The left can dish it out but it can't take it

Tough love for the Democrats

Published on August 6, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

I find it amazing that the group of people most identified with worshipping the first amendment seem to be the ones most intolerant of opinions other than their own. For months we've seen left wing groups like MoveOn.org creating anti-Bush commercials that are only vaguely factual. Celebrities have lent their voices to unseating George W. Bush. Bruce Springsteen, for example, is currently doing a "Get Bush Out" concert tour (John Mellencamp wrote a song called "Bush is just another thug"). Heck, I can barely watch TV without some half-witted celebrity telling me that Bush needs to go. This summer, we've had Fahrenheit 9/11 making over a hundred millions dollars and seen Michael Moore's mug on almost every magazine cover at one point or other. In short, the left has certainly had its opportunity to get its views out.

But when conservatives try to get their message out, the left cries foul. Listening to the left, you'd think that Fox News was GOP TV. In left-wing land, apparently, if the coverage isn't overtly left-wing it's GOP TV. Sure, The Daily Show with John Stewart tends to be less sympathetic to conservatives than liberals. And CNN, ABC, and NBC tend to prefer to cover social issues that are the strong points of the left. And let's not forget the ridiculous media coverage of the Iraq war that's come from the New York Times and other "mainstream" media outlets. But oh no! Bill O'Reilly at 8pm hates high taxes and is (gasp) a Catholic. It must be GOP TV! Those damn conservatives are able to get their message out on a cable news channel on top of AM radio! The sky is falling!

Meanwhile, conservatives have, for years, had to deal with the reality that most of the people who cover the news have political philosophies that are much different than their own. And while most of those who cover the news try to be fair, their own viewpoints inevitably creep into the news and especially in editorials. Conservatives have had to develop a sort of "Reality check" sense when listening to the news. Liberals, by contrast, apparently are so thin skinned that people like Bill O'Reilly send them into fits of insanity. And don't get them started on Sean Hannity who CO-hosts a show with liberal Alan Colmes. Since when are conservatives allowed to speak at all? Isn't George Will's token appearance on "This Week" enough for those right wing nuts? Sure, "This Week" is hosted by Bill Clinton's former press secretary, but that's fine.

And now this week, the left is going berzerk over the Swift Boat veterans. Cries of unfairness ring loud and clear from the left. Well, as someone who's had to listen to Moore-ons all summer ranting their erroneous "facts" across the net and TV all summer. And had to see snippets of MoveOn.org's venom on TV I say, deal with it. If Kerry hadn't made the cornerstone of his campaign about the 4 months he served in Vietname he wouldn't be vulnerable to the fact that most of the people who served with him don't support him. Are the charges of the Swift Boat veterans unfair? Possibly. But compare that to the whole Bush went AWOL nonsense. Was that fair? At least this is based on some semblance of reality.

The first amendment means that all sides get to speak out. Not just those who hold "correct" opinions. Those people demanding that Bush or conservatives condemn the Swift Boat veterans and what not should be also demanding that Kerry and his supporters condemn Michael Moore and his ilk along with MoveOn.org. But don't expect that to happen. Kerry, after, all, complemented hollywood stars such as Whoopi Goldberg, who, in his presence, made vulgar sexual references to Bush.

So if the left things they're getting treated rough now, then they have no idea what rough behavior is. Perhaps they should start looking at the sewage their supporters have been heaping on the American public for the past half year.

Comments (Page 6)

bakerstreet

on Aug 10, 2004

vincible: Like I said before, you are assuming too much when you say "opposition". Bush hasn't addressed this, and neither did Nixon or Kerry's Senatorial opponents, that I know of. If you are going by political opponents, there isn't any then/now conflict, is there? This isn't an act of the Bush administration, it is a third party, no different than MoveOn or the rest of Kerry's soft money machine. If Bush isn't stooping to address it, why would Nixon or anyone else?

Sure, the veterans waited until now to speak out, so this must have been the last straw. Considering he was using their photographs and such without their permission orginally, it is understandable. It is one thing I guess for the guy to come back and accuse them of atrocities for 30 years, but then all of a sudden to call them a "Band of Brothers" and use them as a character reference must suck...

kingbee

on Aug 10, 2004

You see this as a wrong now, but you tolerated it when third parties do such to Bush. It suits your purposes to call everyone that challenges Kerry "the administration", but when the same happens on the other side, it is "free speech".

on the off chance you're not purposely overlooking the fact that my issue isnt kerry getting trashed per se, but the way he's being trashed, let me assure you that i was far more pissed off when it was done to mccain in 2000 because it was even less appropriate--if thats possible-- to smear a former pow. if the administration isnt involved, why dont they condemn it as mccain suggested? if you want to know why i dont want to see bush win another day in office, it's because mccain consistently demonstrates to me the kind of republican president we should have but probably dont deserve because too many people define party loyalty as not saying shit even when ya gotta mouthful.

CrocoLyle

on Aug 10, 2004

"The Bush tax cuts aren't a valid excuse for not funding our soliders. Do you think Kerry's vote against the $87 billion was more about principle than politics?"

In that case, why did Bush promise to veto funding for the troops? Or are the tax cuts a valid excuse in that case?

bakerstreet

on Aug 10, 2004

Kingbee: But you still, repetitively ignore moveon.org and the rest of the Bush smearing machine. You were upset about McCain in 2000, but were you upset about people making an issue of Bush's service? Probably not...

I don't think Bush has any responsiblity to reign in anyone when Kerry has benefited from 60+ million dollars in 527 support, the vast majority of which has been out-and-out lies and propaganda. Bush has called upon Kerry over and over and over to disavow soft money advertising, Bush even signed legislation that was supposed to stem it, but Kerry knows that he can't possibly win a "clean" election unless he has other people to do his dirtywork for him.

Swift boat vets may have converged on this election, but their questions aren't new. Kerry wants to run on his 4 month outing in Vietnam to distract people from his Senatorial career, so let him soak up the "response" to his "call". If he stuck to his 30 year long stance on Vietnam and ran on his merits as a Senator, this wouldn't be an issue.

ice_demon

on Aug 10, 2004

There are so many questionable in that ad, one, when they say "We served with John Kerry in Vietnam", they don't mean on the same boat, just they were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry.

This is a referendum on George W. Bush, not John Kerry.

John Kerry didn't more burden on the back of future generations, he voted FOR the bill ($87 million) when it was coming out of the $1.65 billion ($1 650 Million) Bush tax cuts, he did not want more debt, and you republicans are going after him for that. IF you took it out of the huge tax cuts then he has clearly said he would of voted for it, but they wanted to put it on the debt, in the "let the next guys worry about it" attitude, Kerry doesn't want debt for the future, he wants fiscal responsibility now.

CrocoLyle

on Aug 10, 2004

The calls from John McCain and others to denounce the "Swift Boats" ads aren't as upset at the negative advertising as it is with the misleading nature of the ad, which includes a doctor claiming to have treated Kerry for the Wound that earned Kerry his first Purple Heart when records show that he wasn't, among lesser problems.

Here's what I'm seriously curious about: I pay pretty close attention to non-partisan sites like spinsanity and Anneburgh Fact Check and I've yet to hear of a liberal 527 ad that lies to the degree that this 527's ad does. Admittedly, I've found a few that I'm very uncomfortable with but nothing where people make personal claims they cannot support (like "I treated John Kerry for that wound"). I mean, where has the left dished out lies the size of this one? (And I hope no one on the left decides to take cues from this group.)

kingbee

on Aug 11, 2004

repetitively ignore moveon.org and the rest of the Bush smearing machine

you've steadfastly chosen to dismiss any possibility this swiftboat thing is less than well-intentioned or that it might be more than mere coincidence its being funded and run by two long-time bush campaign backers.

I don't think Bush has any responsiblity to reign in anyone when Kerry has benefited from 60+ million dollars in 527 support, the vast majority of which has been out-and-out lies and propaganda

you don't see any chance moveon.org, skoros and whomever else were spawned by the bush 2000 campaign? skoros may be obscenely wealthy but he's self-made so im guessing he doesnt likely just go berserk and start tossing money at people who annoy him. moveon.org would not have its considerable grassroots funding or volunteer support if there wasnt a a sizeable group of people whose response to what they saw in 2000 (or in texas in 92 & 96) led to determination to out-bush bush.

sow the wind...

bakerstreet

on Aug 11, 2004

"(like "I treated John Kerry for that wound"). I mean, where has the left dished out lies the size of this one?"

Every worked in a hospital? How many of your attending care-givers sign off on your report? A guy can help bandage a wound and be called a liar just like a guy can be in a boat a few feet away and somehow not "serve" with Kerry. I find the rebuttal to these ads easily as shallow as the ads themselves.

"you've steadfastly chosen to dismiss any possibility this swiftboat thing is less than well-intentioned"

Negative campaign ads as well-intentioned?

, nope, never even considered that. What I have chosen to dismiss, though, is that anything partisan is false. Oddly, the people who feel that way here have no problem with reams of exageration and falshood spewed by the pro-Kerry machine...

"moveon.org would not have its considerable grassroots funding or volunteer support if there wasnt a a sizeable group of people whose response to what they saw in 2000 (or in texas in 92 & 96) led to determination to out-bush bush."

And the swift boat vets wouldn't have the ear of the nation if their claims were easily dismissed offhand by Kerry's glowing character. Sure, people find moveon believable because they feel Bush is capable of those things. You can't see how millions of people in the US feel the same about Kerry?

You really think you can dismiss Soros as a legitimate response to the 2000 election and then berate swift boat vets as an illegitimate response to the self-aggrandized "legend" of Kerry's four months in Vietnam?

Daiwa

on Aug 11, 2004

"on the off chance you're not purposely overlooking the fact that my issue isnt kerry getting trashed per se, but the way he's being trashed, let me assure you that i was far more pissed off when it was done to mccain in 2000 because it was even less appropriate--if thats possible-- to smear a former pow. if the administration isnt involved, why dont they condemn it as mccain suggested?" Soon as Kerry condemns F9/11, Move-On, etc.

So don't expect Bush to say much on the subject very soon.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Aug 11, 2004

dismiss Soros as a legitimate response to the 2000 election

did i say it was legitimate? all i said was that what goes around comes around. if the bush campaigns hadn't been conducted they way they were prior to 2000, we wouldnt be having this discussion. and as i keep pointing out, it wasnt merely partisan. the real sewage was being pumped in the 2000 primaries.

one thing that can be said of soros is its doubtful he needs to line himself up for the kinda quid pro quo relationship between the karl rove/bush machine and robert perry in texas whose $100k donation to fund the swiftboat vets (or 2/3 of their revenue) is just a fraction of what he's spent to ensure the people who buy his homes are hobbled when they take him to court because of shoddy construction.

kingbee

on Aug 11, 2004

don't expect Bush to say much on the subject very soon

thanks for your concern. im not holding my breath (or not for that reason anyway)

Daiwa

on Aug 11, 2004

if the bush campaigns hadn't been conducted they way they were prior to 2000, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

As if this sort of thing never happened before 2000? And I still have trouble with the notion that all mud that gets slung from the right is by definition orchestrated by the candidate via manipulating secret/back channels, while all mud slung from the left is just independent good folks exercising their right of free speech. Mud gets slung; we all have to just deal with it and assess it for what it is, making our independent judgments about what kernels of truth can be found beneath it.

BTW (OT), since the relative intelligence of the major candidates has been an issue in heavy play by the Democrats, did you hear that Kerry praised "Buckeye football" at a recent Michigan campaign stop?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Draginol

on Aug 11, 2004

This is kind of interesting. So the sewage coming from moveon.org for all these months is "free speech" but a group of idenitified "war heroes" who served with Kerry (it was Kerry that made the assertion he served with these men first with the picture) objecting to Kerry is sinister.

How typically left wing. Moore is an angel, ticked off veterans are part of a vast right wing smear machine. Right...

Daiwa

on Aug 11, 2004

Moore is an angel

Not just an angel, but a vessel of truth and enlightenment.

It will be interesting to see how the release of the Swiftboat Vets book plays out, as the vets involved go public to defend their position. They have every right to speak their minds and, in my view, bring credentials bolstering their perspective that Moore only wishes he had. The simple claim of righteousness does not make it so (Jim Bakker comes to mind, appropos of nothing).

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Aug 11, 2004

are you restating or summarizing the original article because the thread has wandered too far afield or ? if so i apologize. if not, im confused because "moveon.org" appears 8 times in all this verbiage, and no one has said anything positive about them much less a claim of first amendment protection. in fact the only sewage being defended on that basis is the swift boat smear.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!