It's probably true…

It's probably true…

…but it's a shame. Steve Benen...

For most political observers, the term “swift-boat” has become a ubiquitous, easy-to-understand verb. Whereas it used to mean lying about an opponent’s military service in order to smear him or her, it’s now taken on a more general meaning: to swift-boat is to fabricate a phony smear of your opponent.

I think the Republican smears against veterans like John Kerry, Max Cleland, even John McCain, based on denigrating their service and belittling their sacrifices, deserve notable distinction, and I think the term "swift-boat" could serve that purpose well. Steve's right, though. It's meaning has been diluted, and in the process, I think it's impact has been, too. Reserved for the Republican efforts to, in essence, put an asterisk next to the record of these veterans, it becomes, by extension, a mark against the record of every veteran, providing another example of the contempt of so many on the right hold for those they send to war.

Why can't we just call a smear, well, a smear? It's a good word. Sounds nasty, doesn't it? Perfectly good word. Better, really, for general use than "swift-boat," because, absent the military context, what the heck does that mean anyway? It becomes a term to hide the smear behind. In fact, if the smear is a lie (and there are other kinds of smears), well, why has the L word become so scarce in our political lexicon? Certainly there's no shortage of lies or liars.

But I'm just bitching. It's too late, I'm afraid, to save "swift-boat." No reason, though, not to encourage calling a smear a smear, and, perhaps especially, calling a lie a lie.