The unvarnished truth is that after many years in the Senate Kerry lost because he had nothing to run on other than being a veteran. I find it amusing that people think lies from one side cost the other the election. Were there not lies from both sides coming out of those elections? Isn't there always?

:thumb:

Regardless of whether you think these lies have affected the outcome of an election, the deliberate dissemination of lies about your opponent is dishonorable. It also dangerously undermines the Democratic process.

Two that are quick and easy. Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet. The Kerry lie was far worse. The lie was told that somehow he didn't deserve his war medals. I really believe that lie cost him the presidency.

 

The Al Gore lie you speak of, was always made as a tongue in cheek statement. As far as whether Kerry deserved his war medals or not....how do you know one way or the other?

The Al Gore lie you speak of, was always made as a tongue in cheek statement. As far as whether Kerry deserved his war medals or not....how do you know one way or the other?

 

 

I guess that's the point isn't it? To hurt a candidate, you manufacture a bunch of crap about them and then pound it into peoples' skulls until they can't tell the difference between the truth and the lie. Almost magically, what was a strength has been neutralized by uncertainty.

Often times as well, the information given on a candidate is accurate, but the response is less than truthful or only gives part of the story. That is why I despise politics and what it has become. I still vote, but I find it hard and harder to find a candidate that I truly believe represents me and what I believe.

The Al Gore lie you speak of, was always made as a tongue in cheek statement. As far as whether Kerry deserved his war medals or not....how do you know one way or the other?

 

To many, perhaps. But I met many people who believed that those were his actual words. It's the old Goebells (sp?) attitude: Tell a lie long enough and sooner or later they start to believe you.

 

(BTW, this is true from either side of the fence IMHO.)

Regardless of whether you think these lies have affected the outcome of an election, the deliberate dissemination of lies about your opponent is dishonorable. It also dangerously undermines the Democratic process.

 

I agree. What I disagree with is when the impression is given that it is one sided. Unfortunately this is neither dominated by one party nor is it anything that hasn't been happening since the start.

I think we had a thread about this awhile ago, it turned out it was false.

 

Don't believe everything that you read..

 

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

 

Thanks Gooch. It was e:mailed to me yesterday, and I had never seen it before, so I thought I would post it.

I guess that's the point isn't it? To hurt a candidate, you manufacture a bunch of crap about them and then pound it into peoples' skulls until they can't tell the difference between the truth and the lie. Almost magically, what was a strength has been neutralized by uncertainty.

Like the CBS "News" story about President Bush's National Guard experience. I'm with ya.

Like the CBS "News" story about President Bush's National Guard experience. I'm with ya.

 

He has National Guard experience?

John O'Neill (the co-author of the Kerry smear book) has been shown to have lied about several topics related to his political affiliations, his involvement in Nixon administration efforts to counter Kerry's public statements, and even the qualifications of the veterans he quoted in the book to speak on the subject matter (only one veteran, Stephen Gardner, actually served on Kerry's boat and he admitted that he was not on the boat during the action related to Kerry's medals). The book did not bother interviewing the men who were actually under Kerry's command and on the boat; it was a completely one-sided account devoid of direct, first-hand testimony of those present during the relevant periods.

I read the book cover to cover. Very little of the books' content was even challenged by Kerry. Many of the people interviewed served with Kerry, if not on the same boat. In addition, Kerry's peers and commanding officers were interviewed. Contrary to your claim, the book was not "devoid of direct, first-hand testimony of those present during the relevant periods." I suggest that you read the book. If you have already read it, then I suggest you read it again.

 

And Kerry did release his military records (including his medical records, which corroborate the injuries for which he received his medals). More distortions of the truth to damage the reputation of an honorably discharged, decorated veteran.

No, Kerry has not publicly released all of his records. Kerry authorized the release of the documents to two specific reporters, who were allowed to review the documents and summarize them but not release them to the public.

 

Kerry lied to Tim Russert on Meet the Press when he said that all of the records had been released. On his next MTP appearance, Russert backed him into a corner and extracted a promise from Kerry to sign the form authorizing the military to publicly release all of his records. That was Kerry's last appearance on the show for several months. Finally, Kerry signed the form but only authorized two individual reporters, one from the LA Times and one from the Boston Globe, to obtain the documents.

 

Kerry still has not publicly released his records as he agreed to do. Kerry lied.

 

The perpetrators of the smear campaign put Kerry in a catch 22--challenge the charges publicly, thereby suggesting legitimacy by prolonging the media exposure -or- disregard the clearly partisan attacks and give the appearance of acquiescing to the claims. Most now believe he miscalculated and should have aggressively countered the claims.

 

The unvarnished truth of the matter is that Kerry is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran and, during the draft era, George W. Bush spent his time in a coveted Air National Guard spot, safely insulated from the perils of war.

The unvarnished truth of the matter is that Kerry returned from Vietnam and toured the country lying about his former comraded in arms and then made the blunder of making patriotism the cornerstone of his campaign. Kerry put himself in a Catch-22 situation because he had done so little as a US Senator, he had no record on which to base a campaign. Senator Obama is facing the same dilemma.

 

I would love to see Obama put John Kerry on his ticket. Kerry was probably one of the few Democrats who could have lost to GWB in 2004 and Obama is one of the few Democrats capable of losing to John McCain. Obama has just the right mix of inexperience, extreme political views, shady associates, and arrogance.

It is certainly not an honorable way to try to influence an election.

 

I know that you did not just use the words 'honorable' and 'election' in the same sentence. Maybe I can offer you a drink.

I know that you did not just use the words 'honorable' and 'election' in the same sentence. Maybe I can offer you a drink.

 

:lol:

I know that you did not just use the words 'honorable' and 'election' in the same sentence. Maybe I can offer you a drink.

 

:laugh::laugh: Close the thread.............we have a winner!! Classic.