Uh OH!! Dem Swift Boat Veterans have one damn good ad!

[dude1394]

swifties kicking some ass

An independent analysis of the reaction of independent voters from the Swiftvet television ads has been completed by Muhlenberg College and HCD Research and the results posted here. The study group consisted of 371 independent voters who self-described their political leanings thusly:

Conservative: 4.31 %
Somewhat conservative: 12.67%
Moderate: 42.32%
Somewhat liberal: 16.98%
Liberal: 4.31%
Unsure: 19.41%

As people can see, the moderates in the middle plus the "unsure" dominate the mix, but the outliers seem tilted a bit towards liberals. More on that later.

I won't get into the entire methodology -- after all, the report is on line -- but the analysis is pretty thorough. Analysis is given on interest and credibility on a moment-to-moment basis throughout the commercial, and both rise continuously as the Swiftvets speak. But the Kerry camp has to be concerned with the overall analysis of the commercial's impact on independents:

According to AdverTest real-time tracking data, Independents showed strong belief in the Swift Boat ad. Furthermore, belief rose as the video progressed, which suggests that the continuous clips of veterans denouncing Kerry each add more credibility to the ad as a whole. (Page 14) ...

Not only did Independent viewers consciously attest to the persuasiveness of the Swift Boat ad, but they also reconsidered intentions to vote for Kerry at startling levels after viewing the video. (Page 15) ...

The researchers did a comparative analysis between the SBVT ad and a Kerry campaign ad, and the Kerry ad fared rather poorly:

In overall persuasiveness, Independents were more convinced by the attacks of the Swift Boat ad than by the supporting message of the Kerry ad. 53.89% of Independent viewers agreed to some extent that the Swift Boat ad was persuasive. Meanwhile, 43.25% felt so about the Kerry ad. Also, the Swift Boat ad managed to outperform the Kerry ad yet again in the intensity with which viewers accepted its message. 15.03% of Swift Boat ad viewers chose the strongest level of agreement with the notion that the ad is persuasive, while only 7.30% of Kerry ad viewers did so. (Page 15)

But here's the worst of the bad news for John Kerry -- all that persuasiveness really does result in independents being persuaded to fall away from Kerry like a Swiftboat running towards the open sea ... away from Cambodia:

Perhaps the most astonishing demonstration of the Swift Boat ad’s effectiveness, however, is the proportion of potential Kerry voters whose opinions shifted after having watched the ad.

Independents intending to vote for Kerry felt considerably less sure of their choice after watching the Swift Boat ad. Before the ad, 41.94% of Independents intending to vote for Kerry felt that they would “definitely” vote for him; 37.10% felt “most likely” to vote for him; 20.97% were “leaning” towards him; and none were “not sure.”

These levels of commitment changed markedly after viewing the Swift Boat ad. Independents “definitely” voting for Kerry dropped to 29.03%. Those “most likely” to vote for him were relatively unchanged at 33.87%. Those “leaning” towards Kerry dropped to 9.68%. Finally, Independents “not sure” of their initial choice of Kerry increased substantially to 27.42%. This substantial change attests to the effectiveness of the Swift Boat ad’s attacks.

Voters who definitely intended to support Kerry drop by almost 13 points after seeing one 30-second ad, and leaners drop by over half. Kerry lost 23 points from this single advertisement, and the study was done before the collapse of Kerry's Cambodian Christmas myth. Not only that, but this was a left-leaning sample group. In other words, this ad may be political Kryptonite for the Democrats. No wonder they've sicced their lawyers onto every television station in the country who wants to run it!

[LRB]

Kerry definitely seems to have no valid defense against the swiftvets other than legal intimidation and character assasisnation. Funny how he won't even release his military records for public viewing. It's almost as if he's trying to hide something even worse coming out. John Kerry definitely has stepped in his own feces and has no clue on how to properly cleanse himself of it.

[dude1394]

As the authors of Unfit for Command state at the end of their book,

The question is one of fitness and character. The loyalty that is indispensable to successful command cannot simply be restored because a person now wants to be leader. John Kerry might well continue as Senator, but as commander-in-chief he has, unfortunately, breached the trust to hold his band of brothers together. In the end, our objection to John Kerry is not his past; it is the future as predicted by his past.

[sturm und drang]

I wonder what Bush's bands of brothers would say about his leadership under fire?

Oh, I forgot. He didn't fight.

[dude1394]

Well maybe if kerry would release all of his records we could compare notes.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Well maybe if kerry would release all of his records we could compare notes.

Here's the link to Kerry's records. Compare and let us know what muck you find.
I'm sure you'll spend the same amount of time examining Dubya's too, right? After all, if the candidate's service records should be explored, it should be done on both sides, right?

Servicer records

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Here's the link to Kerry's records. Compare and let us know what muck you find.
I'm sure you'll spend the same amount of time examining Dubya's too, right? After all, if the candidate's service records should be explored, it should be done on both sides, right?

Servicer records

Nice try Mavdog. While the site lists some of Kerry's records, it does not list all. For example where are the forms applying for the purple hearts? We only have the forms granting the purple hearts. Since Kerry's CO says he didn't sign off for Kerry's 1st purple heart, then who did? Well we would know if Kerry would sign the realease where anyone could request all, not some, of his military records. Seems old John Forbes has a few skeletons in his military closet.

And again Bush's military records are immaterial because unlike Kerry, Bush has not made an issue out of his military service.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I wonder what Bush's bands of brothers would say about his leadership under fire?

Oh, I forgot. He didn't fight.

Bush didn't make an issue out of his military service 30 some odd years ago as Kerry has. And he does this with good reason. Bush has served with distinction for the past 3.5+ years as commander in chief of all US military forces. He over seen to major military engagements. Of course most of his band of brothers are prohibited by military law from commenting one way or the other on their appraisal fo Bush's performance.

[sturm und drang]

LRB wrote:

"Bush has served with distinction for the past 3.5+ years as commander in chief of all US military forces. He over seen to major military engagements. Of course most of his band of brothers are prohibited by military law from commenting one way or the other on their appraisal fo Bush's performance."

Oh, how quickly you've forgotten the 27 former military leaders and diplomats who took the unprecedented step of uniting against Bush's leadership. Former chief of the Air Force, head of the Marine Corps, other four-star military commanders personally known by Bush and Colin Powell:

"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Here's the link to Kerry's records. Compare and let us know what muck you find.
I'm sure you'll spend the same amount of time examining Dubya's too, right? After all, if the candidate's service records should be explored, it should be done on both sides, right?

Servicer records

Unfortunately MD you completely miss the most relevant point to all this. "I" did not HAVE to analyze all of bush's records as the MSM did it for us in excrutiating detail. However the same rigourous reporting is NOT being done for kerry's. The implication for the education of the electorate is pretty obvious to me. Pretty disheartening that the MSM can be so blatantly biased without consequeces. Not good for our republic.

[LRB]

27 not all who are military and most of whom did not serve during the same time frame that Bush was president out of millions who served during the bush time frame. And yet Kerry has more than 6 times that number condemning him out of a set several orders of magnitude smaller for the time that Kerry served in Vietnam. Of course their criticism is not entirely meaningful, but they represent only a miniscule portion of those who served with Bush or who are among the living who have served in the military or as diplomats. Is it surprising that Bush has ruffled a few feathers? Absolutely not. What is surprising is that it's only 27 out of millions that you bring up while kerry has hundreds out of at the most a few thousand (and I'm being overly generous here) come out against him. It's not surprising that either man has detractors about their service. What is surprising is how much higher a percent of detractors Kerry has over Bush.

[Mavdog]

The link above has the Request for Service Records. Kerry made the request and made the records public.

To take the position that Kerry's records should be scutinized while Bush's should not is the utmost in double standards.

To justify the position that Bush's records don't need to be examined due to his being president and starting a war is as illogical as it comes.

Welcome to the Republican Party, where the assasins are poised and ready to attack the opponent so that they don't have to defend their candidate, his record and discuss the real issues of the campaign.

What a clear example of hypocrisy.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The link above has the Request for Service Records. Kerry made the request and made the records public.

Not enough. I want them all, financials, after action reports, all of the things that a journalist SHOULD ask for and HAVE asked for with respect to bush.

[g]To take the position that Kerry's records should be scutinized while Bush's should not is the utmost in double standards.[/quote]
I'm assuming you are agreeing with me if not. I cry bs.

To justify the position that Bush's records don't need to be examined due to his being president and starting a war is as illogical as it comes.

Agreed, and they are.

Welcome to the Republican Party, where the assasins are poised and ready to attack the opponent so that they don't have to defend their candidate, his record and discuss the real issues of the campaign.

What a clear example of hypocrisy.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about and you don't either. So a kerry lie should NOT be investigated? Bullshit.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The link above has the Request for Service Records. Kerry made the request and made the records public.

To take the position that Kerry's records should be scutinized while Bush's should not is the utmost in double standards.

To justify the position that Bush's records don't need to be examined due to his being president and starting a war is as illogical as it comes.

Welcome to the Republican Party, where the assasins are poised and ready to attack the opponent so that they don't have to defend their candidate, his record and discuss the real issues of the campaign.

What a clear example of hypocrisy.

Bush has not made his military service in the Texas Air National Guard a major piece of his campaign while Kerry has made his Vietnam Navy service a major piece. Kerry is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's trying to gain advantage from his service without being questioned on it. If Kerry wants to keep portions of his military service secret then he should not have made it a major part of his campaign. Bush has made his time served as commander in chief the major focus as why he is qualified or not to be commander in chief. Bush has not made his National Guard service a major focus at anytime in his political career that I know of. Sure other have tried to make it so.

[sturm und drang]

LRB - I feel you're being a bit disingenous here. "It's only 27," you claim. "Not a substantial number," you claim.

Do you give any gravity to the fact that the 27 are among the highest ranking personnel in the military? That this was not a coalition of the rank and file, as it were, but of the military's best, brightest and most experienced? The commander in chief of the Air Force. The head of the Marine Corps. A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So. Let's review Bush's two chunks of "distinguished military service," as you put it.

1. Vietnam War – Avoids serving by enlisting in the National Guard. Open for debate whether or not Daddy helped him procure such a kid-glove position – a position for which there was a waiting list a country-mile long.

2. Commander-in-chief, Iraq – Received a mass admonition by military brass – an act unprecedented in this nation's history. Former commander in chiefs of the Air Force, Marine Corps and Joint Chiefs of Staff (along with numerous other four-star commanders) unite to condemn his actions as Commander-in-chief.

Impressive, indeed.

[dude1394]

I don't give a durn if the media wants to rake bush's record over the coals (by the way the do). I just don't want to think that the media is so biased that they would determine that kerry should not be investigated because it might hurt his chances. There are at least 60 purple heart winners in the swities I believe, their reputations and war records are every bit as impressive as kerry's either is or is promoted to be.

To see the media doing the character assasination is repugnant. I expect to hear a bunch of junk from carville, mccaullilfe. I'm not shocked at the NYTimes as that newspaper has almost become a dnc rag, but the washington post seems to have more integrity.

[sturm und drang]

Dude, don't forget that the Washington Post ran a high-profile mea culpa just this week for failing to question or investigate Bush's WMD claims prior to war with Iraq. Bad reporting works both ways.

As someone who works in an industry that is inextricably linked to the media, I can assure you that the ultimate goal of every single media outlet is simply to garner high ratings/readership/etc. in pursuit of the almighty advertising rate increase. If you think these media outlets are driven by some nefarious political agenda, you're just wrong. In the end, it's all about the bottom line.

[dude1394]

A simple question sturm. If bush had made up an episode during his national guard service and had just been outed would it be on the front page of the NYTimes, Wapo? I think this one can be answered yes or no.

Sort of like that DUI right before the 2000 election.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: dude1394
A simple question sturm. If bush had made up an episode during his national guard service and had just been outed would it be on the front page of the NYTimes, Wapo? I think this one can be answered yes or no.

Sort of like that DUI right before the 2000 election.

Thought I would add this sturm. Here is a press conference transcript about Bush's "alleged" awol from service. Now read this and honestly tell me that there isn't a double standard going on here. And please try to explain to me why the media ISN'T following up this story. The ONLY explanation that you are providing me is that the NYTimes and the WashingtonPosts and LATimes readership is so blatantly partisan that they are not interested in hearing any news that would highlight kerry in a bad light (because their "customers" wouldn't like it). I actually could believe that which would go a long way towards bolstering my view that they are (at least on this story) being partisan hacks.

press conference

[sturm und drang]

Oh, I agree with you that the media "plays" to their respective markets. See the death of the left-leaning Dallas Times Herald as an example of what happens when you don't respect your market.

As such, the NY Times is undeniably liberal – as are its readers. The LA Times is somewhat left-leaning – as are its readers. But the Dallas Morning News is conservative – as are its readers. Ditto the Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun-Times, the Washington Times. You're trying to paint the whole "mainstream media" as some monolithic creature with an overrarching goal of filtering the news with a Kerry bias. That's just not true. Most of America is subjected to pretty even-handed media, driven by the very middle-of-the-road, innocuous broadcast networks.
The point is that media channels are companies simply trying to get as many eyeballs as possible. Whether we like that truth or not, that's it. There's no political agenda. Just a capitalist one.

[dude1394]

You are ducking my salient question however.

If bush had made up an episode during his national guard service and had just been outed would it be on the front page of the NYTimes, Wapo? I think this one can be answered yes or no.

[dude1394]

http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/200...-12-04-pt1.jpg

[dude1394]

And some supporters it seems.

SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH'S INITIAL AD GENERATES $400,000 TO PAY FOR MORE AIR TIME

By Tom Infield

KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

A group of Vietnam veterans that is challenging Sen. John Kerry's claims of heroic war service says it received a flood of donations in recent days after advertising its contentions on television in three states.

The group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said it hoped to use the money to monitor Kerry's campaign travels and run ads in cities where he appears.

"That's our goal," said John E. O'Neill, a Houston attorney who's one of the group's leaders and co-author of Unfit to Command, a 251-page book being distributed by Regnery Publishing house. The book quotes Navy veterans as saying Kerry distorted his record as a river boat commander in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in 1968 to 1969.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
LRB - I feel you're being a bit disingenous here. "It's only 27," you claim. "Not a substantial number," you claim.

Do you give any gravity to the fact that the 27 are among the highest ranking personnel in the military? That this was not a coalition of the rank and file, as it were, but of the military's best, brightest and most experienced? The commander in chief of the Air Force. The head of the Marine Corps. A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let's say that all 27 are either former ambassadors or are former 4 star generals. Now out of the hundereds of living former ambassadors adn 4 star generals you're talkig about 27 who have a bone to pick with the way Bush did things. Let's put the total number at say 400 which I feel is a fairly conservative estimate. So that would mean about 6.75% of that group disapprove of Bush. Now considering that Bush made some controversial moves, I donot consider 6.75% disapproval to from this esteemed colleciton of individuals to be particularly significant. Actually I would expect it to be higher considering the controversial nathure of what Bush did. I wouldn't be surprised at all if more who weren't a member of this group of 27 disagreed with some of the things Bush did. But if you were talking about say over 50% of all former ambassadors and 4 star generals speaking out against bush it would definitely be a much different story. There were former ambassadors and 4 star generals who often spoke out on actions taken by Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and Kennedy as well as Bush Sr., Reagan, Ford, and Nixon. No president is going to please every one and no president is going to please all the former ambassadors and 4 star generals. They are simply too diverse a group of people to please the all. Politics seems to be progressing to be more divisive than ever, so this is no real surprise. So yes these individual held responsible postions. Yes they have some expert insite that most ordinary citizens don't have. However the simple fact that 27 disapprove of Bush is not that monumental of a slap in the face IMO. A better question would be why aren't there more speaking out. To me that says much more than the 27 who did.

[sturm und drang]

LRB wrote:
"However the simple fact that 27 disapprove of Bush is not that monumental of a slap in the face IMO. A better question would be why aren't there more speaking out. To me that says much more than the 27 who did."

Really? I guess we all see in this what we want to see, then.

To me, it speaks volumes that this kind of military protest against a standing president is UNPRECEDENTED in the annals of history. The fact that our top-ranking military brass were so disgusted and scared by Bush's ineptitude that they did something that had never been done before.

I don't know how much more powerful or desperate a protest you could ask for. Would anything less than a coup d'etat convince you that their are serious well-founded doubts about the direction Bush is taking this country?

[dude1394]

Still sorta waiting for this sturm, you can jump in there as well md.

If bush had made up an episode during his national guard service and had just been outed would it be on the front page of the NYTimes, Wapo? I think this one can be answered yes or no.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
LRB wrote:
"However the simple fact that 27 disapprove of Bush is not that monumental of a slap in the face IMO. A better question would be why aren't there more speaking out. To me that says much more than the 27 who did."

Really? I guess we all see in this what we want to see, then.

To me, it speaks volumes that this kind of military protest against a standing president is UNPRECEDENTED in the annals of history. The fact that our top-ranking military brass were so disgusted and scared by Bush's ineptitude that they did something that had never been done before.

I don't know how much more powerful or desperate a protest you could ask for. Would anything less than a coup d'etat convince you that their are serious well-founded doubts about the direction Bush is taking this country?

Sturm, since all the protester are either nonmilitary or former military, since military law precludes such a protest by active military, then I hardly would characterize this as a military protest. To speak of a coup by a few handfuls of aging former military is rediculous at best.

Does the 27 "prominent" people protect cause me to take more notice than say 27 drunk idiots at the teamsters headquarters? Well, I would have to say yes it does. But that doesn't lend for me to agree taht there are "well-founded" doubts. Certainly it is these peoples opinions, but even generals, and not all 27 were military, can be wrong. There are many who agree with Bush as well. So what we have here is an issue which has caused some division in former military. But still the amount that you refer to are only a small percentage and Bush's mover were innovative and controversial. Iraq is arguably the single most innovative military campaign in US military history. As for controversial, I would think that only Vietnam was more controversial of US military conflicts with living veterans. However the former military 4 star generals of that day were primarily WWII veterans and would never under any circumstances have spoken out against the president. It's not a matter of Bush's actions as it is in differences in generations. Most who spoke out were Vietnam era military personnel.

[dude1394]

when the "27" can muster up enough money form george soros to publish a book, i'll listen to them. since I can't trust the media any more, i only want to see first hand accounts.

[dude1394]

when the "27" can muster up enough money form george soros to publish a book, i'll listen to them. since I can't trust the media any more, i only want to see first hand accounts.