Let the Swift-Boating Begin
[Guest post by DRJ]
Many Democrats use the term Swift-boating to mean an unfair attack against a candidate. By that standard, alert Instapundit reader Scott Slater provides an early example of Swift-boating by the Democrats:
“Dear Glenn,
Got the 2008 Democratic Presidential Survey in the mail today.
Question #7 – “Do you believe that John McCain’s pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years will be a liability in the General Election?”
I answered “No. He didn’t say that. You are smearing him.”
Question #11 asks “How likely do you think it is that John McCain and his Republican allies will launch a “Swift Boat” style smear campaign against our presidential nominee?”
I checked “Not Likely, but I noticed you have (see question 7).”
It doesn’t sound like Scott sent in a contribution with his response.
— DRJ
You’ve got the wrong definition.
“Swiftboating” = telling the truth about a Democrat.
In any case, from the perspective of journalists and other leftist Democrats, just as blacks can’t be racists, Democrats can’t “Swiftboat”. It’s simply not possible as a matter of the meaning of words and the logic of things.
PrestoPundit (ff5e16) — 5/8/2008 @ 9:00 pmBut isn’t that the Republican definition of Swift-boating? I don’t think Democrats would agree.
DRJ (a431ca) — 5/8/2008 @ 9:13 pmOh man, it’s gonna get ugly. Lot sof Republicans aren’t thrilled with W, but now thet they aren’t defending him, I think we’ll see them bare some teeth against the absurd types of attacks the mass media has permitted and the democrats are reveling in.
The attack on Obama is that he is an irresponsible kid, with no perspective or ability to conduct a mature and serious administration. These attacks by the Obama campaign will inevitably be personal, deliberately dishonest (in an obnoxious attempt to troll a response, as teh 100 year dig has done), and generally meant to distract from real issues. It’s going to play right into our hands.
The only question is if the public is pissed off enough at the GOP brand, and if the Democrats are fired up enough to overcome this obstacle (I think they probably are going to win).
Jem (4cdfb7) — 5/8/2008 @ 9:20 pmAll Democrats should be Swiftboated, INDEED!!!
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:01 amSo do we all agree that having a 100 year commitment to Iraq is a negative thing?
stef (56628b) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:28 amI agree with Prestopundit on this issue, but I would have to disagree with PCD on the matter. Not every Democrat merits Swiftboating.
Most, however, do merit keelhauling.
Rhymes With Right (8d63ec) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:44 am6, Rhymes, how dare you use a punishment out of Capt. Bligh’s book. Don’t you know most of the kids taught by Union Teachers won’t know what you are talking about?
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:51 am5, stef, you obviously are a teacher union taught victim of ignorance. McCain was arguing against a time table or deadline that dolts like you insist upon.
If you were consistant you’d be demanding withdrawl from all occupied countries from WW2 and later including Haiti and Kosovo.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:53 amHow, exactly, could one expect McCain to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years? On the highly unlikely chance that he should live to 172, he’d still have been term limited out of office 92 years prior.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:18 am“McCain was arguing against a time table or deadline that dolts like you insist upon.”
I know what his position is. I have heard his words. But even given those, are we in agreement that someone saying they’d like to be in Iraq for 100 years is a negative thing?
stef (394243) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:20 am“are we in agreement”
Who is this “WE” you speak of stef?
If you are talking to yourself again you should seek help.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:46 am#10 you take the 100 years out of context. Mccain said one hundred years was fine as long as NO American soldiers were being killed or injured. That’s about what the status has been in Germany, Japan and S. Korea for decades.
How come liberals don’t bitch about US presence in the former Yugoslavia? Did not Bubba assert they would not be there very long?
If we were not in Iraq, liberals would find themselves condemning our presence in Afghanistan. And yet, your barry hussein wants to invade Pakistan, which is nominally our ally. And I think many conservatives realize that obamaturd would leave Isreal out to dry while caving to more demands by the poor, misunderstood, perpetual refugee Palis. Local libs endlessly bring up all the same old BS about the genesis of the Iraq war, Vietnam, algore wuz robbed by SCOTUS, AGW, ANWR, nuclear power, all their other NIMBY objections to energy independence and so on. Obamascum would only exacerbate all of the crap pushed on us by the far leftists. “Fairness” in taxes, activist judges, affirmative actions, tea and sympathy for recalitrant repeat criminal offenders, taking away rights under 2nd amendment and seeking to make the whole country like D.C., et al.
And we cannot say anything negative about his Messiah’s character flaws because THAT would be racist and not good for hope! and Change! God forbid the marxist gets power and anyone rasies a voice against the affirmative action candidate or his posse of media fellators who get aroused by him like ninth grade boys.
madmax333 (957145) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:48 amJohn McCain will NOT launch any swiftboat attacks against his opponent. Other people will launch the attacks, and then he will condemn them…simultaneously distancing himself from them but calling even more attention to them. A fine end around strategy.
I am waiting to see what Obama will do. His very platform suggests that he isn’t allowed to campaign negatively so perhaps he will use a similar strategy but attempt to “reign in” the people who attack McCain in order to civilize the dialogue.
EdWood (06cafa) — 5/9/2008 @ 6:56 amI am waiting to see what Obama will do. His very platform suggests that he isn’t allowed to campaign negatively so perhaps he will use a similar strategy but attempt to “reign in” the people who attack McCain in order to civilize the dialogue.
Ed – That’s what he says, but what he does is something far different. While slamming Hillary or McCain for something they have done, Obama typically uses the opportunity to go negative himself while trying to appear above the fray. It’s a nice tactic which the media lets him get away with since they are in his pocket.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:01 amYes. Can we all agree that lying about it is, too?
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:04 amstef…we’ve been in Japan for 63 years…Germany for 63 years…
Taking bets about making 100???
reff (bff229) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:15 amSo do we all agree that lying about having a 100 year commitment to Iraq is a negative thing?
stef – I think that statement works better for the “we” on this site.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:15 am“you take the 100 years out of context. Mccain said one hundred years was fine as long as NO American soldiers were being killed or injured.”
So how long does mccain want to stay there if American soldier ARE being killed or injured? More or less than 100 years?
“While slamming Hillary or McCain for something they have done, Obama typically uses the opportunity to go negative himself while trying to appear above the fray. It’s a nice tactic which the media lets him get away with since they are in his pocket.”
I think Obama will do something like Reagan was doing when he said: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
stef (c89818) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:17 amI think Obama will do something like Reagan was doing when he said: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
stewf – Something along the lines of he’s losing his bearings, like he said yesterday, implying that he’s going senile. He’s already doing it stef so you can stop speculating.
Your Naomi Wolf impression is not working very well.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:21 amDaleyrocks #14-
Yah, O’s “raising the dialog” strategy is looking pretty good for now. We will see what happens when he is being attacked by someone from the other side of the isle.
“media lets him get away with since they are in his pocket”
EdWood (06cafa) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:23 amActually over at Crookandliars it’s John McCain who has the media in HIS pocket. Is there a “pocket du jour” for the media?
“stewf – Something along the lines of he’s losing his bearings, like he said yesterday, implying that he’s going senile. He’s already doing it stef so you can stop speculating.”
Yeah, I don’t think he should have said that. It would be more maverick to say that he wont make an issue of Mccain’s unhinged lack of temper.
stef (87fe55) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:35 amActually over at Crookandliars it’s John McCain who has the media in HIS pocket.
Ed – That’s pretty funny on their part Ed. I guess that’s why they named their site what they did.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/9/2008 @ 7:45 ammadmax333…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/9/2008 @ 8:08 amStraight talk and opinion is valued here at PP; could you not be so obtuse in your personal evaluation of Sen. Obama?
What do you really think of him?
#23 I agree that B. Hussein is a Marxist who wants to redistribute income, raise taxes as a matter of “fairness” regardless of the consequences, deliver reparations to his core constituency of can’t- be-racists black power/hate the crackers advocates, bend over for Islamofascists/the UN/Europussies.
Some wag suggested that if shrillary gave that twat obama one of her cojones, they’d both be left with two. Hussein makes the Hildebeast seem very Presidential in comparison. The fact that the media admits to having orgasms over obama speaks volumes.
They’re not in the running now, but I would never vote for a Huckabeee or luap nor either, for loads of reasons.
madmax333 (139016) — 5/9/2008 @ 10:49 amMadmax is right. The language may be crude, but the sentiment is correct. I do not desire change that comes from the government except where government loosens its hold. We are living in the result of 40 years of liberal economics. No nuclear power, no oil drilling, no oil refineries, bad mouthing America’s corporations. If you do not support our industries, why be suprised when they move overseas? Democrats in general and liberals in particular have been the enemy of the American public for a very long time. I think it is time to throw the bums out.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (e18128) — 5/9/2008 @ 11:27 amIt’s worth remembering that McCain attacked the SwiftVets in ’04, saying any criticism of Kerry’s service was not legitimate.
cmsmith (843567) — 5/9/2008 @ 11:41 amIMHO, they were not attacking his service, but his performance.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/9/2008 @ 12:12 pmI used to have a blast filling out those DCCC “questionnaires.” The last time, one of the questions was “Do you support a woman’s right to choose.” I answered “Yes” then wrote in the margins “as long as she chooses me.”
I never heard from the DCCC again for some strange reason.
Sean P (e57269) — 5/9/2008 @ 2:18 pm“We are living in the result of 40 years of liberal economics.”
Ragshaft- If this is true then YES indeed and thank you liberals!!!! Hey, if you want to live in a “conservative” country I hear that Honduras is nice….. Costa Rica, for all of its socialized medicine and insane tax structure is pretty conservatvie too (socially) and really really nice. Watch out for all the potholes in the roads though. The road repairs are paid by a user tax by people who own cars and trucks and so there isn’t enough money to re-pave them too often.
EdWood (7c56ec) — 5/9/2008 @ 8:06 pmEd #29 – I hear that Honduras is nice….. Costa Rica is pretty conservatvie too (socially) and really really nice. Watch out for all the potholes in the roads though.
You must not have been in Los Angeles recently, despite what is asserted by the Mayor’s photo ops.
Apogee (366e8b) — 5/9/2008 @ 8:18 pmApogee- Yikes, LA is NOT the kind of town to be in if the streets have potholes. It’s been 10 years since I lived there and back then you had to drive 30 minutes, on good roads, to do….well, to do just about anything. That time minimum being ratcheted up by people trying to save their shocks would be bad.
EdWood (d3b459) — 5/10/2008 @ 2:35 pmSo how long does mccain want to stay there if American soldier ARE being killed or injured? More or less than 100 years?
Why are you obsessed with lies?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/10/2008 @ 2:52 pmStef, speaking of lies by politicians…
Bill Clinton declared the troops in Kosovo would be home by Christmas 1997.
December 25, 1997. Over a decade ago.
We still have troops there.
Where’s the outrage?
Where’s the demand for a timetable?
Paul (cf2458) — 5/10/2008 @ 2:58 pm“Why are you obsessed with lies?”
I’d like the truth. Mccain is fine with troops there for 100 years if they’re not getting killed. How long does he want them there if they ARE getting killed?
“Where’s the outrage? Where’s the demand for a timetable?”
Are you outraged? Write a blog about it. Or more.
stef (8bb588) — 5/12/2008 @ 5:10 amI’d like the truth.
stef would not know the truth if it jumped into her lap and called her Momma.
JD (75f5c3) — 5/12/2008 @ 6:29 amJD,
We won’t get it from stef as she is a lib who doesn’t live in the real world.
PCD (5c49b0) — 5/12/2008 @ 7:24 amStef, you don’t like the truth, given your fondness originally for the Democrat misrepresentation of McCain’s arguments.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/12/2008 @ 8:58 am