A few months ago, MoveOn PAC decided to air a series of innovative ads against a group of vulnerable Republican members of Congress, tied to the various corruption scandals enveloping GOP-controlled Washington. They developed a striking image to serve as the ads’ centerpiece: the “Caught Red-Handed” series features photos of a member of Congress in black-and-white, except for his or her… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (6)Page 1 of 1 pages- “...ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, many of which contained documented falsehoods about John Kerry.”
Be specific. The SwiftVets ads were effective because we told the truth. We didn’t create the media smears that surrounded our message.
Tom Wright
PCF 44 & 89
Posted by twright3 on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:10 PM There’s a reason why the Swift Boat Veterans are known as the “Swift Boat Liars.” Their smear campaign against John Kerry was one of the most dishonest spectacles in the history of American politics. In both their ads and their public statements, they propagated falsehood after falsehood about Kerry, and most of their major claims were debunked by journalists - once they got around to actually investigating them, after giving the group reams of undeserved publicity.
From the phony claim that Kerry “secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris” to the false assertion that Kerry didn’t deserve his purple hearts, to the shots of the group’s members saying “I served with John Kerry” when they “served with” Kerry only in the sense of being in Vietnam at the same time, the Swift Boat ads were models of shameless mendacity.
Those who would like to see documentation of just some of the Swift Boat Veterans’ false claims can read the following Media Matters items:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170011
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190003
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120007
http://mediamatters.org/items/200409220006
Posted by PaulWaldman on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:06 PM I don’t recall any of us talking about Paris but I do know that the commanding officer has to approve a Purple Heart and Kerry’s CO didn’t approve the first one. On several occasions, I led groups of PCFs into the rivers with Kerry on one of the other boats. We ate on the same mess decks, slept in the same bunk room and we were happy to see him leave.
And then we were stunned when he started supporting the North Vietnamese.
I’ve been disappointed in all the silly media trashing of our basic points and seen that mediamatters has no tolerance for opposing positions.
We did fight to preserve freedom of speech for all and will continue to speak about what we experienced as the truth.
Tom Wright
OinC, PCF 44 & 89
Posted by twright3 on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:30 PM This was never an issue about “free speech,” it was about telling the truth. Let’s just take one example. Mr. Wright says, “we were stunned when he started supporting the North Vietnamese.” John Kerry became an opponent of the Vietnam War, and worked to oppose it. He did not “support the North Vietnamese.” That is a vicious, despicable slander, and Mr. Wright should be ashamed of himself.
Unfortunately, this is the level of argument we hear from conservatives all the time. If you thought that invading Iraq was a bad idea (a prediction that turned out to be accurate), you were “objectively pro-Saddam.” If you criticize the Bush administration, you’re supporting the terrorists.
Let’s say I argue that we should immediately invade North Korea. George Bush obviously doesn’t think that’s a good idea, since he could have done it if he wanted to, but hasn’t. Does that mean Bush is “supporting Kim Jong Il? Of course not. No one capable of rational thought would argue such a thing. Yet we hear the similar arguments from conservatives constantly. But when the policies you support have been disastrous, perhaps that’s all you’re left with.
Posted by PaulWaldman on Aug 31, 2006 at 8:55 PM I fear that one should probably not get too upset about this particular advertisement not being aired:
http://www.factcheck.org/article421.html
Posted by Dan Clore on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:46 AM If the Swift Boat Veterans were so mad about kerry why did it take 30 years for them to say anything? If they were so pissed off they would have had a congressional hearing, but no , when neo-cons give you millions of dollars to say bad things about kerry 30 years later because you did not have the balls to say it at the time tells me kerry wasn’t that bad or you were bought off.
The navy has to research all metals given out, so you swifties are telling me the navy is lying when kerry got his metals? Did the base have a two for one sale on metals at the BX?
You swifties were bought off from a man hiding in the national gaurds who lost his flight statis because he could not pass a drug test and his pilot works for the bush company who was bought off to keep his mouth shut and granted no interveiws, and this is the democracy were are trying to sell iraq.
Posted by brian28 on Sep 1, 2006 at 5:20 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Paul Waldman and Matthew Biedlingmaier
- Pushing Back Against Ad Censorship
Television networks refuse progressive ads more often than conservative ones
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
