None Dare Call It Swift-Boating
Attacks on McCain’s military record expose blatant hypocrisy of the partisan left.
Since 2004, the ideological left has added to their standard list of anti-Republican indictments the accusations of “swift-boating”. After a group of Vietnam-era veterans who had served with Senator John Kerry emerged to question his personal narrative of heroic service, Democrats cried foul. Rather than rebutting the charges of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” directly, Kerry’s defenders and the broader movement of reflexive hostility towards anything and everything Republican condemned the entire tactic of opening Kerry’s war service up to question at all. “Swift Boating” was thereby added to the long list of grievances for which Republicans were to be presumed guilty forever and ever. The fact that Kerry had invited the scrutiny by using his military record and his cheesy “reporting for duty” convention line and had exacerbated his lack of credibility by demonstrably exaggerated slander during his starring role in the anti-war movement in the 1970s
Now the shoe is on the other foot and Jeffrey Klein at the hard-left Huffington Post has emerged to question whether some details of a New York Times report on McCain’s military service are legitimate.
The first problem is, of course, that Klein has no way to actually blame McCain for his speculative accusations of falsehoods. In fact, Klein even reports McCain’s innocense before moving on to swift-boat him:
McCain never mentioned the alleged offer of an admiralship by Lehman in any of his books, nor in the numerous interviews McCain gave during his first run for the presidency in 1999-2000.
The propriety of holding McCain responsible for a story that he had no part in writing or promoting is, of course, irrelevant. Only the direct route to condemnation is allowed, using well-worn, scripted tropes supported by nothing more than speculations and a lack of available evidence leading to conspiracy theories. Of course, an obligatory comparison to the hated George W. Bush is the sought-after pinnacle:
Some of the unreleased pages in McCain’s Navy file may not reflect well upon his qualifications for the presidency. From day one in the Navy, McCain screwed-up again and again, only to be forgiven because his father and grandfather were four-star admirals. McCain’s sense of entitlement to privileged treatment bears an eerie resemblance to George W. Bush’s.
Even though this condemnation is even less supported by evidence and testimony than were the “Swift Boat” attack, you can predict with all but perfect confidence that the watchful sensitivity monitors of the left will give this attack and future attacks a complete pass. It will not be condemned as “swift-boating” nor will its author be hounded away from the halls of politically correct and polite society. Instead, accusations against McCain’s military record will be treated with grave seriousness, as all-important indicators of his presumed unfitness for office. And all the white, the self-appointed arbiters of correctness on the left will refuse to even respond to comparisons with the “Swift Boat Veterans” or, when pressed, will lash out with more accusations against anyone who would make that obvious comparison.
They have one set of rules for Republicans — that they can do no right and even if they did we can never admit it because if they succeed they will destroy everything.
And they have another set of rules for themselves — that they can do whatever it takes to win because if they don’t Republicans will destroy everything.
But don’t you DARE call them on it.
There is simply too much spin and weasely language for me to read this. Apparently, coming up with the term "swift-boating" now offends your moderate considerations - fine by me, but keep your perpetual indignation to yourself and don’t expect left-leaning moderates to put up with your endless attempts to imply that all we do is wrong, childish or overblown. Your scepticism is very instinctive and therefore shallow whenever you see "ideologues" on the left agree on something.
Whether you are right to say they don’t call it swiftboating when it happens to McCain is beside the point - you try to weasel in contempt and imply dogmatism and left-wing extremism everywhere, and I think that’s below a moderate blog that seeks to attack others for not being moderate.
"personal narrative of heroic service, Democrats cried foul. "
He basically said "I have three purple hearts", and then some reps hired some scumbags to repeat lies into the media until it was repeated again and again even though it lacked substance. Of course, the fact that W is a disgrace to the US army was not noteworthy - as a republican, Bush was auto-masculine and rock-cock-hard.
"condemned the entire tactic of opening Kerry’s war service up to question at all."
That was not the tactic - "swift-boating" is about creating much ado about nothing and forcing a defence while there is nothing there. See "Al FATTSO sedz he created the internets HE DID HE DID HE DID MEGALOMANIAC!"
"invited the scrutiny by using his military record and his cheesy “reporting for duty” convention line and had exacerbated his lack of credibility by demonstrably exaggerated slander during his starring role in the anti-war movement in the 1970s"
First - you need to finish the sentence. Second, cheesy is an empty value-laden adjective. His firm belief that the Vietnam War was in essence wrong does not suggest hipocrisy - did he say anything other than that he fought to preserve the lives of others in a war that he could not agree with in execution? Show me the slander rather than take the right-wing. Also, "starring role" is just the common and low emotional language I expect from right- and left-wing hacks, not a normally sceptical man.
You are so giddy at the prospect of going "Well well, so much for TEH LEFT and X" (or desperately trying to remind people that they only like Obama for his shiny words and promises rather than his policies being superior) that you are becoming boorish, transparent and unstimulating to read.
Hey, what about the fact that the swiftboaters were funded by a hard-right billionaire - does that tickle your scepticism gland?
What about the fact that they took quotes of Kerry - in turn quoting other soldiers from the Winter Soldier hearings - out of context in their ads - are "left-wing ideologues that cry foul" allowed to get just a teensy bit upset over the fact that republicans are always mega-skull-f**king flag-wanking heroes that never ask their daddy to save them from service while dems are hippies? Or do you reach for your thesaurus in the quest for synonyms of "indignation" or "dogmatism"? You are completely unsceptical about whether your "scepticism" is worthy of the name or not.
But apparently you are able to foam and rant while completely missing the point for two lengthy comments.
Typical. Throw enough dust in the air and you hope no one will notice the hypocrisy of complaining about swiftboating in 2004 and then condoning it in 2008. That was the point I was making, and you have performatively confirmed it. Thank you.
Until you complain equally about George Soros, don’t bother trying to distract the issue with an irrelevant scripted load of BS.
And you are so foaming at the mouth, over-the-top abusive in your comments that I’m starting to wonder if you are just trying to get banned so that you can whine about how the evil right-wing conspiracy tried to “silence” you. :rolleyes:
"Until you complain equally about George Soros, don’t bother trying to distract the issue with an irrelevant scripted load of BS."
First, I already conceded I was beside the point (I was attacking your poor writing model, not the notion that spreading groundless lies about McCain’s service is wrong and should be attacked as swiftboating if the claims are insubstantial), second, now YOU are using the "They do it too, bring that up or feel my disapproval" trope that you have complained MANY times about before, so you are being a hypocrite about calling me a hypocrite.
"over-the-top abusive"
Poor you - you threw an emotion-laden article with lots of assumptions, contempt and weasel words out there and that’s where the bar is, apparently. I’m just deriving what I am seeing from your writing, honestly.
"I’m starting to wonder if you are just trying to get banned so that you can whine about how the evil right-wing conspiracy"
It’s you who see circuits and collective demagoguery where there is understandable consent and united outrage against a case of right-wing dishonesty and insubstantiality. Oh, and I can’t really see you being important enough to be given a place in any conspiracy of right-wing writers, and up til today I really couldn’t see you wanting to be a part of one.
I think both of you have some points, and both are wrong on others. McCain’s military record is, I think, fair game, since he keeps touting it so much. I’d have said the same of Kerry in 2004.
Yet, liberals need to be careful to use established fact and not simply hearsay, since anyone can have an agenda against McCain. However, if what is being said is merely smear, they can’t really complain if people call what they’re saying swiftboating.
The pendulum swings both ways.
utsu,
And the same people who were behind the Swift Boat criticisms on Kerry are now planning to go after John McCain on the allegation that he covered up the existence of Live POWs in Vietnam. They’re a group of old veterans with grudges, probably the type who swap veteran related political stories over e-mail, not Republican operatives. You bet this time, a rich Democrat will fund them.
The Democrats are desperate to target his military record, btw. Its why Obama tried to make a big fuss over McCain and veterans bills, which was completely dishonest.
"McCain’s military record is, I think, fair game, since he keeps touting it so much. I’d have said the same of Kerry in 2004."
Which is why think it is redonkulous to start denigrating the protests against the treatment of Kerry on the grounds that some democrat moron tried to say something ungrounded on McCain’s service. Scrutinizig Kerry was fair - slandering him was not. Calling it anything other than slander is one thing, trying to poke away little inanities against those that were outraged of another attempt to use cultural and memetic warfare against a democrat candidate is not okay.
"They’re a group of old veterans with grudges, probably the type who swap veteran related political stories over e-mail, not Republican operatives."
I didn’t know this, interesting info.