Ben Smith and Carrie Budoff Brown write a piece about a smear email that the Obama campaign have been trying to rebuff, and in the process, make this interesting comparison:
 The e-mails aren’t a well-funded, faux-grassroots smear like the attacks on John Kerry’s war record.  ÂÂ
So, once again, we’re led to ask, what about the Swifties’ claims regarding Kerry’s record constituted a smear?ÂÂ
If it’s from the right it’s well funded smear. From the left it’s a grass roots Soros funded think piece.
John Kerry, victim.
The Swiftboat vet’s did slander Hanoi John, he had a history of lying about everything and they told the truth about him. He took that as slandering his bad name.
[boilerplate re: the perfect inconsequence of all facts goes here]
I tried to leave the following comment and their website said inappropriate language. What a bunch of maroons!
“The e-mails aren’t a well-funded, faux-grassroots smear like the attacks on John Kerry’s war record.”
I’ll believe it was a smear when Kerry releases his records. You know, like he said he would. At least Obama didn’t call any of his fellow church members murderers in congressional testimony. What a partisan hack.
I think that you may be working from a fundamental misunderstanding of their use of the term “smear.” I’m tempted to think that this is a deliberate misrepresentation, but I can’t be sure. The use of “smear” in this case is equivalent to “vilify.” In this sense, it’s hard to argue that Kerry was “vilified” by the Swift Boat Vets for what he did during and after the war, whatever you may agree to be the truth.
That should be “hard to argue that Kerry wasn’t ‘vilified’.” What an awful typo!
I don’t even click on Politico links anymore. How much more do we need to see to know they aren’t a legitimate news organization?
No matter how aggregious the error, they never correct it. Easier for me to just not take it in the first place.
Remember Roger (no L.) Simon’s Fred Thompson will withdraw and throw his support to John McCain piece which Politico SWORE came from someone connected to Fred’s campaign? And it came from Mitt’s campaign?
I know they had other problems before that one and can’t remember the details right now.
>aggregious
egregious
Sorry. I knew that looked wrong.
Well, if they wished to use a neutral term, they might have said that the Swifties denounced him. They certainly use the word smear to mean to defame when they talk about the emails.
I click less and less on Politico links too. At least Drudge’s. If they’re filtered and contextualized in a blog post my click-rate goes up a lot.
Collins is right Orwellian. By using the word “smear”, they intended to “smear” the Swifties.
Simple enough for you?
Re: Dan Collins (I couldn’t figure out how to reply to posts on here.)
I understand that you may complain about word choice in a given story, but to point to it as bias just isn’t a very strong case.
Really, I only found your web site because it showed up on CNN when I clicked their little “see what the blogs are saying” link and I was disappointed in this story and felt like I had to say something. I’m no zealot on either side but sometimes I think people get hyper sensitive to things like this and find bias because they’re looking for bias – as exemplified by a number of replies here. It’s this kind of thing that is the reason that we were founded as a republic and not a democracy.
No, and I didn’t mean for it to be a strong case. I meant for it to make the authors, should they click the trackback, to consider what they are actually saying, as opposed to what they may be meaning to say.
And that is why I put the question mark in there, too, by the way.
Orwellian – this is not bias manifested in word choice. It is patent partisan hackery. Smear and your choice, vilify, are not synonymous. Describing it as a smear can only be true if you ignore all known definitions of the word, and create your own, where smear is defined as telling the truth about.
When I was in the Philippines we were warned that truth was not a defense against defamation of character. We were given this warning because, as Americans, we came from a place where truth most certainly was a defense against defamation of character.
Are we living in the US or are we living in a third world country with a perverted concept of the Asian idea of “honor” where it doesn’t matter what is true about you it only matters what other people know?
*Smear* means lying. Period.
It does not mean revealing a previously unknown and unattractive truth, it means *lying*.
It means defaming character in an American sense of the word. In no way *ever* does the word “smear” allow the possibility that the “smear” is true.
I’m an ex-liberal democrat open to new ideas, O.
Now, could you help me out with the “faux-grassroots” part?
Below is from dictionary.com. Please note that it is not requisite in the definition of “smear” (or, by extension, vilify) for there to be slander, libel, or lies involved. Obfuscation is frequently used to achieve the same effect. I could, for example, say that a certain group of men not only negotiated with Islamic militants and provided them weapons. If I went out and reported that widely and to enough people and said only that, it would be a very effective smear campaign. It’s all about connotation. It would not matter that the truth (whether it mitigates it or not is impertinent) is that this group of men were employees of our government and did all this during the 1980’s to help defeat Soviets. Yes, that’s true and yes the militants actually included bin Laden. This is my point. Take it for what you will.
smear /smɪər/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[smeer] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to spread or daub (an oily, greasy, viscous, or wet substance) on or over something: to smear butter on bread.
2. to spread or daub an oily, greasy, viscous, or wet substance on: to smear bread with butter.
3. to stain, spot, or make dirty with something oily, greasy, viscous, or wet.
4. to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.).
5. to smudge or blur, as by rubbing: The signature was smeared.
6. Slang. to defeat decisively; overwhelm: They smeared the home team.
–noun
7. an oily, greasy, viscous, or wet substance, esp. a dab of such a substance.
8. a stain, spot, or mark made by such a substance.
9. a smudge.
10. something smeared or to be smeared on a thing, as a glaze for pottery.
11. a small quantity of something spread thinly on a slide for microscopic examination.
12. vilification: a smear by a cheap gossip columnist.
“smear†(or, by extension, vilify)
Not synonyms, and repetition will not change that. One thing you can be sure of, overt and intentional abuse of language is not going to be a strong debating tactic round here.
You are now being intentionally obtuse to think that smearing someone, in the way that it is commonly used, could ever be the same as telling the truth about them. The more contortions you have to go through to defend this crap should tell you something.
Hillary Clinton is a woman. Quit smearing her!
John Edwards is a rich trial lawyer. Quit smearing him!
Barry Obama’s church has questionable positions, and gave an award to Minister Farrakhan> Enough with the smears!
Swift Boaters tell the truth about Kerry! Smears!!!!!!!!!!!! And, to prove it, I am going to lie to the world and say that I have released my full records to anyone that wishes to see it, and then never do it.
Over 99% of all soldiers manage to do their service with an unambiguously unimpeachable record. This John Kerry person should have just done that.
Orwellian – You are far more reasonable than the normal drive-by harpy round here. But if your contention is that calling telling the truth about someone a “smear”, then that is pure and unadulterated sophistry.
JD – I gave an example of a truth that would harm someone politically. Also, vilification is #12 in the definition of smear that I provided.
happyfeet – I’m not arguing about whether or not Kerry served honorably. I know little about it and it’s not really what I’m discussing here. I worry when language is used as a political tool and hence the name I chose. The question mark in the title used to imply a meaning without actually stating it is another good example. In fact, I’m starting to think I’ll save this URL and have my students look at the page just this lesson. I’m afraid of the other lessons they would learn about what can happen when you raise your voice and the sound is unpopular, though.
Oh. HAI STUDENTZ!!! I HAZ LESSONZ FOR U!
Let me be as concise as possible. Telling the truth is not a smear. Never has been, never will be. Now, someone may not want that truth to get out, or the truth might not mesh very well with the exaggerations one had been using for decades, but that does not make it a smear. You know that, but are being a sophist. Maybe it could be called an inconvenient truth. But calling it a smear is partisan hackery, which you apparently have bought into.
In fact, I’m starting to think I’ll save this URL and have my students look at the page just this lesson.
You might see if they can correct all the grammatical errors in your posts. Not to smear your English skills or anything.
I worry when language is used as a political tool
So, when you see someone butchering the English language for political purposes by calling the truth a smear , you are clearly outraged. Oops, apparently not.
The question mark in the title used to imply a meaning without actually stating it
Or, you could look at the article and wonder if the author was trying to distract you from the truth by referring to it as a smear, therefore questioning the veracity, without actually having to do so. Oops, that one slipped past you too.
I’m afraid of the other lessons they would learn about what can happen when you raise your voice and the sound is unpopular, though.
Another ivory tower sophist?! Shocked, I am. What other lessons might they learn, dear Professor? That is they are going to say something, they should be precise and accurate? That sophistry and parsing does not render the truth a smear? That if you raise your voice outside of the walls in your ivory tower, some people will not let you get away with your rhetorical slights of hand, and may even call you on it?
Oh, the horror.
That was really well said, JD. Obama’s still a big scary Muslim though I think.
Please note that it is not requisite in the definition of “smear†(or, by extension, vilify) for there to be slander, libel, or lies involved. Obfuscation is frequently used to achieve the same effect.
Or for that matter, see if any of them can explain to you how obfuscation is generally not considered an honest tactic.
JD – What I’m talking about is not anything partisan, though, I promise you. It’s not even just about this story but it’s the one that caught my attention. Smears can be truthful. I’ll give you another example and this is a very common tactic: Legislation that comes through both the House and the Senate is typically very lengthy, very complicated, and sometimes even contains concealed changes. One could easily create a campaign commercial based on the fact that Candidate X (whether Democrat or Republican) is against America’s police and has voted repeatedly against their funding. The reality may be more complex where, for example, Candidate X was actually voting against tax increases or against a bill that he had some moral disagreement with.
The point is that the police funding might have been only a small part of it and the other (bigger) issues would have hurt him to vote for. Suddenly, the smear campaign can say that Candidate X is soft on crime, is against our country’s police fighting overseas, doesn’t want our cops to have the equipment they should have. You get the idea. It happens all the time and we’ll see it plenty this year too, especially with so many senators with long records running.
I really and truly believe that what I’ve described is a smear campaign, but there’s not a single lie in there.
B Moe – I don’t think that obfuscation is a honest tactic at all and that’s exactly what I worry about.
When I observe that it was criminal of Jeffrey Dahmer to kill and eat people, do I sully or soil his reputation or good name? If so, then I have misunderstood the concept of smearing.
When Winter Soldier John testified in front of Congress regarding the behavior of his fellow soldiers, did he sully their reputation and good name? Yes, I believe he smeared them.
If you say that Candidate X is soft on crime when you know he is not, and you skew the evidence to try to prove what you know is not an honest opinion, it is a lie. Unless you have Bill Clinton defining is for you.
Smearing is the opposite of “whitewashing,” in the context of reputations. Both constitute mischaracterization.
B Moe – I don’t think that obfuscation is a honest tactic at all and that’s exactly what I worry about.
Then what did you mean by the passage I quoted at 28? It seemed to me you don’t consider obfuscation as dishonest.
B Moe – When I say “I don’t think that it’s an honest tactic,” I mean that I don’t think an honest person needs to employ it. I did not mean to imply that obfuscation is lies. Even though I really don’t want to get into definitions again, I believe obfuscation requires truth (at least in the cases that come to my mind) because it is an effort to conceal some things while promoting others.
Dan Collins – I actually tend to think that “smearing” is the opposite of “praising” when it comes to reputations.
Smears can be truthful.
This particular instance, professor. Tell us how telling the truth was a smear. That you can create a scenario where the truth becomes a smear through obfuscation does not apply here. Focus. Argue against that which is in front of you, not what you wish was in front of you.
In your world, maybe there are no lies in that scenario. But, in the real world, if someone is not soft on crime, and the record can confirm that, than an opponent that claims you are soft on crime is, in your scenario, obfuscating the truth, which serves no fundamental purpose, other than to hide the truth. All in all, not very honest.
But, you are arguing against an imagined scenario in your head, rather than this instance. In this instance, Kerry did smear his fellow soldiers when he told bald faced lies about the atrocities that they committed. He flat out lied about releasing his records. Fellow soldiers came out and told the truth about Kerry, and now in your world of academia, telling the truth has now morphed into a smear, but bald faced lying was a brave act of courage.
I am glad I do not live in your world.
Telling the truth, not obfuscating or using any type of rhetorical trick, just telling the truth, is not a smear. And that is what we are dealing with here.
You are the target audience for what the authors did. They knew people like you, who contribute to the influx of pointy headed youth entering into the society after their academic indoctrination, would take this idea that the truth is a smear and defend it. They hung shiny little objects out there for you to play with, and you are pawing at them, predictably.
Scott Beauchamp obfuscated lies.
I tend to think, Orwellian, that whatever your specialty may be, it’s not in linguistics.
Me, I’m a logos lover.
I love them too but mom says if I don’t pick them all up they’re going into the vacuum.
I actually tend to think that “smearing†is the opposite of “praising†when it comes to reputations.
The opposite of praise is criticism.
I did not mean to imply that obfuscation is lies. Even though I really don’t want to get into definitions again, I believe obfuscation requires truth (at least in the cases that come to my mind) because it is an effort to conceal some things while promoting others.
You are rationalizing, much like the obfuscater. While he may not tell any outright lies in the strictest definition of a lie, he is making an effort to conceal some truths and convey a false image of the situation. This is not being honest, and it is not telling the truth.
Tips Its Hand? Oh come on Dan. Politico’s bias is so clear that I deleted it from my bookmarks within a week of the site being online. Frankly its never been more than WaPo politics page, moved online so the writers can make money instead of get laid-off
B Moe – I don’t think that obfuscation is a honest tactic at all and that’s exactly what I worry about.
Then what did you mean by the passage I quoted at 28? It seemed to me you don’t consider obfuscation as dishonest.
B Moe – He thinks there is a fundamental difference between a lie and dishonesty. Positively Clintonian. Hint, professor. Obfuscation may need some truth to work, but it is anchored in dishonesty. Truth is a casualty in obfuscation, not a feature.
If the truth smears a reputation, then you did not deservedly hold that reputation to begin with. In short, the
Ohnoes they got JD.
JD – Wow, I think in a single paragraph you managed to condescend to me and my students and insult us. Why, I will probably never know. The reason I provided all of these examples is because I honestly don’t know what was said about John Kerry and I also don’t know what he said in his congressional testimony. So the argument that was provided in the post above and carried on through posts through many people was that lies are a necessary criteria for a smear. I was simply trying to show that it’s not true and that while the word is politically charged, it still has a definition.
There’s no rhetorical trick here. Being “soft on crime” and statements of the like are opinions and only that. If you don’t like that line, then I guess you can leave it out and I think the scenario would still vilify the candidate and sully his/her reputation.
If you can tell me what exactly what John Kerry said that was a lie (not an opinion but something factually inaccurate) and if you can tell me that what the Swift Boat people said about him was 100% true, I still think that it’s possible that it was a smear because it achieved its desired effect – to vilify him.
The only reason he was ever on a swift boat thingie was cause when he signed up swift boats didn’t do anything dangerous or scary. When he found out otherwise it was three ouchies and he was out of there. This is because he is not a brave person.
Orwellian, your examples of “truthful smears” fail utterly. In #29, the smear aspect comes from lying about the purpose of the legislation and consequent reasons for opposing it.
#18 is even simpler.
Which is a deliberate and purposeful lie. The Afghans given U.S. aid to resist the Soviets were not “Islamic militants”; they were devout Muslims, but were not suicide-bombing proselytizers. They were members of what we now call the “northern alliance”, and were ENEMIES of Mullah Omar and the Taliban — which is why the latter massacred whole villages and assassinated the leadership in order to eliminate them. Osama bin Laden was and is an ally of Mullah Omar and the Taliban, and as such did not receive aid from the United States at any point — and, in fact, did not even enter the picture until after the Soviets withdrew and the Taliban started killing the patriots who opposed them.
So you beautifully illustrate the true nature of a smear by issuing lying insults against
–The Afghans who successfully resisted the Soviet Union;
–The Taliban, Mullah Omar, and Osama bin Laden, who hated the Northern Alliance, eliminated it as soon as they had the power, and would at minimum beat you senseless for implying that they were allied to it; and, of course
–The Americans who provided the Afghans with the means to resist Russian imperialism.
Beautiful example. You should teach it.
Regards,
Ric
I think somebody needs to open a window before we all are overcome by the truthiness in here.
Orwell – I did not mean to condescend to your students. Please extend my apologies to them.
If you do not know, then you should not be defending their use of the term smear in place of the correct phrase, told the truth about.
I will grant you that outright lies are not necessary for a smear. But you are willing to discern the difference between dishonesty and obfuscation as opposed to outright lying. Me, though I recognize that there may be a definitional difference, I am not willing to split that atom.
vilify the candidate and sully
Again, repetition does not make it so. Adding pretty new words to it does not make it so. Telling the truth about someone can only damage one’s reputation if they have not earned their reputation, and their reputation is not on a solid foundation.
And yes, I mocked you. Just like the last professor who dropped by to impart wisdom to the unwashed masses with his academic gibberish.
Christmas in Cambodia where President Nixon gave him orders years before becoming President. Lie.
We have been through this issue at length, at great length. Should you choose to not inform yourself, and yet still attempt to defend a position, it is not our job to do the research for you. Go ask one of your TA’s.
happyfeet – I escaped.
Yay! Go Wolverines!
Ric – I mean no disrespect at all to the people of Afghanistan. I used that example not because I was trying to be political at all, but just because it was the first example that came to mind of something done that was very much in the country’s interest at the time, but is not now. If you’d have said that same statement I used to say “gave weapons to Islamic militants to fight the Soviets,” I don’t think you have many people who cared about the first part but would be excited about fighting the Soviets. Today, that same statement would get you a reaction that is almost opposite. The statement is true in both contexts (to the best of my knowledge but I’m sure there are other examples if you don’t like that one) but it produces VERY different results, one of which I think would be sullying the name of the people involved.
Even the BBC profile on Osama bin Laden says that he fought the Soviets in 1979 and receive training by the CIA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm). Maybe you think they’re biased too but I’m sure there are plenty of other sources as well; they were just the first to come up in a Google search.
Oh. Well if the BBC says it…
Meanwhile, we pause this thread while Ric decides between the industrial can of whoop-ass and the little pop-top pringlesy one.
Why do professors hate the truth ?
You can source that batch of distortions, misrepresentation, and obfuscations however you with, dear professor. In the end, it is still distortions, misrepresentations, and obfuscations.
The first example that came to mind was a oft used Leftist talking point. Why didn’t you just use Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? A complete bastardization of history, or just a fundemantal lack of understanding of same, must be required in order to make that kind of assertion. Ironic that something so incredibly wrong was so easily called up as an example for you.
Students, this does not bode well for you.
happy – I vote for industrial, but we all know that Ric has him some seriously good manners. So, we will get the pop-top one.
So some CIA guy hands an antiaircraft rocket to a guy in a turban, explains which end is which, and goes to the next one, and this constitutes “training bin Laden”. Bullshit. It falls in the same category as “Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam” — which he did, in the context of an attempt at a strategy of “engagement” and realpolitik precisely equal to the Left’s loudly-preferred approach to the situation.
As Robert Heinlein pointed out years ago, there are three ways to lie:
1) Utter falsehoods. This is the simplest and easiest, but also the easiest to spot.
2) Mix truth and falsehood, in such a way that the true bits lend credence to the false.
3) Say nothing but truth, but leave out crucial facts.
He also pointed out that there was a fourth way, which differs in that it can’t really be called “lying”: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but phrase it in such a way that the hearer assumes you are lying.
The point of a lie is to make the receiver gain a mistaken apprehension of the situation and take inappropriate action. If you deliberately do that, you are a liar, regardless of which of the three (or four) methods you choose — and only allowing definition (1) as “lie” is itself a lie of stupendous proportions.
Regards,
Ric
Thank you Ric Locke for calling the good prof out on that bullshit. {Sigh} You know hearing that stuff from nincompoops such as actus/andy, alphie, anecdotaldave, and that ilk is one thing, but to hear it from a guy who allegedly teaches young adults is frightening.
JD : Ric, as always, you are devastating, yet kind at the same time.
Ric : JD, quit smearing me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAI STUDENTZ! YER PROF HAZ FEVER FOR TEh FLAVA NOW, BITCHEZ!!
Ric,
Like I said, my effort here is not to engage in a discussion about history and policy. Maybe that first example I used was not a good one and I would readily accept that but I think I offered other examples after that.
Really, the exchange between you and I is an exact case in point. It’s true that the CIA gave weapons to bin Laden. If you’d rather frame it that way, I’m okay with that. Then you could still have said that they were arming them back during the Soviet-Afghan war and everyone would say “that’s awesome! That’s exactly what they should be doing!” If you go back and said that in 2002, you would really upset people. Both things are true, but the second one can really impugn someone’s reputation. In other words, you can “smear” someone (a definition of which I provided above) can be done using the truth.
I don’t dispute your list of methods of deception, but I really don’t think I’ve used any at all. Instead, I’ve only tried to foster a conversation on political speech and its use, but I think that the attempt has fallen on relatively deaf ears.
happyfeet, you’re killing me. I actually did LOL and my 8 year old (I’m letting her stay up a little late tonight) wanted to know what was so funny. I told her “happyfeet”. She just looked at me like I was on crack and moved on.
Also, I don’t know why people keep referring to me as a “professor.” I teach high school English.
What?
You teach English? Please, take that back. You almost made my head blow up.
Ok, teach. Professor is an all ecompassing word that I like to use as a pejorative. My bad.
JD – Does it really surprise you? Most of my friends say it’s painfully obvious if you read anything I write.
I will try this one more time. You examples fail, fatally, and spectacularly, because the statement you declare to be true are only true in the sense that you must strip all of the context, history, and actual facts away from the statements to make them true. A good and just society would have no time for your version of the facts, your truthiness, if you will.
OI – My better half calls all of you folks my e-friends. Every time she hears me laughing, she asks, “happy or al” ?
Thanks OI – Orwellian, I think you seem to be missing that this post is predicated on the, er, Orwellian metamorphosis by which “swiftboating” has become synonymous with lies. The Swift Boat Vets gained credence not because John Kerry didn’t rebut their assertions, it was because he couldn’t. John Kerry reported for duty and then was completely flabbergasted that his war record was fair game in the campaign. I just thing he’s a silly man to rhetorically align yourself with.
“I don’t dispute your list of methods of deception, but I really don’t think I’ve used any at all. Instead, I’ve only tried to foster a conversation on political speech and its use, but I think that the attempt has fallen on relatively deaf ears.”
Oh, really?
“Really, the exchange between you and I is an exact case in point. It’s true that the CIA gave weapons to bin Laden.”
I think the main problem is you wouldn’t know the truth if someone hit you in the face with it. In fact, I have just seen that proven repeatedly.
It does not surprise me in the least. It causes me great pain, incredible consternation, and a great deal of sadness, that there are young minds that may be learning about truths being smears, and statements being called true despite being stripped of all context and history. It saddens me that there are 20-30 young students that will be subjected to this type of malarkey, such butchering of the English language, the language that you profess to teach to them. That you come from academia, and see your perspective as being above the fray, despite being objectively partisan, surprises me not a bit.
Uh, no. That is not true. Which makes that sort of a…uhhhhhh…smear.
Come on, folks. Quit smearing our new friend. Really, Orwellian, I like you. You are far more tolerable, though no less frustrating, than the garden variety drive-by troll. I will even apologize for the professor jabs. There is a distinct history here with people from the academy, who tend to show up here, call us all sorts of names, make up some truly breathtaking BS, and then go Beetlejuice, and disappear. Your reference to your students made me jump ahead a bit, and make an unfounded assumption.
Look! I don’t care about the CIA junk! It was just an example.
Here’s a more recent one. Maybe you’ll like it better because it has to do with Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Barak Obama’s campaign recently got involved with a scuffle over someone who (I could be remembering this wrong…PLEASE remember this time it’s just an example) was a donor at one point to Obama and was a shady character. I believe this person was actually convicted for embezzlement or some such crime. This is true and it smeared him. Then it emerged that both Hillary and Bill had taken a picture with this same man and the Obama campaign used that to smear Hillary.
In all likelihood, Obama had no idea that this guy gave him any money ever and the Clintons didn’t know this guy either and was just one of thousands of people they’ve had pictures taken with shaking hands. However, by exempting certain parts of the story you can use it as a smear.
Do you like, read stuff?
JD-those are the usual suspects for me, too. They’re just funny peeps.
The orangey words are links.
Oh well, teach. You might need, yet another, example.
It was an example of a smear, not of telling the truth. Your example, your version of the truth , relied on obfuscating the truth, distorting the truth, and just overall dishonesty for you to be able to call it the truth. Not so with the smear of Kerry. It could only be described as a smear by a sophist, a purely partisan hack, or someone with little regard for the truth to begin with.
The truth did not smear him. The truth is the truth. If you are getting smeared by the truth of your actions, you might want to reconsider what actions you are undertaking.
The irony of your most recent example is that the Clinton’s had the stones, and the media the complete lack of honesty and spine, which allowed the Clintons to make this type of accusation, about fundraising irregularities, against someone else. Soemthing about a mote in the ass, or something like that.
Dangnabbit. I have been on my best behavior, trying to hold back on the cussing. Fucking Clintons.
One final example, and then I will just go beat my head against a wall.
However, by exempting certain parts of the story you can use it as a smear.
By exempting certain parts of the story, you are acting in a dishonest manner. You are obfuscating. It is not longer the truth. Do you have any idea what the truth, or facts, look like ? Hint. They do not have to be stripped of context. They are not subject to your interpretation. They just are. Facts and the truth do not slime, unless I guess, you did something slimy.
Obstreperous Infidel – Even if I got a few of the facts wrong – which asked you to keep in mind – the larger point is that they were true things that were said to smear each candidate.
Right, but obliquely asserting things that aren’t true just for exemplifying something tangential to the topic under discussion is how this thread got started anyway.
Facts, schmacts … Why shouldn’t Barry be smeared with this? Rezko is a long-time political and financial backer of Obama. Rezko is not some random person that posed for a picture at a rubbery chicken fundraiser. But, even if a few of the facts are wrong, you go ahead and run with that one.
On the specific point of John Kerry —
When we are vetting political candidates, information that gives insight into their character is vital. We cannot, really, determine whether or not a particular individual can and will “..faithfully execute the office of President of the United States”, because we none of us have any really deep insight as to what that might entail; therefore we must, of necessity, proceed on limited data. Any data is useful, provided it is true (that is, it is in fact data), and negative data is in some ways more important than positive. As reasonable people we tend to give others the benefit of the doubt, so if a true negative exists it can overcome inherent generosity. The Left clearly understands and agrees — vide nine years of shrieking any tiniest negative about George Bush from whatever housetop is available, with amplification by Industrial Light & Magic.
Orwellian, the one thing you and the rest of the Left will never understand, because you have less acquaintance with the military than you do with the atmosphere of Mars, is that
*********HEROES DON’T BRAG ABOUT THEMSELVES********
Show me a veteran who can only be forced to tell “war stories” by continual pressure, and when he does describes himself with jokes and self-deprecation and praises others, and I’ll assume that this is an individual who contributed in some significant way whether or not it rises to “heroism”. Show me a guy who’s ready with a tale at the drop of a hat and is perfectly willing to provide the hat to drop, and I will immediately pigeonhole him as one of the legions of uniformed bureaucrats and chair-warmers attempting to leech off of others’ sacrifices for their own self-aggrandizement. Now, simply from observed behavior, which category properly describes John Kerry?
Whatever the content of the charges, one thing ought to be perfectly clear: there are well fewer than three hundred individuals on the planet who can legitimately be referred to as “Swift Boat Veterans.” Of that number, over three-quarters were willing to go on record with their assessment of the behavior and character of John Kerry at a crucial and revealing point in his life — and for all but five of those (two of whom later disappeared) the assessment was not only overwhelmingly negative, they considered that important enough to be willing to endure the utterly predicable press of the Press and violent blowback from Kerry partisans in order to bring it to the American people. Most important, that assessment as given is one hundred percent in agreement with Kerry’s later, documented behavior.
As for specific lies, they hardly matter. Christmas in Cambodia is the most egregious — he could not have gotten where he said he was by any means credibly at his disposal at the time, most importantly because the place does not really exist, and he could not have received the orders he says he received because the people who supposedly issued them were not even there until at least a year after the supposed incident. The story itself is important only because it confirms the Swift Boat Veterans’ assessment — the man is an egotistical, lying empty suit, who managed not to screw up once and has spent the rest of his life blowing that incident up into an illusion of competence no informed person can fail to see through.
I accept that you consider yourself well-meaning, but what you are is a sophist, a person who is trying to redeem himself by redefining vileness as virtue. Negative information about a political candidate is not a “smear”, it is vital data we all need to form an accurate judgment. A lie that vilifies or denigrates — three-quarters of what the Left and the Press say about George Bush, e.g. — is properly a “smear”. For instance, one of the “talking points” about the Swift Boat Veterans is that John O’Neil is or was a “Republican operative”. That’s a damnable, palpable, bald-faced lie — O’Neil was a Democrat who canvassed for John Dean in the runup to the Texas primaries, and I met him while he was acting in that capacity — and properly qualifies as a “smear”. Describing John Kerry as a poltroon is simply accurate characterization. One does not insult a cow by calling it “bovine”.
And whether or not you like it, things do work both ways; life is commutative (ask the algebra teacher). If a Democrat giving negative information about a Republican is performing a public service, a Republican doing the same for a Democrat is not engaged in “smearing”. If a Republican lies about a Democrat, I will join you in characterizing that as a “smear” — but I will do the same when a Democrat lies about a Republican, whether or not it makes you unhappy; and if it does make you unhappy, the only thing that accomplishes is to paint you as a lying partisan.
Regards,
Ric
I get the joke, if no one else does. A guy calling himself “Orwellian” is redefining “smear” so that it works the way Politico wants it to.
Some parodies are deliberate. Others are simply lacking in irony-awareness.
So maybe the answer is that the Clintons would have smeared their opponents in the 1990s, but lying is unnecessary when the other party is doing things
Even Jonathon Chait knows what a smear is, teach.
In all likelihood, Obama had no idea that this guy gave him any money ever and the Clintons didn’t know this guy either and was just one of thousands of people they’ve had pictures taken with shaking hands. However, by exempting certain parts of the story you can use it as a smear.
Sure, I give politicians a bit of a break, like everyone having their picture show up with Abramoff. Some staffer says “this guy wants a pic with you” so they smile, shake hands, then walk away saying “who the hell was that again?” They ought to know but when your entire day is spent schmoozing people and you get thousands of donation you can’t keep track of it all. It’s when it becomes a pattern of repeatedly getting donations from – just to pick something out of the air – sleazy and criminal Chinese, for example that you have to sit up and take note.
The Peshawar circle (of seven)comprised the core of Mujahadeen leadership.Three members,
Abdul Sayyaf,(Saudi trained, Afghan)Gilbuddin
Hekmatyar (Pakistani trained Afghan)and Younis Khalis (Pakistani trained Afghan) were aligned
with jihadist elements. They received the lion’s
share of weapons from the arms pipeline that Wilson and Avrokotos created; however the Pakistani ISI and Saudi General Intelligence
managed. Bin Laden was not formally affiliated
with any of those groups; although he drew personel from each faction. Mullah Khalis is
the “father” of the Taliban and the mentor of Mullah Omar; who by the way reportedly ‘benched’
new upcoming Taliban commander Beitullah Mehsud because he was killing too many Pakistani and not enough infidel crusaders. Bin Laden, was a Saudi intelligence asset picked by Prince Turki
(Yes, the former ambassador to the US and the UK) and his aid
Nah. Obama and Rezko are/were pretty tight. Obama bought a house or a lot from him at a hugely discounted price. Favors were given.Standard Chicago political practice.
“Obfuscation is frequently used to achieve the same effect.”
Obfuscation is lying.
To obfuscate is to obscure the truth. To obfuscate is to hide something.
My Random House Thesaurus lists smear as a synonym of slander and slander as a synonym of smear. Common usage is just that.
“Swiftboating” has become synonymous with telling lies. That is the common usage. My pointing out (as many have done) that *technically* the Swiftboat Vets for Truth and the POW’s told no lies whatsoever (barring questions about memories of a single incident) makes no difference to the fact that when someone says “swiftboating” they mean lying. The Swiftboat Vets were effectively *smeared*.
Christopher Taylor: Sure, I give politicians a bit of a break, like everyone having their picture show up with Abramoff. Some staffer says “this guy wants a pic with you†so they smile, shake hands, then walk away saying “who the hell was that again?â€Â
My favorite example: this picture of Rosalynn Carter with a well-known Chicago Democrat.
I recommend saving this link and trotting it out whenever someone posts that idiotic Rumsfeld/Saddam picture.
Orwellian: I honestly don’t know what was said about John Kerry and I also don’t know what he said in his congressional testimony.
Hmm… so maybe you should stop babbling until you have some clue as to what you’re babbling about? Google is your friend. These facts are not hard to locate.
I teach high school English.
Oh, dear God.
I yearn for the day when I can actually begin teaching English without having to exorcise my students first!
I still have a headache from the idea that Orwell teaches English to young minds.