Goose the Blog 2.0

At the risk of provoking another unwinnable argument:

It's true that Democrats (Kerry) are backed by way more soft money than Bush. That is probably one reason Bush is keen to get rid of 527s now, despite the fact that he thought that McCain-Feingold was too restrictive on individual freedoms when he signed it:

"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

(A Republican hoping for judicial activism? Note that Bush seems to be saying that he thinks the courts would find the restrictive parts of the bill unconstitutional. SCOTUS for the most part didn't)

But I think the issue here is being confused. Deliberately? Maybe. Bush, I think, is certainly deliberately confusing the two (the demonstratedly false SBVFT smear ad and *all* 527 advertising).

"QUESTION: But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?

BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said.

I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but to use for other purposes as well.

I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to once and for all get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising.

And so, I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.

QUESTION: This doesn't have anything to do with other 527 ads. You've been accused of mounting a smear campaign.

Do you think Senator Kerry lied about his war record?

BUSH: I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.

But the question is who best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who's got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?

QUESTION: Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of those 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

QUESTION: When you say that you want to stop all...

BUSH: All of them.

QUESTION: So, I mean...

BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s.

I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold.

I've been disappointed that for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money -- billionaires writing checks. And, you know, I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system."

Its really simple, though. Not all issue or soft money advertising is smear. Not all negative ads are smears. And to answer Jeff's earlier questions, ads featuring demonstrably true facts can still be smear if they extend the truth through innuendo, etc. For example, one could make ten true statements that deliberately imply a false conclusion through erroneous connection. Soft money is not the problem, specifically, its what some people do with it.

And it goes beyond ads and soft money. The Clinton administration was largely disabled by smear, financed by wealthy Republicans (ask Paula Jones) and exaccerbated by a media controlled by Republican-friendly organizations. How many of the charges against Clinton and his associates turned out to be true? Yet millions of dollars were spent investigating things that didn't happen, and the national political conversation turned away from important discussions of policy and focused on mostly imaginary wrongdoings and character issues.

Smear politics is like pornography, right? I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. And like pornography, smear politics is also very attractive to a lot of people, which is why it works.    

Non-political side note: Michelle, the title of your post totally gives you away as a Mommy!    

I'll risk making a clarification as I gather my thoughts on this (and the simulations are running).

It seems to me that smear politics have more to do with tarnishing a person's reputation than just any misleading or even untruthful statement. Even untruthful statements about policy can have the effect of sparking relevant discussions, which is good. Smear, rather, focuses on reputation and character using unproven, misleading, or even true statements.

I could attempt to tarnish Bush's character by saying that he has been arrested for DUI (true) or by saying that he skipped his flight medical because he was afraid of failing a drug test (unproven). Both are smears (even though one is true), and neither has anything to do with his policy or record of governing. Or, I could address policy by talking about his failed Iraq policy (matter of opinion), the huge deficit (true), that he deliberately led the USA into war in Iraq using bad intelligence (unproven), or that he wants corporations to offshore jobs (false). I don't think any of the later four count as smears, even though one is not true.    

So if Scott Peterson ran for President, it would be wrong to discuss the misfortunate predicament pertaining to his murdered wife and unborn son? Would that be smear?    

Character IS a valid question when picking a President. You don’t want a person with evil motivations being given a tremendous amount of power. Smear is meant to make people think a person has evil motivations. Smear is baseless, untrue, and inflammatory remarks or images designed to turn opinion against the candidate and/or divert attention away from the issues. Accusing Cheney of being motivated by profiteering is smear – not true, no evidence, inflammatory. Accusing Bush of going to war for some kind of revenge or obsession or political benefit or profiteering or idiocy or a whole host of other evil motivations are smear when they are untrue, baseless. If there is some merit or truth to a claim, then people have a right to hear all sides, judge the evidence for themselves and make a decision on who they think is right. Bush’s drinking problem is not smear, it’s truth. Relevance is more the question there because that was decades ago and Bush no longer drinks. I don’t think the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ad is smear. There are a lot of swift boat veterans (250) that concur on what’s being said. The veterans should be heard and people should be able to judge for themselves what the truth is and whether it’s relevant. Normally I’d say what happened in Vietnam is irrelevant, but Kerry has made it relevant by making it the centerpiece of his campaign. Other examples of smear:
Gore stating recently “The administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital Brown suits” and referring to “the Bush administration’s objective of establishing US domination” are clearly meant to create Nazi imagery.

Kerry et al accusing the Bush campaign of "violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign and Republican National Committee." This could be smear if the Kerry camp has no evidence of coordination. All connections so far – the local VFW Bush volunteer who joined Swift Boat vets, the shared campaign finance lawyer who quit to avoid accusations of impropriety, the shared independent media consultant – represent standard business practice that Democrats are also guilty of. If they have any other basis for thinking there’s coordination, then it’s not smear.

Other smear tactics include the implication of evildoings to make a point,

A dark figure pulls the rug out from under senior citizens
A child with a ball and chain
Children taking out trash, cleaning dishes and toiling on assembly lines

These moveon.org ad images are allegorical, but inappropriate. Bush isn’t really knocking down old ladies or enslaving children. But they make you think he’s intentionally harming them through some evil motivation.

If we assume that Paula Jones was lying, and Clinton never touched her, and no one else stepped forward, then I’d call that smear. But when you add up testimonials of Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Brodderick, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wyatt, and Paula Jones, and of course the stain, you’ve got a basis for the accusations of, at the very least, womanizing. Again it was up to people to judge relevance to leadership. Perjury, however, during a sexual harassment lawsuit is against the law and is obviously relevant.