Via Gerry Daly, we see that Max Cleland and the Invulnerable Meme are back:
Max Cleland was steamed. The more he spoke, the more his voice grew tense, the more his words grew sharp.
“I’m disgusted,” he said.
Cleland, a former U.S. senator from Georgia and disabled and decorated Vietnam War veteran, was happy yesterday to be back in New Jersey, where he began his life in the Army in 1966 at Fort Monmouth.
But he wasn’t happy with the Bush administration and Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Forrester.
On a tour through New Jersey that started in Edgewater Park and ended in Hamilton, Cleland – who lost his two legs and right arm in Vietnam, but saw his patriotism questioned in a famous 2002 campaign that he lost – decried Bush administration policies as he campaigned for Democratic gubernatorial candidate U.S. Sen. Jon Corzine and the Assembly Democrats.
Max Cleland never had his patriotism questioned. He had his judgement questioned. You can argue the ads were unfair in that manner, but they never questioned his patriotism. I am really sick of discussing this, so I will just hand the baton to Ricky, who has ably handled this repeatedly.
Gerry
It is an invulnerable meme, but it is also not a particularly effective one, given that Cleland lost, the Cleland-backed Kerry lost, and most of the Senate candidates Cleland campaigned for lost.
I say– knock yerself out, Max!
CaseyL
So, Chambliss’ ad that showed Saddam’s face morphing into OBL’s face, and put Cleland’s face next to theirs, was merely questioning Cleland’s judgment?
The Right says the ad was “only” critizing Cleland’s opposition to how the Department of Homeland Security was staffed and organized. Doesn’t that seem a bit disingenuous to you?
Mr Furious
You’re fucking off base, John. The Chambliss ad was clearly over the line, and you can be sure that the campaign was responsible for many slurs not on film.
This was back in the heat of the “with us or with the terrorists” Republican strategy. The obvious implication for much of Chambliss’ campaign was that Cleland was “with the terrorists.”
Let’s not forget the comments of the (always, but particularly in this case) reprehensible Ann Coulter. And don’t even pretend that the assbags on FOX and talk radio didn’t carry plenty of water on this topic.
There might not be a lot of actual, official print or broadcast evidence to point to, but it was clearly a major plank of the campaign.
BinkyBoy
I have to agree with Mr. Furious, the ad was well over the line. It defiantely makes an attempt to link Cleland with bin Laden and thats a pretty disgusting thing to do.
Steve
I don’t know a thing about the commercial in question, but I do know that the patriotism of Democrats has been loudly questioned every day since, to be charitable, 9/12. However, I will remain open to the possibility that the Chambliss-Cleland campaign was the rare exception.
Attacking Cleland for “opposing” the DHS was still a bullshit attack, though, so I wouldn’t go too far with the parsing.
BinkyBoy
You’re not talking about that highly efficient federal office that is keeping us safe from terah? are you? What kind of Murikan do you think you are?
You know, that federal office that they’ve decided to reorganize and change around because its effects have been somewhat less than stellar?
RW
Someone didn’t know that the link included (thanks, John) pretty much lampoons such fallacies: “In the past I’ve seen people swear that the commercial morphed Cleland’s face into Osama & Saddam”. FYI, the post has a link to Josh Marshall’s site (hardly a Bush supporter) and his own video of the commercial that illustrates that no such thing happened.
If people want to get rid of the notion that a lot of folks within the blogosphere are simply water carriers for the echo chamber and a conduit for erroneous talking points, it would help if you stopped doing just that.
Steve
Well, to be quite fair, I only remember one group of folks saying “We don’t need this DHS thing, it will be inefficient, we can handle these issues just fine within our existing framework.” And that group of folks was, of course, the White House. So to the extent you think DHS is just a big bureaucratic waste, maybe you’re acknowledging the White House had a point.
Because the Republicans are better politicians, they somehow managed to rewrite history and take credit for establishing the DHS, while smearing Democrats for “opposing” it. In a just world, neutral commentators would probably condemn this just as badly as Howard Dean’s probably-fictional comments about the “right-wing Supreme Court.”
RW
Translation: There’s no evidence at all, but I said so, dammit!
Hence the meme lives on forever with those passing it along not caring a whit whether or not it is based on a lie. After all, Cleland was a Democrat and Bush is to be hated and we have to keep our priorities in order, right?
Mr Furious
RW-
So is that the only ad? I really seem to remember something much worse. It could be a figment of my time in the echo chamber. In that case, i would temper my remarks above.
Alright. I’ve done a cursory search, and i will agree with John (and RW) that the ad does not live down to the hype. It does make use of Saddam and Bin Laden imagery to make an implication of “if he’s not with the President, he must be with these guys” but it is not as bad as described by me and others. No morphing of anyone, and Cleland’s face is never on screen with anyone else. Echo chamber indeed.
Of course, it is misleading in all the ways campaign ads usually are. “Voted 11 times against the President’s Homeland Security Dept”, etc. Never mind that the HSD was a Democrat idea opposed initially by the President, and Cleland was an author of the plan…
And I still stand by everything else I said above regarding the general Republican strategy of impugning the patriotism of critics and opponents, talk radio, and in the course of my search, refreshed myself with the column by Coulter. Fucking shameful.
CaseyL
RW, that’s a nifty bit of selective reading on your part. Go back and re-read my post.
Tell me what part of:
“So, Chambliss’ ad that showed Saddam’s face morphing into OBL’s face, and put Cleland’s face next to theirs”
reads as “Chambliss’ ad showed Cleland’s face morphing into” anyone else’s.
If yo’re going to accuse someone of “lying” or of saying something “based on a lie,” maybe next time you should actually READ WHAT THEY SAY.
Mr Furious
Translation of RW: I’ve never heard of a whisper campaign, so they must not exist!
John Cole
Mr. Furious-
One of the reasons behind the anger is that the Democrats had NO IDEA this was coming. Cleland was a safe seat, or so the conventional wisdom went, and Georgia for years had been dominated by Democrats at all levels. They simply did not see it coming.
It was like Tom Foley in 1994, but even more surprising.
Mr Furious
Timeout.
My comment above that starts out “So is that the only ad? I really seem to remember something much worse. It could be a figment of my time in the echo chamber. In that case, i would temper my remarks above.”
Well that ‘graph was supposed by be crossed out with the old “s” html. The prevew showed it that way, so i left it in. If I knew the tag would fail, and the text woul appear normally I would have chopped it.
Also apologies for any typos that get through, I have a broken right hand, and lefty-only typing is a real bitch.
John Spragge
Having seen the ad in question, it seems to me that it did a lot more than question Max Clelland’s judgement. I’d go so far as to say that it accused him of obstructing what most Americans then saw as an essential war effort, by distorting Mr. Clelland’s actual record. I think that to many of the viewers of the ad in question, to disrupt or abstruct the defence of the United States in 2002 would make you less, much less than a patriot. And I believe that patriots do owe it to their country to exercise their best judgement, something that the ad in question clearly (and dishonestly as far as I can tell from the record) accuses Clelland of doing.
Anderson
So, Chambliss’ ad that showed Saddam’s face morphing into OBL’s face, and put Cleland’s face next to theirs, was merely questioning Cleland’s judgment?
Come now, John. Let’s run an ad like this but with you instead of Cleland, and you can explain to everyone how the ad is attacking only your judgment, not your patriotism.
John Cole
What do I win, if I, well, win?
neil
Well, it’s nice that Mr. Cole has his priorities straight. If Chambliss lies and says that Senator Cleland wants to let Osama and Saddam kill Americans, that is a reasonable questioning of his judgment and capability to lead. If Cleland lies and says that Chambliss is questioning his patriotism, that is a despicable smear and must never be forgotten.
Remember, even on Balloon Juice, sometimes It’s OK If You’re A Republican.
pmm
I haven’t thought this all the way through, so I eagerly anticipate any responses that blow away the following argument:
I recall Mr. Cole getting a bit of flack from the right for defending Sen. Durbin recently, and getting quite a bit of support here in the comments for his reasoning. How was the anti-Cleland ad particularly different from Sen. Durbin’s remarks? The anti-Cleland ad argued that his policy damaged national security. The Durbin remarks were that administration policies were damaging our national culture. Referencing the enemy in an argument is not the same as “questioning patriotism,” right? If it’s the visual aspect, would Sen. Durbin been wrong to hold up, say, Abu Ghraib pictures and note their similiarities to photographic evidence from Cambodia or Poland?
For the record, I disagreed with Mr. Cole on the Sen. Durbin brouhaha, but my argument would be that Sen. Durbin’s remarks were worse. In the interest of topicality, I’m wondering how his remarks were defensible, but the Cleland ad was not?
pmm
Rather, in the post above I mean the “anti-Cleland ad.”
mac Buckets
Oh, the delicate sensibilities of the “Bush=Hitler” Democrats! Since the Democrats’ only function in political life these days is to pretend to be offended, I was not shocked when they lied about the contents of the Chambliss ad in 2002. Nor am I surprised that they still can’t admit they were just lying in order to play the victim. Cleland didnt lose because the GOP morphed him into bin Laden. Cleland lost because he morphed himself into Teddy Kennedy.
mac Buckets
Is there some sort of award you can give that post, John? The Ted Rall Divorced From Reality Prize, perhaps?
John S.
Yes, because Republicans have NEVER compared anyone to Hitler or the Nazis (cough, Santorum)…
Give yourself that “Divorced From Reality Prize”, Mac.
RW
Sir, I’m a lifelong resident of Georgia and two times gave Senator Cleland my vote and I can assure you that the only “whisper” campaigns were carried out amongst the far left while claiming that every person who wasn’t a registered Democrat had questioned their patriotism. If someone had actually questioned Cleland’s patriotism, I’d know and the local paper (further left than the NYT) would have it plastered all over the front pages for weeks.
Instead, we had outlets passing along Dem talking points about the commercial you just saw that questioned no one’s patriotism (that people would try to connect A to B to Venus to Peru in order to say “gotcha”, aside) and now I see nothing but charges of a “whisper campaign” with no evidence from the same corner that only hours ago was claiming that the ads actually stated something that wasn’t there – and I’m not impugning you…I give you, sir, a tip of the cap for stepping up after you saw the actual commercial, but you already have shown that you’re willing to run with an accusation simply because you heard/saw another Democrat say so.
“Whisper campaign”? That rings as shallow as “the dog ate my homework”, my friend. Of course, the “whispers” would’ve been quelled when Saxby Chambliss stood at the lecturn during the debates and praised Cleland’s service and noted that no one was – or should – question Senator Cleland’s patriotism and that the only people who were even mentioning it were those supportive of the Cleland campaign that had seen the polls tightening.
Any person who questions Cleland’s patriotism? I condemn them. Anyone who claims that Cleland’s patriotism was challenged? I say “Baloney”. And the voters of Georgia agreed, booting the guy from office in a race that really wasn’t close (DIEBOLD! DIEBOLD! ROVE! HALLIBURTON! DIEBOLD! TINFOIL!). :)
RW
Well, that’s certainly one way to (try to) spin it.
People see only what they want to see, don’t they?
pmm
RW, please re-read my post, and note this:
Steve
RW, I respect your perspective as someone who was there on the ground, but it’s useful to remember, when Kerry’s service in Vietnam was attacked, Bush stood up there at the podium and said that he respected Kerry’s service, blah blah blah. And I don’t recall that that made it a dead issue. So while I know it’s not your only point, I don’t attach a lot of significance to whatever Chambliss said during the debates.
As for Durbin, uh, I don’t get the comparison at all. As I recall, Durbin complained about the things he did (whether you believe those things happened at Gitmo or not) not because he felt they were damaging our “national culture,” but because they were just self-evidently wrong.
There’s an obvious double standard here that I don’t think is ever going to go away. For example, it’s cool with the Left if Kerry says Bush has made us less safe; but it’s completely out of bounds for Cheney to say that if Kerry is elected, we might get hit again. The thing is, such arguments are both (1) a scare tactic and (2) a legitimate issue about whose policies will make us safer, and everyone tends to see only one of the two points depending on which side they’re on.
Anderson
What do I win, if I, well, win?
You can run against Byrd?
Stormy70
I lived in Columbus, GA for the midterms, and I voted for Chambliss. Republicans won statewide including the Governer’s race. It stunned the Democrats and the big Atlanta Corporations as well. The companies didn’t even hedge their bets and contribute to both candidates, just gave their money to the Democratic incumbent. Sonny Perdue ran against the big city types in Atlanta, and the rural, suburbia, and exurbia areas ate it with a spoon. It was a glorious night, and I stayed up until 2:00 Am. People at work the next day were giddy, with a capital GIDDY.
Good times.
RW
Fair enough.
My contention was that (a) there was no “whisper campaign” and that the allegation of such is a complete fabrication; (b) Chambliss went out of his way to make sure that no one thought that he was questioning anything other than Cleland’s decisions while in office (looks like the public agreed with Chambliss).
FWIW, I remember when Kerry first said that he accepted Bush’s service in the nat’l guard, until the polls started looking bad and he jumped on the “was he AWOL” campaign. Perhaps that was a bad decision, in hindsight and he should have followed Bush’s example.
W.B. Reeves
As a native and current resident of Georgia, I recall the brou-ha-ha over the anti-Cleveland ad. RW is right that there was no whispering campaign, the accusation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was brazenly bandied about. John is also right about the Democrats never seeing it coming. The last polls taken before the election showed both Cleland and then Governor Roy Barnes leading in the race by comfortable, if not overwhelming, percentages. They still haven’t figured out exactly what went wrong.
Visual association is a common propaganda technique. Show a series of images chosen to evoke a negative reaction culminating in the image of your chosen target and voila, you create a negative association by implied equivalence. Whatever verbiage you attach to such a presentation is practically irrelevant since the actual message is embedded in the stream of images.
A classic example is the nazi propaganda film “The Eternal Jew”. Goebbel’s minions intercut footage of swarms of sewer rats with unflattering images of Jews. As we know, far too many Germans got the point.
Stormy70
Roy Barnes did something to piss off the teachers in the state, they hated him. I can’t remember what it was, though, and I’m not going to look for it. I usually didn’t vote in the midterms, but I am always registered to vote. I called to find my voting area after the Wellstone Memorial Republican hatefest, because I was so pissed off. I will always vote midterms now. Also, in Columbus, I heard people refer to Bush as “my President” instead of “the President”. I know it is anecdotal, but I worked retail and people loved Bush.
W.B. Reeves
We have something in common.
Unsurprising since Columbus is a military town, the local economy being thoroughly dependent on the presence of the Fort Benning Army base. Lots of active duty military and their families.
PenDragon
Democrats just can’t take their own medicine. For 5 years they have called Bush Hitler, Chimp, Shrub and who knows what else. NAACP ads depicted Bush as responsible for an African American being chained and dragged from a pick-up truck. Condoleza Rice is Aunt Jemimma, Colen Power is Uncle Tom and the Vice President…you don’t want to know. Howard Dean “hates” Republicans, and John Edwards procaimed that if Kerry is elected Christopher Reeves would’t have had to die. They, and their enablers in the media, publish false douments about Bush’s National Guard service (a story CBS admitted to be working on for five years!), call Bush a lier for over a year by correctly stating that Saddam was pursuing the purchase of Yellowcake in Africa and carried the story of Abu Gharab on the front page of the NY Times for ever and ever.
Oh, wait, I forgot HALIBURTN, HALIBURTON and HAILBURTON.
Then they suddenly take up righteous indignation over a Georgia Senatorial Campaign!
Stormy70
That was one factor, but not everyone making these statements were connected to the military. What I found interesting is that I was tipped off early about the Iraq war from a military wife. Women will tell all to the person dressing them in designer duds. Plus, all the equipment coming into the fort with desert colors, including water tanks were a major hint.
I’m glad I am not in retail, anymore. I do have an infinite amount of patience with annoying and stupid people now. :)
RW
The polls had tightened quite a bit in the weeks leading up to the election and there were some people who actually called Cleland’s defeat in their predictions. Cleland obviously knew of Bush’s strength in the state because he was running campaign commercials showing him WITH BUSH and lauding how he had worked with the President. I don’t think Barnes realized the utter outrage that many folks were feeling towards him, especially the state’s teachers. The guy lost his home county, where he had lived for decades and still does!
W.B. Reeves
Of course most, if not all of this took place after the election in question.
Sojourner
My Republican friends were equally giddy after Bush was elected last November. For some reason, they’re no longer giddy.
Looks like the good times are over.