats have direct knowledge of how Kerry conducted himself in battle. He said none of them ever questioned Kerry's courage until he ran for president. Then, Baker said, Republican operatives sprang into action, attacking Kerry despite wartime mission reports that praised his service. "If I had to go up the river today, I'd want John Kerry on my flank," Baker said. "He knows what it's like to be under fire." Baker, though, said he was annoyed by the focus on 35-year-old battles in Vietnam. The country and the candidates, he said, should be dealing with more important matters, such as creating jobs and ending warfare in Iraq. Now uh, who do you OWN again? Don't you have an economics paper due? I think I hear Andy calling your name...
I agree. Although, what you have stated could be held for both candidates. Kerry was in vietnam... Kerry was in cambodia... Kerry wasn't in cambodia... Kerry earned his medals... Kerry used them to wipe his arse.. Bush's daddy got him into the guard... Bush got in on his own... Bush's records say this... Bush's records say that... Bush only wanted to finish his daddy's war... STOP THE SMEARING AND STOP MENTIONING VIETNAM!!! You both served in some capacity. DONE! Tell me what you are going to do to move this country back to the promised land and keep it "terror free" This lowballing crap is as childish as me and my ranting on this post! out...
Yet another ad will make its debut on Hannity and Colmes tonight! This one is the harshest yet! Guess who is making an appearance? You guessed it. Hanoi Jane. The ad says that Jane Fonda has apologized for meeting with the enemy during a time of war, but John Kerry has not. This is very very serious stuff here. How much would you like a politician if they went and met with al Queda behind our backs? John Kerry did something equally bad. Tonight he gets paid back! Keep up the GREAT work, Swifties. You are making the difference in this race!
Just keep thinking that buddy... edit: one more thing. I do appreciate the fact that you, unlike Fox News, can freely admit that they are an outlet for Right Wing smear tactics. Fox News is DEBUTING the ad. That's fabulous. Don't confuse debuting with reporting the way the Fox News channel website has described it. WASHINGTON Â_—Â_TheÂ_Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search)Â_are launching a new wave of attacks against Democratic presidential hopefulÂ_John Kerry (search), FOX News has learned. The group, which has been largely responsible for questioning the Massachusetts senator's Vietnam-era heroism, has made its largest media buy yet of the presidential campaign. It has put $1.2 million behind a new ad that attacks the candidate's 1970 meeting in Paris with members of two North Vietnamese delegations. The ads, which will be launched Wednesday, will run on broadcast affiliates in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Nevada and New Mexico. Cute, Fox News has learned... Guess they learned by reading the Talking Points from Rupert . EXPOSED.
Let me guess, this one will go something like: Fonda Old: "Vietnam: Kerry Old" "War" Fonda New: "Credibility" Kerry Old: "Cambodia" Kerry New: "Duty" blah blah blah blah Moderator: Can you trust Jane Fonda? Can you trust a man who trusts Jane Fonda? We trust you can't trust that man! Vote George Bush. This message was paid for by some rich dude.
Just to clarify, Perry donated $100,000 to kick start the Swift Boat Veterans' effort. Since then, over $6,000,000 has been donated by over 50,000 contributors. This movement has a strong base of tens of thousands of people, many of them ordinary citizens who donated only $50 or less.
The latest Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (they've expanded their ranks) ad is out. It's a powerful ad describing how John Kerry betrayed America and refuses to apologize to this day. Great ad. www.swiftvets.com
There is actually a seventh ad set to debut that has gripping testimony from the wives of US troops who were in POW torture camps when Kerry was lying about what they did and in so doing, encouraging their torture. Either Kerry LIED about what the soldiers in Vietnam did and what he did, or else he is a WAR CRIMINAL. You pick.
Kerry already explained that he was a war criminal by the standards he was using at the time. He explained that suppression fire against civilians and the free fire zones were war crimes as described by the Geneva convention. He already admitted that way back when it was relevant. NEXT!
