Via Talk Left:
By e-mail we’re told that in an attempt to limit John Kerry’s message, the Republicans will release a 12 minute video to embarass Kerry tonight, and that it will be all over the news tomorrow and this weekend.
Anyone know if this is true? What’s the appropriate response if it is true?
Update: Minipundit advises it’s true and you can watch it here.
I watched the video yesterday. It is 12 minutes of Kerry completely shifting his opinions on Iraq, starting with his very hawkish behavior and belligerent attitude toward Hussein in 1998 (so spare me the “how was he supposed to know Bush was lying” bullshit) until the Iowa caucus, when Dean’santi-war position was cleaning Kerry’s clock in thepolls. Once that became clear, Kerry took on a more ‘nuanced’ position.
Only in the weird world in which Democrats reside could this be considered an ‘attack’ ad. Is it embarassing? Yes. But so is John Kerry.
Gregory Markle
Sheesh John, we’ve been bitching about that twelve minute piece for a day now over at our blog…sleeping on the job, are we?
It isn’t the slickest piece in the world but it’s facts are incontrovertible.
poormedicalstudent
rather well done imho. if it could be condensed, or the RNC bought national ad time during some key spots over the next few months to air this, kerry would be doa come november.
there’s really no way to spin what was demonstrated in this video, but except individuals to try.
Patrick
It’s. his. own. words. on. video. The difference between that video and something the Dems might put out in response is that the questions are left in before his responses, so you get context.
Bill
NOT an attack ad?!?! Exactly how would you characterize the arrangement of twelve minutes of soundbites, cherry-picked from twelve years of public service opinion, with absolutely no regard to context, all slickly tied together with the theme song from “Flipper?”
“Weird world” indeed.
physics geek
The Democrat definition of an attack ad: displaying a candidates words and voting record to the general public.
Neil Shah
12 minutes of cherry-picked video sounds fine to me. Call it what you will: attack-ad, disingenuous, effective. Whatever. There is only one logical response for the DNC, which is to release a 45-minute video of Mr. Bush flying on to the aircraft carrier and exploiting the Iraqi operation for political purposes by proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”
muckdog
I think Kerry and his advisors are struggling like crazy to keep people’s eyes focused on Bush instead of Kerry. They don’t want people to be looking behind the curtain at Kerry. Kerry can still win if folks go to the polls and vote “anybody but Bush.”
The republicans will probably come out with the message, you better take a closer look at that other guy…
I mean, geez, all those spending promises he was making last night? He says he’ll only raise taxes on those making $200,000. I’m hoping folks aren’t bamboozled by that. He’ll have to reach below that and into your pocketbook to fund all those things.
John Cole
For th love of everything..
They were not cherry-picked- they happen to be available video clips from reliable sources in which Kerry was discussing the issue of IRAQ.
Should we have thrown in some health care clips?
Listen- you say they were cherry-picked. Fine- Prove it. The video is there, and each clip has adate. Show me other statements of Kerry made at those times to show that the clips used to represent his opinion were unfair or unrepresentative of his actual beliefs.
Use the congressional record. Use Nexis-Lexis. Use anything you want. Then crawl back here and admit they weren’t ‘cherry-picked.’
Bill
Right–like I have time for that nonsense.
Cherry-picked as in selected the most desirable without regard to context or respect for the complexity of the topic. Much like the manipulative crap that Michael Moore puts out. I merely took exception to your contention that it wasn’t an attack ad. Personally, I dislike the tactic.
You can toe the Rovian line if you’d like–I prefer to think for myself.
John Cole
Moore juxtaposes clips and quotes to distort their meaning and to mean the opposite of the intent of the speaker.
These quotes are actual examples of Kerry’s rhetoric and mindset at the time, and each quote is consistent with Kerry’s other statements at the time. Hardly ‘cherry-picked.’
Nice arrogant ending- I love it when people say that because I disagree with them, I clearly can not think for myself.
Et tu- keep toeing the Mcauliffe line- I prefer to think for myself.
Rick
“Et tu- keep toeing the Mcauliffe line- I prefer to think for myself.”
RIMSHOT
Cordially…
?
This is way politics works in America. Everybody tries to paint their opponent as stupid and venal. There is an entire industry dedicated to this
M. Scott Eiland
Well, Kerry has a genu-ine trial lawyer on the ticket with him, doesn’t he? He got NASA to back down regarding the bunny suit pictures–maybe he can obtain an injunction against objective reality, too. It’s pretty much the only hope the Ticket of the Lesser Johns has.
?
It seems to me that objective reality is being adequately captured by polls showing a dead heat.
But it’s a free country. Anyone who prefers the bunny-suit reality is welcome to it.
John Cole
?- You state:
But it
?
John–
“although not so much Kerry”
I agree with you in this: objective reality is reasonably complicated.
But partisan political advertising–not so much.
The treatment I suggest the President is eligible for–it’s all stuff that actually happened, isn’t it?
The President can’t depend on Kerry-bashing. He has got to tell us what he’s going to do–and what he’s going to do DIFFERENTLY.
If the President was doing an obviously superior job, Kerry would be nothing but an empty suit, a placeholder in our two-party system until the election. Instead, he’s TIED in the polls–pretty much all the polls, and has been for a fairly long time.
Isn’t that an objective measure of reality?
Maybe he’ll wake up–if he doesn’t, he’ll have no one to blame but himself.
Yesterday the President was in Missouri, where the local Joplin newspaper quoted him as saying this about Kerry,
John Cole
?-
1.) Put up a name for cripes sake. I feel stuipd arguing with a question mark.
2.) You state: Instead, he’s TIED in the polls–pretty much all the polls, and has been for a fairly long time.
Isn’t that an objective measure of reality?
Is it objective reality that he is tied in thepolls- yes. Is it objective reality that proves Kerry is fit for the job? No. Hell, at one point in time almost everytone thought the world was flat- that didn’t make it so. Just because Democrats have spent the last four years convincing themselves Bush is terrible does not make it so…
Dean
I knew objective reality. Objective reality was a friend of mine, and…
More to the point, I remember the 1984 campaign, especially after the debates, when “objective realists” were all a-twitter over how Mondale was gonna whup Reagan.
Not a partisan comment in favor of Dubya, just sayin’ that sometimes, what counts as objective reality depends on where you’re sitting.
BTW, if any candidate were so obviously superior, there’d be a lot fewer surprises in elections. By this definition, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern and Goldwater should all have been seen as placeholders.
‘Course, OTOH, given the closeness, apparently Richard Nixon was little different from JFK (at least in 1960)?
?
Dean–
I definitely thought McGovern and Mondale were just placeholders–doomed to lose from the start. (I confess I’ve never read much about either of them–those elections were so lopsided, I doubted they could be very interesting. I am willing to bow to your superior knowledge on 1984.) Goldwater was certainly a harbinger of the future, but from what I’ve read, he never had any chance that year.
Also from what I’ve read, I have the idea that Dukakis had a substantial lead for a while in 1988 and Carter’s campaign suddenly collapsed in the fall of 1980. The winners had to work for it in those years.
As far as Nixon and JFK, I am definitely NOT claiming that a close race means the candidates are the same. That one was up for grabs. So is this one–that’s what I’m saying.
I do think Mr Bush needs to be out there, working it, this year.
But I do think objective reality is independent of any point of view. As John says, just because everybody thought the world was flat–that didn’t make it flat. Not that I claim any special wisdom for myself. One man, one vote–it’s a good system.
John–
My God!! I am definitely not saying objective reality proves Kerry is fit for the job.
Also, I’m sorry my handle annoys you–but it’s so easy to remember. Please give it a chance.
capt joe
Dear QM (?)
Your objective reality is mistuned.
relevant mistune points are:
– McKay’s report was not so clear cut, but you know that.
– the oil is flowing and better than pre war. But perhaps you mean the war for Oiiil!
– The mission accomplished thing was really sticks in the left’s craw doesn’t it.
– fallujah was a success. Military planners are looking for this battle to be an example of brilliant military ops planning.
– you mean berger stuffing top secret docs in his pants don’t you ;)
?
Capt. Joe–
I got the term “objective reality” from another commenter to this post, M. Scott Eiland.
The only “objective reality” I am asserting here is that both candidates are tied in the polls and have been for a while. To me that seems like there is no one, at this point, is winning.
That little fake commercial thing I did up there was only intended to show how easy it would be. As with all commercials–let the buyer beware.
It’s totally possible my SUBJECTIVE reality is mistuned. But, please, I am NOT a leftist, and I do NOT think the war was about oil. What I am is undecided.
I do think I can defend the points you call mistuned. After all, if I didn’t think they were defendable, I wouldn’t be on the fence.
Kay report–
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-02-iraq-weapons-inspector_x.htm
Oil prices–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28901-2004Jul30.html
(By the way, I said that because gas prices are higher now. But it’s surprisingly hard to come up with anything. I’d love to see your source that it’s flowing better than prewar.)
The banner–
What can I say? We all know they flew it. I’d guess they wish they hadn’t–but there I go, being subjective.
Fallujah–
You may very well be right. I do think it’s evidence that our Military is able to figure things out. Not everyone would agree, however.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125954,00.html
–Berger/Chalabi
Of course I’m making fun of those Berger assertions. Taking classified documents is bad enough–why gild the lily? But my main point there concerned Chalabi.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml
To John, Dean, M Scott Eiland, Captain Joe and everyone else:
I’m not trying to be offensive here. There is a war going on. It’s called the War on Terror. I’d be all in favor of continuity of leadership if I felt more confident in them. It’s not that I’ve given up on the President. But he needs to work. It’s going to take more than pictures of John Kerry in a goofy-looking powder blue decontamination suit.
And I totally admit my judgement there is subjective.
?
Just in case you