What Is Swiftboating?
Obama said last night that he was prepared to be swiftboated about his name, especially after Romney “confused” him with Osama, the one in hiding with the beard. I have been thinking about what swiftboating is since several recent comments to some posts here have said that the swiftboating of Clinton has already begun. I don’t think so, but, of course, this depends on what we mean when we use the term. If we don’t define it, then swiftboating can mean any form of criticism. If that were the case then we run the risk of not knowing when our candidate is really being swiftboated and serious damage is being done. Therefore, the aim of this post is to see if we can agree on a common understanding of what it is.
Wikipedia defines swiftboating as “a strong pejorative attach” that is considered “unfair”, a “smear campaign”. I think this is too broad because it can be applied to any kind of attack by anyone on any body. Frank Rich used the term to describe what Rove & Co. did to Cindy Sheehan when she wouldn’t leave Bush alone. He links the term to “character assassination” in the context of someone’s military record. While this application is truest to the use of the original term (the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 2004 campaign attack on John Kerry’s Vietnam War claims), I feel it is now too narrow.
The swiftboating technique can apply to more than military records. For example, Paul Krugman wrote about “Swiftboating the Planet” by referencing a doctored chart used to smear climatologist James Hansen. And the Huffington Post and others recently wrote about swiftboating Graeme Frost as the Democrats poster boy for the SCHIP program citing the Pugs attack on the “wealth” of the family.
Defining Swiftboating: I feel that the use of the term should apply now only when two criteria are met: 1) the strength of the person or organization is attacked; 2) the attack is based on some eye-witness or first-person account, not some abstract analysis or hearsay. Citing Hillary’s lack of executive management experience by Romney or Giuliani is not swiftboating because it is not a claim she makes nor is it at the heart of who she is. However, someone who served with her on the board of Wal-Mart back in the 1980s could swiftboat her by making a claim that she tried to kill an increase in health benefits for workers, an issue she champions. In this case, the person would be an eye-witness and the claim would strike at one of Hillary’s strengths.
Using this definition, Giuliani is the only current candidate being swiftboated. One of his self-proclaimed and widely-perceived strengths is how he managed 9/11. But the International Association of Firefighters, many who were eye-witnesses to 9/11 and its aftermath, claim that he neglected the safety of firemen and that Giuliani’s claims of proper leadership are false.
Now, can Hillary or any other Democrat be swiftboated? You bet. That is why her campaign and we need to be clear about what is real swiftboating. It could come any day now. More likely it will come in the spring by the surrogates for the Pugs who will seek to define her immediately after she sows up the nomination or next September when the campaigns are in full swing. What the subject will be, no one knows, but to call it swiftboating, the attack needs to strike at one of her strengths or claims of strength.
What do you think?
Posted: October 31st, 2007 under Uncategorized.
Comments: 13
Comments
Comment from Max von Schuler-Kobayashi
Time: October 31, 2007, 9:03 am
It is it me, or have Americans become more stupid? For example, when I go to pick some sort of book for light reading, it seems that over the last 30 years the language and vocabulary have become much simpler.
My hypothesis must be true, because how could people believe these ridiculous claims done by the “Swiftboaters”
There is not much time left to save America from itself, watch the price of a barrel of oil…….
Comment from timr
Time: October 31, 2007, 11:58 am
Max, the answer to your question is YES, americans are becoming dumber(or more stupid). I have been reading about some studies that claim a 30% national HS drop out rate between the 9th grade and 12th grade in each graduating class year. A front page story in my local paper states that 185 HS in Texas alone are called “drop out factories” due to drop out rates yearly that average about 50%. For just 15 schools in SoTx I saw yearly drop out rates going from 40% on the low end, to 62% in one school. When building new schools and hiring teachers, planners figure on a 30% drop out rate(nationally) Over 50% of HS graduates who enter college have to take remedial classes in math and english in order to “get up to speed”. At least that is what studies done in Texas show, studies also show that of the students who enter either engineering or science programs, about 50% drop out within the first 2 years of their programs. One other interesting fact. In the late 60’s early 70’s lead was eliminated in gas in the US., 20 years later, in the late 80’s early 90’s the crime rate dropped by a very large percentage. I read a study about this yesterday on a peer reviewed site. Sorry but I can’t remember where, but I found some very interesting projections to go along with this. I think that there are still many countries that do still use lead in gas. I think that I found the original reference in a comment about rudy claiming to have reduced crime in NYC.
BTW, I think that the usage of swiftboating has indeed changed, but I think that “eyewitness” accounts might be making it to narrow. My example would be what the repigs(malkin et al) did to the 12 year old boy and his family, and continued the attack on the toddlers family. Swiftboating is a smear campaign twisting either real or made up “facts” about a person in an effort to deflect attention away from that persons stand or statement. To my mind the repig leaking of CIA agent Valery Plame Wilsons name was a form of swiftboating.
Comment from timr
Time: October 31, 2007, 1:11 pm
What do you think of this. If it is a dem, the repigs would be all over the story and fns would run it 24/7.
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: October 31, 2007, 2:34 pm
I’m not sure Mr. G has been swiftboated. I don’t think he ever established any credibility to how he managed 9/11. He got a lot of publicity and a lot of sympathy was directed toward him because he was a visible face. We should not confuse fame with ability. However, the fact that a person has fame doesn’t necessarily disqualify them from having brains, talent, and ability.
Comment from Max von Schuler-Kobayashi
Time: October 31, 2007, 3:19 pm
I looked at your link there Tim, could it be Obama? What a way to destroy a Black man, but with sexual innuendo.
You know, it seems that all Americans can do is destroy. The term swift boating comes from the trashing of John Kerry. OK, maybe he was boring, but he was highly intelligent, and he did run around as a Navy SEAL in Vietnam. He DID fight and risk his life. Yet over him we accept a semi draft dodger Ne’er do well. We accepted all that trashing.
They never could build up George Bush into something, so they destroyed John Kerry. We have destroyed Iraq. We have destroyed the reputation of America in the world.
What have we built lately?
We have oil prices headed for the stratosphere, a President trying to destroy our forces in the Middle East by attacking Iran (my estimates show that at best only 30,000 or so of the US forces int he Middle East will be able to fight their way to the Med in case of attack on Iran)
We have endemic serious drought in the South west and South east, Global warming seriously disrupting climate and endangering human life,
And all we can do is worry about trashing people’s reputations over sex scandals.
Maybe America deserves what is to come.
And reading your post there Tim about education in the US, I guess we cannot expect America to raise a Corps of Scientists to cope with these problems, we are too dumb. Oh yes, and Homeland Security is busy scaring away immigrant scientists by calling them terrorists and refusing to issue visas.
God help us, but somehow I doubt he is interested any longer in America.
Comment from Brick
Time: October 31, 2007, 5:47 pm
Josh, your endorsement of the phony Rudy Giuliani comes through each time you pen something. On the other hand, your subtle attacks on Hillary, whether Swiftboating or not, also shines through with each key stroke. Get in the Repug column! The MSNBC setup of Hillary last night was apparent. The talking points for the Repugs are too often displayed by all the female phobiacs out there, whether Democrat or Repub. Why don’t you focus on Giuliani? This guy, as someone has stated, is looking for a balcony! If elected, Bush will seem Churchillian compared to this very dangerous man!
Comment from Max von Schuler-Kobayashi
Time: October 31, 2007, 7:12 pm
As a New Yorker, I remember him as a more sane guy. Running for President, he seems to surround himself with the most kooky hawks he can find.
And with the Republican party these days, the kooks are in charge.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: November 1, 2007, 7:09 am
Brick, you are reading me wrong on Giuliani and wrong on Hillary. I have not endorsed him, nor would I vote for him or any other Pug under any circumstances. That is not to say I don’t think he would be tough to beat, and this is where we disagree, and that is what I have been writing about. Too many take Giuliani lightly. If Giuliani gets the nomination, I expect the Firemen’s Union, other surrogates, and the Democrat nominee to go at him big time on his pre-mismanagement of the World Trade Center and his post-mismanagement of 9/11. It was only during the attack and the short aftermath that Giuliani built is reputation. He will be swiftboated from here to hell, and rightly so.
I don’t think I have been “subtle” about Hillary. I don’t like her and more importantly, I don’t trust her. I think she has zero experience to be president and if her name was not Clinton (what ever happened to call me Rodham?!) she would not be a senator or a candidate. In addition to the well-worn (out) arguments about her on both sides of the case, she is the one with more shoes to fall, but they will fall too late, only after she has the nomination.
Hillary is running against George Bush who is not running for anything, except for a legacy. She is going to be in deep trouble when she runs against any the Pugs. If she brings up Bush they will bring up Hubby and his miscues on domestic and foreign policy, and Hubby ain’t no saint, a rock-star maybe, but no saint. Under these circumstances the Pug can be on the offensive (not needing to defend Bush) while Hillary will be on the defensive (needing to defend The Slick One).
Comment from timr
Time: November 1, 2007, 10:39 am
Max, Kerry was a commander in the real “Swift Boats” during Vietnam. The other Kerry( Senator from Nebraska) was the SEAL who was awarded the MOH
Josh, so what you are saying is that if Sen Clinton-who BTW has an excellent rep in the senate with both dems and repigs-gets the dem nod for prez, then you will vote for someone else, and activally campaign against her? I personally believe that she is smart enough and enough of a policy wonk to hire bright people to do what has to be done to heal the damage that gwb and the repigs have done. Just because she does not talk in soundbites, and because those same “liberal columnists”-Dowd was and is a huge Clinton hater- who trashed Gore are trashing her, the TV “journalists” are straining mightily to find something, anything-see timah in the last debate-to play “gotcha”, is this why you dislike her so much? Or is it because she is a woman? Face it, nobody, and I mean nobody is perfect, look at all the flawed people we have elected in the past, how many of them were “qualified”. The only requirement is that one be over 35, and born in the US-hey, would a military brat, born on a US military in another country fit the qualifications?- the vast majority of them did a good job, some of them were great-FDR,Truman,Ike just as examples. What exactly do you want in a prez anyway? Like Brick said, you seem to really like rudy. I don’t think that he will even make it past the first group of primaries, but if he does in fact make it all the way to the nomination,(I don’t think that he can win in any state with lots of evangelicals, face it, he is exactly the kind of person they loath, and if they vote for him, then their principles mean nothing) then I think there is far more than enough dirt out there on him so he will get even less votes than gwb might if he were running again. BTW, it ain’t “swiftboating” if its the truth, eyewitnesses backed up with a paper trail, then “swiftboating”-which is the “spinning”(or lying as it should be called)or outright falsification of facts.
Max, one other fact on US HS. 1 out of 5 HS in the US is rated as a dropout factory. Only 60% of freshmen nation wide, graduate. and it is getting worse every year. Now that is a problem that I would like to see addressed by all the candidates. Maybe something in “10 questions”, hmm?
Comment from Nosebetter
Time: November 1, 2007, 11:53 am
Josh:
Careful analysis of the Republican Senate and House will show that W didn’t attack Liberty and Justice completely on his own for the first six years of his dynasty. However, the Reps will also be trying to saddle him with all responsibility. Right now, there is no Republican candidate for Hillary to run against. She is attacking the one presently in power. No doubt she will sharpen her focus when she has an actual opponent.
The Dems should hope that Mr. G. wins the Rep nomination. When Hillary came up to NY from AR to challenge him on his own turf, he was too intimidated to stay in the race. Perhaps Mr. G will decide again to “CUT AND RUN” if he has to face her in the general election.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: November 1, 2007, 12:05 pm
Timr, so that we are clear, here is where I stand today on who should be president. I reserve my right to change my mind as this all plays out. I have given money to Obama. I will not vote for Hillary in the New Jersey primary. Senator Dodd, not Obama, will probably get my vote. If she gets the nomination and there is no viable third-party that is appealing to me, I will vote for her. I will never vote for a Republican. My post, back when, comparing the two was simply to point out that Giuliani has more experience than Hillary and in a show-down between the two, I think he has the edge, especially with Independents. We ignore this difference at our peril. I know that you and everyone else here doesn’t agree with that, but that is the way I see it.
Meanwhile, Hillary needs to get the nomination. So while you are supporting her, help me understanding her experience and wonkishness that qualifies her to be president. Can you name one piece of legislation that has become law that Hillary has been responsible for in her seven years in the Senate? And is being a policy wonk the justification and basis for her voting for the Kyl-Liberman Iran horseshit? Her explanation for that vote was NOT a policy analysis but a CYA explanation that, after all, 75 other senators voted for it. She hides behind Dick Durbin’s pants on this one, pointing out that he voted against the Iraq resolution. What? Voting with Durbin now makes her 50 percent right on critical votes regarding Iraq/Iran war? And what part of policy wonking justifies her support for a Consititutional amendment on flag burning? Nothing wonkish here at all, just Clinton politics as usual.
Maybe you know something or see something I don’t know.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: November 1, 2007, 12:55 pm
Nosebetter, Giuliani did not cut and run in the Senate race against Hillary. Where did you get that from? He was diagnosed with prostate cancer prior to the race and opted for treatment, not knowing what impact it would have on his ability to run while being treated, he dropped his bid. But he never has run from a fight. This is the guy who took on the mob, for godsake, and won. Why would he be afraid of Hillary?
It is precisely this kind of underestimating Rudy that I think spells big trouble for us next year, if he gets the nomination.
Comment from Wise Merlin
Time: November 1, 2007, 7:15 pm
Of the seventeen or so people running for the Office of the Presidency, right now “None Of The Above” still gets my vote. This is after these candidates have squandered more than 250 million dollars in primary campaign money for a $400,000 a year job. The two closest to my vote are Kicinch and Ron Paul, neither of which are electable.
THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS OBSCENE WHOREISM and will do more to destroy this country than rebuild it!
Write a comment