Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm sorry but how can any rational person say that Bush isn't running a smear campaign. I'll give you an example.
The RNC put out a video on the internet for their convention essentially painting Kerry as a flip-flopper. They had an interview of Kerry on Chris Matthew's show in which Matthews asked Kerry if he was an anti-war candidate. Kerry's response was clipped and cut to only show him saying "Yes", not including the rest of what he actually said (which was definitely not "YES I AM AN ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE"). Bush's ads are filled with such distortions of the truth. Almost everything used against John Kerry isn't used in context. To say that Bush has been honest and truthful in his ads or even in his speeches is a downright fallacy, and any idiot who believes otherwise shouldn't be voting.
I really don't think CAD believes Bush is innocent of smearing John Kerry. I'd like to think he's got more intelligence than that.
This goes for both sides though, as they are both running smear campaigns to a degree (although I tend to believe Bush and the Republicans have gone way overboard compared to Kerry).
Your definition of a "smear" is somewhat different than mine. The SBVFT operate what I would consider to be a "smear" campaign. Claiming inconsistancy with regard to issues is most definitely not a smear campaign--it is itself an "issues" campaign.
Now, if that "issues" campaign took an answer completely out of context, that is another matter altogether. Such as if Kerry said that, "no, I don't consider myself to be an anti-war candidate, but, yes, some people might have that impression", and condensing it down to the "yes" that appeared within his answer--that I would consider to be a misrepresentation, and an example of a "smear". Without the transcript, however, I have no idea of the context of the "yes" answer and will not simply accept it to be a misleading fabrication simply because it didn't include his entire answer.
A quick check at factcheck.org shows several campaigns having issues with their interpretation of a "fact" or three. Some are merely annoyances of semantics, some might be construed as open to interpretation, while others are outright misrepresentations of fact.
My personal opinion that both candidates' campaign strive to produce anything they can say with a certain level of accuracy that sheds a negative light against their competitor. I've got no problem with that. Calling someone "Hitler", "liar", "racist", etc, (as I just witnessed this past primary election here locally) are smear campaigns. I've seen nothing from either candidates' official campaigns that I would consider to be a "smear". Maybe my sensibilities are not as easily offended as your's.
Now I would ask an even more direct question than alchemize's though.
Facebook
Twitter