Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month.

Check out the smear treehugger.com put on Bush's Texas White House.
=======================

The point is Romney is in the process of really being smeared, while Kerry only wished it really was a smearjob..

Romney is:
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gay
-Pro Universal Health

All of the above is backed by his words and deeds. Where is the smear?

JT: An excellent post which will surely cause an increased use of Depends by our resident trolls.

Gulianie is:
-Pro Gay
-Pro Choice
-Pro Gun Control
-Pro Incest
-Pro Adultery

All of the above is backed by his words and deeds. Where is the smear?

BarneyG2000:

Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month.

Funny. JayTea writes a piece of the (mis)use of the word 'smear' and Barney comes away with the belief that it's a piece about Romney ?

.. piece on the (mis)use..

BarneyG--perfect liberal representative--all bile, no brains. And no Barney, that's not a SMEAR, because it happens to be TRUE.

Mike,

In case you haven't noticed (which is hard to believe) BarneyG2000 has a major comprehension problem.

Of course that also explains why he/she/it's "not a Republican". If he/she/it could actually comprehend things he/she/it most likely would not be on the left.

P. Bunyan,

Correct. It was funny, not surprising.

Barneyg' is:

Dumb
Ignorant
Stupid
"club" member
useless troll
hypocrite
liar
bootlicker
appeaser
liberal suck-up

All of the above is backed up by his posts so where is the smear?

Mike and "P" wrote:
" and Barney comes away with the belief that it's a piece about Romney ?"

"BarneyG2000 has a major comprehension problem."

Gee, where did I get the idea that this piece was about smearing Romney? ??? Maybe from this?

"Let's see a few examples of what I would consider "smearing," using former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as my representative." by Jay T

I'll get right to work on that "comprehension problem".

Okay, I'll help you since you're struggling.

The piece was about the (mis)use of the word 'smear'. As part of the supporting argument, JayTea gave examples actual smears and a few of examples of the incorrect use of the word 'smear'. In other words, JayTea simply used Romney as a case in point.

To wit, (from the article)

Let's see a few examples of what I would consider "smearing," using former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as my representative

It's okay. Keep trying, Barney. You'll catch on eventually.

Examples of smear campaigns ..I wonder why Jay you didn't include the most disreputable and infamous example in recent years :the anatomy of a smear campaign
"We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity"push polling" technique that suggest that McCain's (adopted )Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child".
Could it be you didn't include it, because this 'push poll technique' was enginered by Lee Atwater protegy, Karl Rove, and not a Democrat in sight..or is it alright for Rove to smear Republicans but not alright for Democrats?

Smear... blah... If you're interested in how someone uses a word look at the context first. Didn't your English teacher tell you that? Dictionaries are references not law books.

What some liberals mean by smear (in various contexts) is simply to attack the "person" rather than the argument, philosophy or policy record of the opponent. It's the principle rhetorical strategy of the polemicists of the Right (Hanity, Coulter, Rush, Horowitz, and their plethora of parrots). I

n logic and argument it's called "argumentum ad hominem", it is used mostly with "ad hominem abusive", or "argumentum ad personam" as well as in "ad hominem circumstantiae", and "ad hominem tu quoque." It's a logical fallacy, look it up.

It basically goes like this:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable claimed about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

Put simply it is an attack on the "who" of an interlocutor rather than the "what" of the argument itself. That is, it is not a response but simply an attack. Hence the association with "smear". It is an appeal to the emotions, prejudices and special interests rather than to reason or intellect.

The excessive recourse to this rhetorical strategy should be easy enough to overcome with any familiarity with a basic logic or critical thinking text book. Of course, if your interested in either logic or critical thinking, you already knew that.

Strange that you say this,

I don't have any examples of the out-and-out lying type of smear against Romney at hand, but I do recall that during his 1994 run for the United States Senate, where he challenged Ted Kennedy, there was some serious fibbing going on against him.

pointing out that your examples of Romney "smears" are very much like the examples you present as not smears (i.e. they are true). The only thing you point to as a smear, as you are defining it, is something from the 1994 campaign that you can't really remember or link to.

Here are some examples of real smearing:

Did you know John McCain has a illegitimate black child?

Did you know Barack Obama was educated at a madrassa and may just be a jihadist manchurian candidate?

Did you know John Kerry met with satanist Anton La Vey?

Did you know John Kerry was screwing an AP reporter?

Did you know Samuel Alito has mob ties? (implied)

Did you know the Republican Terri Shiavo talking points memo was faked by Democrats?

There's so many more those were just off the top of my head.

Oh, by the way, this,

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth "smeared" John Kerry by exposing his fabrications, misstatements, and exaggerations about his service in Viet Nam -- most famously, the "Christmas In Cambodia" fairy tale.

does leave out quite a bit.

Actually, Steve C., I think the most disreputable and infamous smear example in recent years was the October 2000 ad by the NAACP that tried to tie W to the vicious chain-drag lynching of James Byrd.

Jay, I'm not a Republican, what is the point? Based on his poll numbers, he will drop out by this time next next month. Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 28, 2007 11:24 AM

I could go down the cheap rejoinder route (the point is on your head) but I won't.

Rommney may of may not be in the race next month, but surely EVEN you would have to admit with the tripe the Boston Globe has published it could only serve to hasten his withdrawal from the race.

Right?

Dave A.. I had forgotten about that one.It seem the hate crimes bill that Governor Bush didn't push wouldn't have made any difference..As it was, 2 of 3 men got the death penalty anyway..I suppose the most controversial was Willie Horton in the George Bush commercial slighting Dukasis in 1982 ..It always seems race is somehow behind the worse of so called 'smear'campaigns so the future looks a little brighter in 2008, as we are now accepting the idea of a black Presidential candiate, something that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.

Barney,
Jay points out the landscaping and polygamy smears, and you demand to know where ther smears are in 3 things he did not call smears.
You are quickly overtaking Lee as the resident knee-jerking moron of the left.

ammonius,
When someone holds up their status as say, a decorated veteran, as a reason they are fit for office (or more fit than another) then it is fair game to question and/or point out the record. Kerry's campaign made his Vietnam tour a centerpiece of his campaign. His detractors made his activism and "odd memory" (Christmas in Cambodia, medals over the fance but still hanging on the wall) a centerpiece of the rebuttal.

If Romney said "Vote for me, because I am a 10th Generation Mormon", then his religion and family history may be valid counterpoints.

marc, the ABC/WP poll has Romney at 4%, and Romney has the highest net un-favorability rate of any of the Pubs.

The poll was conducted before the Globe story.

Romney is a dead-man walking.

I suppose the most controversial was Willie Horton in the George Bush commercial slighting Dukasis in 1982 .

1988, and I believe that Gore brought it up during the primary. It only became a "smear" (it was 100% true, which is why I put it in quotes) when some non-profit (it wasn't Bush's campaign) ran the ad a few times.

Recently, it came out that Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather was a polygamist. This, of course, was because the Romney family have been Mormons for generations, and back then it was common. Never mind that out of all the leading Republican candidates, Romney is the only one still with his first (and only) wife; he had a POLYGAMIST!!!!!! ancestor. There's your "guilt by association."

Isn't Harry Reid Mormon? Where's the geneological research piece in the newspapers about him?

Oh, wait. That would be a smear. Because of the "D" after his name, don't ya know.

JohnAnnArbor: You are correct...it was Algore who first raised the Willie Horton issue against Mr. Dukakis. Thanks for spanking that troll.

Here goes Jay again tossing crap up into the air and hoping it sticks on the folks he doesn't like. You're in a real groove Jay...cowards, traitors and now this piece of, excuse the ....ah I don't want to use a bad word to desribe this one.

Why? Easy. You cite the Boston Globe for "smearing" Romney. And what is your conclusion?

"How far the Democratic party has fallen in the 50 years since those two statesmen strode the earth."

You become more unhinged with each post and comment.

But he hasn't caught up with you yet "hughie".

Joan and Old Coot:

When you make a bald assertion about something it'd be good to check the facts. Gore never brought up Willie Horton or ran any ads about him. What he did was challenge Dukakis during a debate in the primary about the furlough program. He never mentioned Horton's name.

Toss up the crap, see what sticks, shoot the messenger - you folks are on a roll.

Seems to me that if someone like Barney is against Mitt, it is only a good thing for Mitt.

If Mitt were indeed "-Pro Choice, -Pro Gay, & -Pro Universal Health" Wouldn't Barney be pulling for him?

Is it just me, or are the biggest attacks on Mitt coning from the Left? Wonder why that is?

Romney is a dead-man walking.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 28, 2007 02:36 PM

You failed to answer the question.

"you would have to admit with the tripe the Boston Globe has published it could only serve to hasten his withdrawal from the race.

Right?

Nothing to say? Or afraid to air your true feelings for fear it would undercut your "credentials" as a raving babbler of the latest talking points?

Tell you what make the bet. I'll wager (make the amount light on yourself) Romney will last far past "this time next next month" as you opine.

Sorry guy, he ain't no Vilsack.

marc, you're right. The Globe article will have a devastating affect on Romney's poll numbers. I'm sure he'll tumble from 4% to 3%.

Interestingly, Mitt is not the first Presidential candisdate with polygamist ancestors. Morris Udall's grandfather, John King Udall, was a mormon and a bigamist.* Udall ran for the Dem nomination (briefly) in 1976.

So Barney, you think the Globe does not = the Dems?

Did you know The Globe owes its very existence to Tip O'Neill, who saved it from ruin in the 1950's when he was Chairman of the House Rules Committee?** Did you know that Davis Taylor, the owner of the Globe at the time, used to make (very large) cash contributions to O'Neill's political committee?***

*Tip O'Neill and the Democratic Century, John A Farrell, p. 280
** Id. p. 154-161
***Id., p. 316.

Care to peruse Boston Globe political endorsements over the past thirty years and identify more than one or two token Republican candidates?

You're really beyond the pale.

Barney:

...marc, the ABC/WP poll has Romney at 4%, and Romney has the highest net un-favorability rate of any of the Pubs.

At this point in the 1992 election cycle, I seem to recall Bill Clinton having a sub 10% polling. I'll bet team Romney is keeping that fact in mind.

At this point in the 1992 election cycle, I seem to recall Bill Clinton having a sub 10% polling. I'll bet team Romney is keeping that fact in mind. by scuzzy

O-really, Clinton declared his intentions on 10/3/91 about 6-months before the first caucus.

Got anymore facts that you can pull from your ass?

O-really, Barney, the "1992 election cycle" did NOT start on January 1, 1992. Hell, it can be argued it started in 1989.

Likewise, we are currently in the 2008 election cycle.

Any more "facts" YOU'D like to pull from YOUR ass?

J.

Really Jay, do you want to provide a link for the 10% poll rating of Bill Clinton 13-months before the Iowa caucus?

Barney,
Oh, so sorry that I don't have a perfect recollection of 16 years ago. I am 7 months ahead of schedule. And Clinton was polling and sending up trial baloons long before October. I was a Dem back then, and I remember working the phones during summer break. One of the questions was who do you like better against President Bush, Bill Clinton or Paul Tsongas?

Doesn't change the fact that Clinton began in crapper, lost the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, then Colorado before he turned it around in IL. And then he spent 8 years in the White House.

The point is, it is a little early to declare anyone's run dead or alive.