My understanding of the Groj's post is he was talking about the election, Policies haven't had much of an impact on the election process in years. Look at what is said: "He Lied", "Flip-Flop", "AWOL", "Tratior", etc. during the campaign.
Now Policies have all the impact on how the winner governs, but in the election season, NO way. Look at either side and what is said. Being a conserve I can tell you that during the 2000 election it was said that the Republican wanted to poison the air and water! Now think about that statement, truely think about it. If that was a policy, that the repubilcans wanted to poison the air and water, what would republicans breath and drink? Do not republicans breath and drink the same air and water that the Dems. do? The statment is not a policy statment it is an emotional statement meant to scare people. Lordy we do the same thing but from our point of view.

Groj you said a mouthful there [img]smile.gif[/img] Politics is open warfare and all is fair, the vast majority of people vote on emotions not brains, that goes for bothsides. It's a popularity contest who we like best, not who will govern best.

Will Rogers said there ain't a dimes worth of differance between the Dems and Reps. Will Rogers was willing to pay to much ;)

Soorry, JD, I thought you meant policy, not policy. Erm.... you know what I mean.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Grojlach, you are correct in that some people did try to stop F 9/11 from airing...they did this by voting with their dollars and boycotting sponsors...Kerry however used lawyers to threaten book stores not to allow the Swift Vets book out...I see a difference between the two efforts.

I counted 27 anti-bush books at Borders Book Store yesterday, and 4 Anti-Republican party books on the shelves, however there were just 3 anti-kerry books and no anti-democrat books.....I think the mass media vendors who decide wich books get put into the public book stores are demonstrably a monopoly for the left.

On the internet the number of books availabe for each side seems to be pretty even.


But you are right...both sides do to some degree try to stifle the other side, I just happen to think the leftists are more effective at it, guess it comes more naturally :D
</font>

As for what Bush did and what Kerry did in response - they just show two possible ways of dealing with alleged lies. You either ignore them and refuse to acknowledge them completely (Bush approach), or go in the offense (kerry approach). It helps in this respect of course that Michael Moore was already pretty much already accepted by the public as a celebrity and as a thought-provoking (if not slightly manipulating) film maker who also happened to be backed by a large group of lawyers, who went over his films and reduced the possibility of having facts in it that could be contested in a court of law; Kerry probably had a simpler task by simply denying the lies outright because they were more transparent and easier to prove, plus the Swiftboat Veterans didn't really have any public sympathy when they began their crusade, apart from some people who really, really don't want Kerry to win the elections and take an "end justifies the means" approach.
Which approach is best? I don't know, but even if both were proven to be 100% consisting of lies, the damage would still have been done.

Major difference here - Bush has been in office for four years already in one of the most criticised administrations in recent US history. Of course there will be more anti-Bush books than anti-Kerry ones, if only for that fact. Furthermore, unless the Republicans have managed to fabricate hundreds of books on the two or three bad things you could say about Kerry ("flip-flop", Vietnam war record) or just made up stuff altogether ("On why Kerry is a closet French homosexual and a crossdresser" or "Kerry's secret affair with his dog Toto" ;) ), I seriously doubt your statement that the total number of books available for each side is pretty much even - either that, or the liberals didn't do their homework properly, as there *ought* to be more books about Bush than about Kerry right now. We could do a fairer comparison in four years in case Kerry gets elected, but not at this point, I suppose.*

And I'm mentioning this because for a book to appear in mainstream bookstores, a certain level of quality (or reliabiliy and a good "selling name") is required - and if there are 200 books about Bush and 40 about Kerry, then it only is a matter of simple logic that more of the anti-Bush ones have those aforementioned requirements. As of right now, most of the books being written about Kerry will contain more speculation than fact (just look at the Vietnam war records ones, with him being backed by anyone who actually served with him but being contested by ex-soldiers who didn't, really), while there's probably a book written for every controversial decision made by the Bush administration (regarding the environment, taxes, "no child left behind", the war on drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, International relationships with the UN, Ashcroft's policies altogether, you name it); these last books don't have to rely on speculation that much and have a higher chance of having mainstream appeal than yet another 100% smear-'n'-speculation novel.

I suppose it does. [img]smile.gif[/img] I always thought it was common knowledge that the smear media on the conservative side was way more effective and venomous than those of the liberals (including Michael Moore) could ever be - republicans are most of all extremely good at using short catchphrases and applying very simplistic terms to get their message across ("if you're not with us, you're against us", "flip flop", the whole deal with France and 'freedom fries' (which had little to do with the Bush administration, but more than enough by a small number of hardcore republicans looking for ways to strengthen their narrow-mindedness ;) ), the whole semi-hidden being-a-patriot-only-if-you-support-the-war implications, "weapons of mass destruction" was extremely efficient to get their message across until it backfired on them, and even the Patriot Act has one of the most manipulative names I've ever seen); all things that have stuck some way or another with the general populace in the US. The most memorable things the liberal side has come up with in the past decade include some simplistic anti-war exclamations ("no blood for oil" etc.) and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". ;)

<font size=0>* Maybe you could compare it with the situation a few years back, with the number of books on Clinton to be found in stores as opposed to any books written about the Republican candidates he and Gore went up against. There's no way you can convince me there were more books about, say, Bob Dole in stores than about Clinton. </font>

[ 10-17-2004, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Yeah I know, with all the shi...sh...stuff being shoveled. ;)

<font color=plum>I actually agree with everything you've said here, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. Only one minor correction - Sinclair is the name of the corporation that owns the stations and not the CEO himself (AFAIK, anyway).

I agree completely that it is blantant political smear and does dredge "bad taste" to new depths. But the program is not being "forced" on anybody - so long as they have a remote control. I certainly won't be watching it, even though I don't plan to vote for Kerry. I wouldn't dignify it with my viewing time.

I also disagree with the implication (made by a good friend of mine who is a hardcore liberal) that the Bush Administration has any connection to this action by Sinclair. I think they did it on their own to win some major <font color=tan>brownie points</font>.

Anyway, that's my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] on the subject.</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Grojlach: It pre-emptively seems like a huge stretching of the truth (I'd still watch it for sheer comedy value, though ;) ),

Funny, thats why I watched Farenheit 9/11 (Also a MAJOR stretching of the truth; along with many lies). I almost had stop it because I was laughing so hard at all of the crap that was squeezed onto that reel. Hell, "The Core" was a better movie.

[ 10-19-2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

Funny, thats why I watched Farenheit 9/11 (Also a MAJOR stretching of the truth; along with many lies). I almost had stop it because I was laughing so hard at all of the crap that was squeezed onto that reel. Hell, "The Core" was a better movie. </font>[/QUOTE]I just hope you reserve the same skepticism for Fahrenhype 9/11 as I did with Fahrenheit 9/11, though.

And as we've been discussing dirty campaigning tricks in this topic anyway, I thought throwing in this episode of "This Modern World" for good measure would be appropriate.

http://pandemonium.phpwebhosting.com/story.jpg