Three groups are filing an FEC complaint against the folks putting out the SwiftVets ad. I think the ad is extremely effective. I have no way of independently verifying any of the claims therein, but it hits the right buttons and made me pretty willing to believe that Kerry plays with his war record to suit his political aspirations.
So, naturally, the ad, and the “soft” money that paid for it, is being interpreted as an attempt to influence the presidential election. This is, I understand, illegal. However, Mike Rusell from Swift Boat veterans for truth maintains:
The ads are not meant to influence the presidential election. The ads are meant to tell the truth about John Kerry’s service record so people can make their own decisions.
Now, surely this is a lie. The ads ARE meant to influence the election. The point is, Mike Russell shouldn’t have to lie about this, but McCain/Feingold makes him a liar.
No doubt the ads “are meant to tell the truth about John Kerry’s war record.” Suppose you are one of the men making a claim in the ad and you speak truly. The difference between what you know and what Kerry claims may be sufficient ground for thinking Kerry disqualified for office, and, suppose, on this basis, you wish for him to lose the election. You believe that if others had your information, then voters might wish to alter their estimation of Kerry’s fitness for the presidency. The people with whom you have shared your knowledge about Kerry’s record and who have financially supported the ad campaign share your desire that your knowledge of the matter be made available to broader public.
Isn’t it just disturbing that this may in fact be illegal? If I publish a scientific article that cites empirical data in order to refute a competing theory, I also intend this to have some impact on the opinion of the scientifc community. I intend to influence their beliefs about what theory to support. This may in fact be my main motivation for gathering data in the first place: I want to persuade. This is, of course, OK.
But, strangely, in the political arena, which relies on argument and the free play of claims and counter-claims for its proper function, publicly airing what one believes to be true can under certain circumstances be illegal. Doesn’t it seem that if one want to tell what one believes to be true, it shouldn’t matter where the money comes from?
I want to see the counter-ads. I want to see other vets saying that Van O’Dell and Jack Chenoweth are liars, and telling me why. I want to hear eyewitness reports about the time John Kerry saved the life of a dying child with one hand while fending off VC with a machine gun in other, all while shouting brilliantly improvised orders despite the blood running into his eyes. Even if it takes soft money to do it.
Anyway, was it really Kerry’s best idea to push his stint in Viet Nam (or Cambodia, or wherever he was) to the front? Sadly, I think it was.
Heh. Everyone’s waking up and starting to realize that the foaming, partisan opponents to so-called “reform” were right all along, and that when it comes down to it, money really does equal speech.
“I want to see the counter-ads. I want to see other vets saying that Van O’Dell and Jack Chenoweth are liars, and telling me why.”
If someone were to actually read the text of the ad (which can be found here) one would search in vain for even one claim about Kerry that is specific. What one will find instead are broad, conclusory opinions about what Kerry deserves, what kind of guy he is, etc. There is not a single factual contention about Kerry’s actions in the entire ad.
Does one really need that sort of thing to be “countered”?
Strange, Yes.
Strange: the web siteh as specific allegations: that he got his purple hearts for minor injuries by pulling strings. That he was encouraged to leave after 4 months because he was considered a “loose cannon.” That he didn’t follow orders and endangered the missions he was part of.
Perhaps most important–if true– is the allegation that 17 of the 22 officers pictured in that photo think he’d make a lousy president, while only 1 supports him. That’s not a claim about Kerry per se, but it certainly would give one pause if one were a veteran for whom military service was an important issue.
so i came across this thread by accident. i was looking up stuff about c.p. snow. but i’m intrigued by this discussion. i’m neither for kerry or bush. but i guess what i don’t see is the difference between this book and michael moore’s farenheit movie. except that they are for or rather against the opposite candidates. and what about mellencamp and all the singers out there singing about what they believe in? is america not about free speech? why not just let all these people discuss or talk about whatever/whoever they want to. i’ll decide whether or not i believe the dixie chicks’ political views are worth listening to or not.
incidentally, seeing that you seem to be an economist and your criticism’s of cp snow are on that basis, have you read the “wisdome of crowds?” i think that book’s premise sort of applies to both c. p. snow and his two cultures deal and these issues over bush and kerry.
Heh. Everyone’s waking up and starting to realize that the foaming, partisan opponents to so-called “reform” were right all along, and that when it comes down to it, money really does equal speech.
“I want to see the counter-ads. I want to see other vets saying that Van O’Dell and Jack Chenoweth are liars, and telling me why.”
If someone were to actually read the text of the ad (which can be found here) one would search in vain for even one claim about Kerry that is specific. What one will find instead are broad, conclusory opinions about what Kerry deserves, what kind of guy he is, etc. There is not a single factual contention about Kerry’s actions in the entire ad.
Does one really need that sort of thing to be “countered”?
Strange, Yes.
Strange: the web siteh as specific allegations: that he got his purple hearts for minor injuries by pulling strings. That he was encouraged to leave after 4 months because he was considered a “loose cannon.” That he didn’t follow orders and endangered the missions he was part of.
Perhaps most important–if true– is the allegation that 17 of the 22 officers pictured in that photo think he’d make a lousy president, while only 1 supports him. That’s not a claim about Kerry per se, but it certainly would give one pause if one were a veteran for whom military service was an important issue.
so i came across this thread by accident. i was looking up stuff about c.p. snow. but i’m intrigued by this discussion. i’m neither for kerry or bush. but i guess what i don’t see is the difference between this book and michael moore’s farenheit movie. except that they are for or rather against the opposite candidates. and what about mellencamp and all the singers out there singing about what they believe in? is america not about free speech? why not just let all these people discuss or talk about whatever/whoever they want to. i’ll decide whether or not i believe the dixie chicks’ political views are worth listening to or not.
incidentally, seeing that you seem to be an economist and your criticism’s of cp snow are on that basis, have you read the “wisdome of crowds?” i think that book’s premise sort of applies to both c. p. snow and his two cultures deal and these issues over bush and kerry.