The New York Times Just Keeps Getting the Max Cleland Ad Wrong
In her Sunday off-lead New York Times story on bipartisan senators looking for budget compromise, “‘Gang of Six’ In the Senate Tackles Debt – A Bipartisan Effort to Build a Budget, Jackie Calmes furthered the Times’s long-standing legend about the “nasty” campaign ad by Republican Saxby Chambliss that helped him defeat Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002.
Once again, the Times falsely described a “nasty” anti-Cleland campaign ad by Chambliss, this time claiming it was “picturing Mr. Cleland with Osama bin Laden.” Has anyone at the Times ever actually watched the ad?
Days after President Obama called for forming a bipartisan group in Congress to begin negotiating a $4 trillion debt-reduction package, the parties have not even agreed to its membership. Yet six senators -- three Democrats, three Republicans -- say they are nearing consensus on just such a plan.
....
The group’s oldest members -- Senator Richard J. Durbin, 66, a progressive from Illinois who counts the Senate’s only socialist as a friend and ally, and Senator Saxby Chambliss, 67, a genial Georgia conservative whose nasty first campaign left lingering bad feelings among Democrats, and who is a confidant of Speaker John A. Boehner -- illustrate that even with the mounting federal debt intensifying the partisan divide over spending and taxes, the severity of the fiscal threat is forging unlikely alliances.
If Mr. Durbin and Mr. Chambliss can cut a deal on Social Security and new tax revenues, their associates say, then just maybe all of Washington can come together.
....
For many actual Democrats, Mr. Chambliss remains negatively defined by his 2002 defeat of Senator Max Cleland, a triple-amputee veteran of Vietnam, after a campaign that included an ad picturing Mr. Cleland with Osama bin Laden. Mr. Chambliss’s work on the Gang of Six has done as much as anything to soften attitudes.
No, it didn't.
As Times Watch has pointed out ad nauseum, the New York Times has long fostered the myth that an ad by Chambliss cost Cleland his 2002 re-election by questioning his patriotism and linking him to Osama bin Laden. (If you're more curious about the actual ad than is the average Times reporter, you can watch it on YouTube.)
Over a montage of four photographs, one each of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, two others of the U.S. military, a narrator reads: "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." Only then does the ad show clips of Cleland, while substantively pointing out Cleland voted against Bush's Homeland Security efforts 11 times. Cleland and bin Laden did not share the same frame.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
They made Cleland out to be a
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:14pm.
They made Cleland out to be a big war hero. He lost his legs and arm due to an accident with a hand grenade. He was a signal officer. He didn't lead combat missions. The MSM would never tell that story.
Anyone who trusts Dickie Turban...
Submitted by Prester John on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 4:22pm.
....should have their heads examined.
The NYT talks about Chambliss' ad, yet ignores what Durbin said about our own people down at Guantanamo?
Why am I not surprised.
"Stupid people are ruining America".
Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com
Saxby Chambliss should be ashamed of the despicable ad
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:17pm.
smearing Max Cleland. Cleland left half his body on the other side of the world during a war which Chambliss avoided with a bum knee deferment. Cleland never claimed he was a hero, nor did he assert he suffered the gruesome wounds in the midst of combat. But he wasn't horsing around with grenades. He spotted one lying on the ground, and thinking it may have been one which had fallen from his belt, and not realizing it was live, the grenade exploded in his hand as he attempted to retrieve it. Max Cleland had been a co-sponsor of Homeland Security legislation while the Bush administration was opposing its creation. Later, after realizing the overwhelming majority of the American public favored it, the administration reversed course and proposed its own version. It was that version which Cleland voted against.
Incredibly, Chambliss strategists framed his campaign, at least in part, around the spectacular, noxious lie that "Cleland lacked the courage to lead"*. The ad showing Bin Laden and then Cleland with the "lack of courage" charge--suggesting Cleland was soft on terrorists and terrorism--saturated the airwaves. Chambliss campaign literature also promoted the theme. George Bush made five trips to GA campaigning for Chambliss and warned that Cleland was putting politics over national security [even though Cleland had supported the Iraqi intervention].
Even John McCain denounced the ad, as should have every fair-minded person. To describe the anti-Cleland ad and the campaign as "nasty" is a colossal understatement.
Jer
*the actual language in the ad was: " Cleland says he has the courage to lead , but the record shows he is just misleading."
But He's Not and He Won't Be.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:10pm.
So, let me introduce you to history, Jer. Saxby never repudiated the ad and it doesn't look like he's going to anytime soon. You see, most conservatives don't play the "weepy-eyed I'm so sorry" female gambit for attention and consolation that liberals, being the weaker of the two philosophies, do; conservatives don't throw themselves on the mercy of their enemies, hoping for a pardon. To do so is weak. It also doesn't work, as I don't see anyone saying (orgasmically) "Oh Saxby, Saxby, just repudiate the ad and then all will be well!"
It's funny, though. An ad is just an ad. It is words and images. I guess libs don't like free speech when it's used against them. That's when they break out the appeal to standards, while they scream "Koch sucker" and other profane epithets and create rape fantasies about Palin and Malkin. Yeah, I know your kind, Jer.
You are a moral jellyfish, so please, spare me what you think "fair-minded" people should do.
Visions and Principles blog
Cleland's grenade was alive in more ways than one.
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 5:36pm.
The problem I have with Cleland's grenade is the story goes like this. He was jumping off a chopper and saw a grenade that had fallen on the ground. This grenade was American and was one of the grenades carried by these signal corps men on a non-combat mission.
No one knows to whom the grenade originally belonged.
That can only happen like this.
1. The grenades were extra-official. That is no specific ordinance regulation was in place for the arming of these men with grenades and therefore these grenades (or that pesky grenade was) not carried as part of the authorized weapons package for the men. Had the grenade been part of the official weapons package for the men, finding out who had dropped the grenade would have been extraordinarily easy to discover.
2. The grenade was being carried in an unauthorized and unsafe manner by the owner (whoever it was) such that not only did it 'drop' onto the ground; but also dropped in a 'live' state. This would indicate that only one of the three safeties associated with grenades was being used at the time. That safety would be the pin which had to have been removed when the grenade fell. This often happens accidently when soldiers try to 'John Wayne' it by carrying such ordinance by the pin clipped onto their bodies. Not recommended. If the grenade hangs up on something, like a chopper frame, it can dislodge from the pin and 'fall' onto the ground.
3. Non-combat trained troops often had dreams of being combat troops and aped what they thought real combat troops did in the field. A real combat troop would never have 'picked' up the grenade to start and maybe would have fallen upon it if he saw it closely enough to recognize the danger of it to his buddies. At any rate he would have screamed a warning and the other troops would have flattened themselves.
So, Max Cleland is no hero. But anyone wounded during a training accident or in a real combat situation is still wounded and deserves our sympathy; not necessarily our respect.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Well, ACA...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 6:31pm.
Even if negligent--and that is debatable--I trust you'll agree that the forfeiture of two legs and an arm was more than sufficient payment for his carelessness.
Feel free to withhold your respect. Based on Cleland's service alone, I have enough to cover for you and me both.
BTW...Here's another brief account of the incident.
Jer
And Jer's Infantile Logic Strikes Again...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:18pm.
So because Cleland suffered, he should automatically get stuff, like Senate seats, eh? How liberal. "Oooh, you're hurt, now you get a lifetime of goodies at other people's expense!" Last time I checked, Cleland's limbs were lost, not his mind. He has the capacity to take a position and run on it. Doing so will open him up for criticism, just like EVERY OTHER OFFICE-HOLDER.
No, I won't give Cleland a pass because of his injury, because I won't practice the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's his record; he was criticized for it and he lost. That's the way politics goes, but I can understand how upset you are Jer. Usually you have the union thugs stuffing ballot boxes, tampering with ballots, keeping the polls open late, and other shenanigans. It's got to suck when all that doesn't work out for you.
Visions and Principles blog
Idiocy on parade...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 12:14am.
Georgia is one of the least unionized states in the nation. However many union "thugs" exist--and I would put the number at just about "zero"--they could be taken out by your average Boy Scout troop.
Man, you are an embarrassment.
Jer
Nice try Jer...
Submitted by acaiguana on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 6:38am.
Problem with your cite in your post is that it is a cite with no links and is a response by a third party's 'dad' with no links or cites.
See, the issue is that Cleland did not receive a Purple Heart for his injuries.
Check that out and see why.
Now I wouldn't want to accuse some 'son' of some 'dad' of making up a reply to some request for information; but the circumstances of combat referenced by the 'dad' in the account fly in the face of the Army's determination of no wounded soldier award.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA...You're doing a pretty good job of debunking claims
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 8:41am.
which neither Cleland nor I have made. The purpose of my linking the brief narrative by his commander was to provide some additional perspective on the grenade incident, and was by no means offered to prove Cleland was engaged in active hostilities with the enemy. If you question the authenticity of the source, that's fine with me. Consider it withdrawn.
In none of Cleland's accounts with which I am familiar has he ever asserted he was engaged in combat at the time of the mishap. Nor had any of the news accounts which I have read over the years. Which leaves me a bit perplexed why you would pronounce the issue to be the absence of a Purple Heart. If it is a point of contention, it is not one which I have ever raised or contested.
Is that the basis on which you [apparently] have concluded Cleland, while deserving sympathy for his injuries, is too burdened by the suspect circumstances of their occurrence to warrant your respect? One then can only imagine the level of disdain you must harbor toward Mr. Chambilss who opted out of military service altogether with the aid of five student deferments topped off by a gimpy-knee medical deferment.
Jer
ACA
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 7:43pm.
I know what you mean. I was in a headquarters and headquarter company. We had cooks, supply, commo, transportation and maintenance personnel-all the ones that supported the S1, S2, S3 and S4. When they were handed a weapon they acted like John Wayne or Audey Murphy. I was in a mortar crew. We were combat trained they weren't. We knew how to handle grenades. They didn't. If I saw one of them with a grenade I turned and walked the other way.
Obama could've run a similar
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 7:52pm.
Obama could've run a similar ad against McCain and I wouldn't have thought it dirty. Seemed pretty tame to me, especially given what the current president will say these days.
Yup.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 04/18/2011 - 8:21pm.
This was nothing compared to the James Earl anti-Bush dragging ad. But that's the rub. It's not what was in the ad. It's whom the ad was targeting. That's why the anti-Bush ad was totally ok with libs, but the Saxby ad was not. Once you understand the jellyfish morality of a liberal, you can predict their selective outrage almost perfectly.
Visions and Principles blog
Just curious, Tenebrous...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 1:00am.
is there any physical pain associated with pathological ignorance? If so, you must surely be in constant and excruciating agony.
I'm sure you must be referring to James Byrd. And, no, I didn't need to google it, since I well remember the incident and its exploitation during the 2000 presidential campaign. I thought it was a shameful tactic then--and voiced that sentiment to the telephone campaign worker who referenced it--and will readily reaffirm its inexcusabiliy now.
You see, Tenebrous, I abhor such practice whether engaged in by Democrats OR Republicans--unlike you who only condemns it when employed by the left while thoroughly reveling in it when employed by the right.
Jer
Well, bk...Maybe YOU would have thought a similar Obama ad
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/19/2011 - 12:38am.
about McCain would have been "tame", but McCain himself would have considered it "worse than disgraceful. That's what he thought of the Chambliss ad:
"I'D NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT AD," McCain said at the time of the spot, which was widely condemned by Democrats. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield is "WORSE THAN DISGRACEFUL," said McCain. "It's REPREHENSIBLE.” [my emphasis in CAPS]
Now you can nitpick McCain's statement and point out that it was the aftermath of a battlefield and the picture of Cleland immediately followed the pictures of bin Laden and Saddam, but I am confident it would not have mitigated his outrage in the least.
Jer