I nearly cry when I see John Kerry on TV. Do you?

[Dr. Jones]

Look at him. Well-spoken, smart, and very knowledgeable about how our government works. A killer debater. A man who seeks after truth and justice. A man who, in my opinion, absolutely demolished Bush in the 2004 debates and made Bush look like a hipster doofus.

Yes, I nearly cry when I see John Kerry on TV.

Look at who is in office now. A bumbling, idiot of a loser, a man who had absolutely no foreknowledge in government and politics. A man who was arrested for cocaine use (see the documentary "Horns & Halos") - a man whose daddy and (Saudi Bin Laden family) friends bailed him out when things got rough and he couldn't prevent his own company from going into the ground. A man who is a compulsive liar, a raving lunatic, and a tyrant! A man who couldn't give 2 craps about us "little people," just so long as his policies make him and his buddies rich. A hypocritical, flip-flopping, evil man whose family funded Hitler!

Yes, I nearly cry when I see John Kerry on TV.

Where is the justice? He should have been our President.

[valerief]

1. Well, the oil companies made their choice and they chose Bush. n/t

[BooScout]

2. No.

I only voted for him because he was all we had. I hope he doesn't run in 2008. I am still waiting on someone with what it takes to seize control of the Democrats.

[Dr. Jones]

3. What's your beef with Kerry?

I doubt you'll find what you're looking for, with the exception of maybe Feingold.

Kerry is an excellent candidate, in my opinion. Always thought of the man as Presidential material. Very Presidential.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. If only he had spoken with the passion he now exhibits...........

He would have won in spite of the SwiftLiars.

Boy, did America pay dearly for the Dems not winning.

[Dr. Jones]

18. And then there was Diebold....

n/t

[madmunchie]

186. Yes, Diebold, we ALL KNEW about Diebold pre-2004, yet when

Ohio went to Bush - suspiciously - Kerry couldn't have conceded fast enough. Remember him saying how he would fight for us? Knowing YEARS in advance about the election fraud, and then slinking away without a word - well, #1 that wasn't - fighting for us in my bag. The best offense in a good defense, and with Kerry's experience and smarts I expected so much more of him during the campaign period and ESPECIALLY during the preparation and actual election.

You ask me what should he have done? I don't know, I am not running for POTUS claiming that I could fix all of the problems that * has created and I didn't say that I would fight for the American People, John Kerry did.

[butterfly77]

206. I cried when I saw the media promoting weaklings ...

for the democratic party or who ever they wanted. I cried when I knew Wesley Clark should have been the candidate instead of Kerry. I laughed when I saw how angry Lieberman got when he saw how far down he was in the results after the Iowa caucas and afterwards. I got angry when I saw how he started working against the democrats and now when election time is here again he wants us to forgive and forget.

[ProSense]

30. Speak he did.

Problem is you can't make people hear what they don't want to. This is from his great acceptance speech at the convention:

And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.

That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3938393.stm

Kerry Hits Nail on Head

By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

Snip...

John Kerry cut to the heart of the matter when he said during Thursday’s debate with George W. Bush that, "a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it." Kerry cited the U.S. construction of 14 military bases in Iraq that are said to have "a rather permanent concept to them."

Building these bases belies Bush’s protestations that he has "no ambitions of empire."

Snip...

Yes, as Kerry said, Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" when he invaded Iraq. "I will make a flat statement," Kerry declared during the debate. "The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." With that promise, John Kerry turned the policy of Team Bush on its head. Kerry was also right on when, responding to Bush’s debate mantra that Kerry sends mixed messages, the Senator said: "You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

more...

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#s... \'no%20longterm%20designs%20on%20staying%20in%20Iraq%20John%20Kerry\'

Americans were punch drunk with spin during the campaign. I wish more people had listened and actually heard what he said in this speech---what he always knew and believed in his heart.

[blm]

33. He did MANY TIMES. You bought into the corp media portrayal of a heavily

EDITTED campaign.

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. I bought into nothing. Kerry looked tired at the end of the campaign

and the SwiftLiars went unanswered for too long. By then the damage was done.

[blm]

63. DU RESEARCH FORUM proves you bought into media perception.

And ALL candidates SHOULD look a bit tired by the end of a campaign, especially when you are taking on the added burden of a corporate media carrying their preferred president's water for him and covering up for his crimes and failures that you are working to point out.

[TheCowsCameHome]

132. He was tired-and rightly so. The SwiftLiars went unanswered too long

That's fact. And now we have Bush in the WH.


I bought into nothing from the media. It's the way it went down.

[blm]

166. That's just UNTRUE - Kerry's counter went UNREPORTED and THAT is a FACT.

April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc ...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c ....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143 ...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka ... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift ...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h ...




Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

[Joe Chi Minh]

181. None so blind as those that will not see - choose not to

acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the statistics, eye-witnesses accounts of "bent", absent and in effect, privately OWNED voting machines, 54,000 phone calls citing fraud or repression; or to draw the obvious conclusion from the Republicans' refusal to allow the machines or the software to be independently examined. Or the conclusions of the official authority (the name of whch escapes me now) concerning all of the above.

If anyone needs "swift-boating", it's you Mr Magoos who go on and on about those *** swiftboat liars as if they won the *** election for the Cons! It was a piddling thing. Kerry had enormous support in the actual election, including from many Republicans and others who wouldn't normally vote. Get over it!

[BooScout]

67. He only looked tired because he quit with the botox.....

Another mistake he made in the first place.

I agree about his slow reaction to the Swift Boaters.

People also seem to forget he voted to enable Bush to go into Iraq in the first place and voted for the Patriot Act.

They can explain away his mistakes and misteps all he want and he can sound passionate as hell in a speech, but it boils down to he lost because he was out manuevered. I want a killer shark Dem to step up to the plate. I'm still waiting for him or her to step into the ring.

[blm]

78. Another media lie. He never botoxed - media used pics from his post-cancer

surgery phase to compare with the later part of the campaign where he was more rested.

Thanks for spreading the Drudge lie even further. And I am sure many cancer patients will appreciate how their post-cancer surgey faces will be used against them in the future to mock them thanks to the continuing success of Drudge's lie.

[Clark2008]

13. Wes Clark and Al Gore could flip some purple states...

possibly Feingold, but not as likely.

My beef with Kerry (and Hillary Clinton and Biden) is that we need someone from the "fly over" states to unite the country.

I'm sorry it's come to this, but it has: no senator from New England will win the presidency under the current political system.

[BooScout]

54. Pardon me if don't move in lock step with your choice....

Frankly it's too early for me to make my decision on who I will support for 2008. Feingold would be a nice choice but I think he's too left to actually get the nomination. Not for me, but for the majority of people who vote.

I would support Gore over Kerry. But it doesn't appear Gore is going to make a go of it and the same thing that is going to haunt Kerry if he runs again will haunt Gore if he makes the decision to go for it. The fact that both of those have tried and failed to achieve the Presidency. Please spare me the arguments that Bush cheated to get the presidency. I believe it but many in ths country don't.

What I hope for is a dark horse to come out of no where without baggage and revitalize both the Democratic Party and the nation. It's a lot to hope for, but a gal can dream....but while I'm dreaming I can also be logical. Kerry's loss to Bush is going to hurt him. We cannot afford to be week when it comes to the next election.

[Left Is Write]

163. Don't forget that Nixon lost in 1960.

He came back eight years later and won.

[xiamiam]

80. Gore..Feingold..thats it...respect Kerry immensely, but I still cant get

over that more than half of the country was ready to rally behind this last stolen election...and nothing...no fight...just defeat....look where we are today...i just cant get over it...

[blm]

129. I wonder why Gore and Feingold weren't blocking for JK on voting machine

fraud. Or other Dems that so many here claim would have pushed it, but didn't think to do it BEFORE the 2004 election as their contribution to the nation's fight. Who really thinks only ONE person can cover every part of a campaign and election when the GOP is operating on MANY levels?

Kerry decisively WON his matchups with Bush. How did the DNC score against the RNC? Or the left media score against the RW machine?

[madokie]

188. In a great person I always want to see them not afraid to admit mistakes

We all make them. Real men/women aren't afraid of those either.

[Olney Blue]

20. The phrase "seize control of the Democrats"

makes me a bit uncomfortable. How about "inspires and unifies the Democrats"?

[globalvillage]

26. curious

did you watch the speech he just gave?

[fedupinBushcountry]

31. Oh really

To bad you didn't listen to a patriot this morning speaking for all of us.

Get over yourself.

[BooScout]

59. Get a grip....

I voted for Kerry, just don't want to see him run again.....I want some one who is decisive not someone who was fooled into voting for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

[fedupinBushcountry]

95. I got a grip

you did not answer the question. Geez, at the time 70% of Americans were fooled by this administration. Get a grip on that IWR vote, no matter vote or not, Bush was going to go to war. There is one person to blame for that and that is the worst pResident ever.

[BooScout]

99. The question was do I weep when I see Kerry on TV?

I answered it and got jumped on by you as if it was the end of the world. Do not expect everyone here to support your choice of Kerry in 2008. There will be a broad field of candidates. I prefer to wait for someone new to step to the plate rather than someone who tried and lost.

The argument that Kerry and 70 percent of Americans was fooled by Bush is pure cop out. I wasn't fooled. Neither were many others that post here. If he was fooled then he's not smart enough to be Prez..........and that's JMHO.

[fedupinBushcountry]

124. As usual

You did not answer the question I asked you, and you bring up 2008, where in either of my post did I bring that up?

I was not fooled either,and neither was he, but the logic of why the Senator voted for it, and it was for one reason and one reason only to get the Inspectors in, and this same logic came to me way before I supported anyone. Bush was going to go to war no matter if there was a vote or not, the IWR was a PROCESS, and that war was a LAST RESORT. By the way Bush was ready to go to war in November, but that vote stalled him, so then he had to figure out another way to mislead. Who would of thunk that the idiot in the WH at that time would have thrown that vote out the window and say fuck you all, I'll do as I damn well please. I signed the petition to impeach the SOB shortly after that. My support for Senator Kerry came from my own research which I did for each candidate.

So you may disagree with me as much as you want, but facts are facts, and opinions are opinions, I speak for no one else just myself, and for no other supporter of Kerry, and I will not use there responses as a cover.

EOM.

[Bridget Burke]

202. "seize control of the Democrats" ????

What the Hell does THAT mean?

I'm still missing President Gore, myself. Although I do have a lot of respect for Kerry.

[mucifer]

Actually I think if Kerry were president as a liberal I would not be happy

We just wouldn't know exactly how much of a mess bush would have gotten us into. I think under a Kerry presidency there would be plenty of selling out to big corporations the way it happened under Clinton with NAFTA. The evil just wouldn't be nearly to the scale it is under a bush presidency. I really do wish Kerry was president instead of bush. But, he does not bring tears to my eyes. He is not Russ Feingold or Maxine Waters.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Kerry never would have gotten us into this mess in Iraq. No Dem would have

Bush and Bush alone did this to us and we will pay for generations to come.

That alone is one reason I hate Bush so much.

[mucifer]

11. It was dems who got us into VietNam

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. It wasn't Kerry who did. He fought for America in that war.

It was George W. Bush that ran us into Iraq. G-E-O-R-G-E W. B-U-S-H. Say it over and over.

That is the problem we face TODAY.

[AlCzervik]

23. Eisenhower was a democrat?

[SammyWinstonJack]

114. !

[blm]

28. Eisenhower's deal with the French got us into Vietnam and it was the

killing of Kennedy by Bush family operatives that prevented Kennedy's plan to pull the US's advance team out of Vietnam.

[Warpy]

32. That is a lie from the right, so please stop repeating it

because Eisenhower was the first president to send our military into Vietnam.

Yes, Truman, a Democrat, signed a stupid treaty favoring the French and, by extension, the puppet government in South Vietnam. Eisenhower, a typicical Repug, was the one to send the MILITARY in to prop them up.

[LSK]

49. Gulf of Tonkin resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/tonkinsp.htm

Dont waste your time defending Dems from 40 years ago. They were not all angels like they are all not angels now.

[Warpy]

79. Hell, LBJ was a prize idiot for allowing the military to talk him into

escalating the Vietnam war. That is NOT THE POINT!

The point is who STARTED it. Eisenhower sent in the first troops. Eisenhower was a Repug. This is not the case of a Dem starting a war. This is FACTUAL.

The Gulf of Tonkin is irrelevant to this particular subthread.

[LWolf]

180. Uh....

Kerry did help get us into this mess in Iraq. Unlike some of his fellow Democrats in Congress, he voted for the IWR. I've heard all of the rationalizations. I've heard Senator Kerry's hindsight reflections on that vote. The bottom line, though, is that some knew better than to give GWB's war agenda any semblance of legitimacy from the start. Kerry didn't, and his vote contributed to the mess in Iraq today.

[blm]

15. THAT'S ABSURD! The record points to Kerry as the ONLY lawmaker who would

OPEN THE BOOKS on the government corruption of the last 50 years that is so much a part of nearly everything happening today.

Kerry WROTE The public financing of campaign legislation in 1997 that so many of you wish was passed. Feingold worked with McCain to accomodate the corporations who wanted their influence to remain.

I suggest people LEARN about actual HISTORY and records before they make statements that have no bassi in reality.

[INdemo]

57. Actually the Republican corruption goes back to 1930 and beyond

so I certainly agree with you and if the Republicans would have had their way in 1939 and the early 40's Germans would have been walking the streets of Washington D.C..So by all means do some research and history will show that the Republicans have always been Greedy opportunists and corrupt. Thank God for FDR........

[LSK]

44. the Kerry voting record does not support that

He voted against NAFTA. He voted against the bankruptcy bill.

[flpoljunkie]

101. Kerry voted for NAFTA, but against CAFTA. Feingold voted against both.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[blm]

125. For the record, the Kerry amendment for NAFTA was supported by the unions

but Clinton wouldn't push for it.

[flpoljunkie]

178. Thanks for pointing out that Clinton would not support JK's amendment.

Although Kerry could have voted no when his amendment failed to gain support.

[karynnj]

197. Read his floor speech

Global trade was happening, with or without NAFTA, which is why he titled his speech "What's NAFTA got to do with it." As long as it is legal to buy labor elsewhere it will happen.

Part of what he said in the speech is:
"Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.

I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy. "

He then points out that this is what Europe and Japan were doing. That this is from 1993 impresses me - now many people are saying this. Tom Friedman with his "The world is Flat" book said on verious shows that no one in DC was talking about these issues - yet Kerry was in 1993!

[flpoljunkie]

201. Yet, he voted for the bill.

[karynnj]

196. Kerry voted for NAFTA

because it promised to impose some constraints on unfair trade that were not there at the time they were voting. On, CAFTA he tried to get an amendment that lost 10/10 in committee to insist on worker and environment issues being handled.

Read his brilliant description of the reality of global trade and what the real solutions are:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not a day goes by now without significant change in our economy.

And not a day goes by when the opponents and the proponents of NAFTA do not seize on the story as evidence for their cause.

To paraphrase a line from Tina Turner, when it comes to the sea change underway in America today, what's NAFTA got to do with it?

The answer, Mr. President, is, much less than we are led to believe.

Opponents claim the treaty will cause our jobs to go south and cheap goods will come flooding back in, sending more jobs back south.

But the fact is, many jobs are going south now, unimpeded and unregulated by the environmental and labor law controls that NAFTA would impose for the first time between our two countries.

And as for those cheap goods, the tariff barriers in place today are mostly Mexican, not American. Their tariffs are 2 1/2 times larger than ours, on average. It's our goods that are prevented from going there, not the other way around. But you would never know that from all the anti-NAFTA rhetoric.

The proponents of NAFTA will tell you something like 200,000 net new jobs will be created in the United States by the year 1996. No new job is to be sneered at, but 200,000 jobs is approximately what the U.S. economy created in one fairly mediocre month, July of this year, in the middle of a so-called jobless recovery.

Let's put this job promise in perspective. Two weeks ago an article in the New York Times estimated that electronic bar code readers alone--the devices that so fascinated George Bush last year--bar code readers alone have eliminated 400,000 jobs in America.

So, what's NAFTA got to do with it, indeed.

It strikes me that in reality, the debate over NAFTA is not a debate about who's right and who's wrong. It's a debate about the future--about placing a bet on the future, on how the Mexicans will act, and how we will act.

The NAFTA opponents believe that the bet is too risky, because the Mexicans will not live up to their agreements. But the truth is NAFTA is not risky because of what the Mexicans will do--it's risky because of what we are failing to do for ourselves right now. It is a risk augmented by our failure to enunciate and aggressively pursue a national policy for the creation and retention of high-skill, high-wage jobs and preparation of our current and future workers to perform well in those jobs.

And in the absence of a clear, unmistakable, and forceful national strategy to create those jobs and move our workers into them, NAFTA might very well be doomed, a scapegoat for the much larger frustration in our country over our failure to deal with the massive changes underway in the economy, changes which are pushing up to 70 percent of our work force down the ladder of opportunity--changes which promise to claim more workers if we do not take action.

In many ways, we are witnessing the most rapid change in the workplace in this country since the postwar era began. For a majority of working Americans, the changes are utterly at odds with the expectations they nurtured growing up.

Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.

Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed.

To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms.

In the decade following 1953, the typical male worker, head of his household, aged 40 to 50, saw his real income grow 36 percent. The 40-something workers from 1963 to 1973 saw their incomes grow 25 percent. The 40-something workers from 1973 to 1983 saw their incomes decline, by 14 percent, and reliable estimates indicate that the period of 1983 to 1993 will show a similar decline.

From 1969 to 1989 average weekly earnings in this country declined from $387 to $335. No wonder then, that millions of women entered the work force, not simply because the opportunity opened for the first time. They had no choice. More and more families needed two incomes to support a family, where one had once been enough.

It began to be insufficient to have two incomes in the family. By 1989 the number of people working at more than one job hit a record high. And then even this was not enough to maintain living standards. Family income growth simply slowed down. Between 1979 and 1989 it grew more slowly than at any period since World War II. In 1989 the median family income was only $1,528 greater than it had been 10 years earlier. In prior decades real family income would increase by that same amount every 22 months. When the recession began in 1989, the average family's inflation-adjusted income fell 4.4 percent, a $1,640 drop, or more than the entire gain from the eighties.

Younger people now make less money at the beginning of their careers, and can expect their incomes to grow more slowly than their parents'. Families headed by persons aged 25 to 34 in 1989 had incomes $1,715 less than their counterparts did 10 years earlier, in 1979. Evidence continues to suggest that persons born after 1945 simply will not achieve the same incomes in middle-age that their parents achieved.

Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.

Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.

Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.

You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.

Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.

Back then, we were the only economic superpower. American companies had virtually no competition and, since they produced almost entirely in the United States, their workers felt no particular threat from workers abroad. This was the era when `Made in Japan' meant something was cheap--not good, just cheap.

Throughout the 1950's and 1960's productivity was rising rapidly throughout the American economy, so that people could expect over time to work less, but earn more.

Back then, free trade for America meant more markets for America, not competition. We maintained the Bretton Woods rules, the GATT, and other treaty obligations not only to buttress the free world against communism, and not only out of the goodness of our hearts; we enforced a basic level of stability in the world because a stable world meant open markets for us, and we made the products people most wanted to buy.

Back then, large corporations and large unions set the pace for middle-class prosperity. Remember it was Henry Ford, no fan of unions, who created the mass production line to turn out cars cheaply--cheaply enough so that his own workers could buy them. When he finally capitulated to the United Auto Workers, he gave his workers the largest settlement of the Big Three.

In those days, Fortune 500 companies controlled well over 50 percent of our total economy, and employed three-quarters of our manufacturing work force. If the New Deal built the floor for personal security in America, the corporate economy put up the middle-class safety net, with pension plans and health insurance.

In those days, American families lived on one man's paycheck, from one job that lasted with one company for an entire lifetime.

If you were laid off, you were laid off for the duration, and you were called back when business picked up.

No more.

And two key words summarize the difference: globalization and technology. Each one feeds the other. Each one confronts American employers with a choice: Can I beat the competition by making a stand in America with my own workers, or must I beat the competition by going abroad? Will my workers join the ranks of the 70 percent falling behind, or will they join the ranks of the 30 percent--or fewer--who will get ahead?

The dynamics of this are familiar to anybody who works. Technology, particularly computer technology, makes it possible to move production anywhere in the world. Technology makes it possible for formerly large corporations to make do with drastically fewer people at home. Remember those bar-code readers.

Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.

I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy.

Two weeks ago an American Management Association survey reported that nearly half of the companies polled had reduced their work forces in the last year. A quarter reported that they will do so again in the coming year, some for the second or third time in 5 years, and experience shows that the number of companies that eventually downsize is twice the number that predict they will.

Workers who are downsized in today's environment are not out for the duration. They are out for good, and their ability to climb back into the economy is utterly dependent on the match between their skills and the needs of the small and midsized companies which now represent the pivot point for American economic success. Central to this division is skills: those that have them win, those that do not have them lose.

Workers with high skills can reap the rewards of the new technology, which is higher productivity. Higher productivity is not only the basis of increased pay, it is the ticket of admission to world markets, hence to growth, hence to new jobs and higher pay.

Recently Princeton economist Alan Krueger showed that workers who used computers on the job earned a 10- to 15-percent higher wage rate than otherwise similar workers. On the basis of this study, Microsoft Corp., the software giant, ran advertisements in Time magazine and elsewhere declaring `we make it easier to get a 15-percent raise.'

On the other hand, there is a growing disadvantage to not being well educated and flexibly skilled. Workers with lower skills find that technology either eliminates their jobs or moves them overseas. It is this disadvantage that lower skilled

workers face in the new global, high-technology economy that explains why they are faring increasingly poorly in terms of wages and incomes. It is these lower-skilled workers who are having the rug pulled out from under them. And it is no wonder they are scared by NAFTA .

Now, I do not come to this issue as some latter-day luddite, ready to smash bar code scanners in the supermarket and wall off our borders from foreign imports.

I believe that the change we are witnessing--whether we like it or not--is inevitable. What is not inevitable is our passivity, and our inability to make change work for, instead of against, American workers.
In the past few months I have visited any number of companies in my home State of Massachusetts that have made technology work for them and their workers. Through aggressive R&D, advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and involvement, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, a State where manufacturing is supposedly dead and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market, thanks to its constant innovation; and Modicon Corp., which brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded technology and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the high-technology, high-skill route, and you must export.

The question is, Are we going to learn from the Boses and the Modicons?

Other nations, notably Japan and Germany, have structured their entire economies around the goal of employing their citizens in well-paying jobs. This is the goal toward which government, industry, and individuals work together.

This happened in part because they were poor in natural resources and had small home markets. And so in order to become industrialized nations they were forced to export. At an early stage, therefore, international competition became their obsession. And economic considerations often dominated foreign and security policy. They were not afraid--in part as a result of cultural differences--of an economic model where big business and big government worked together to promote long-term job creation.

But in this country, Mr. President, we are still lacking a strategy that sends out an unmistakable signal to every American that the highest priority of the American Government and American industry is ensuring that Americans have the ability to get good

jobs--maybe not one job for their entire lives, but one or a series of jobs that will support their families for the entirety of their careers.

This strategy needs to address the insecurity that people feel for their economic future and in order to do so it must recognize the centrality of education and training--two priorities on which President Clinton rightly focused during the campaign.

In 1949, we spent 9 percent of our Federal budget on education. We now spend less than 3 percent. An estimated 83 million Americans have inadequate reading skills and the United States is the only major industrialized nation in the world with no formal system or structure to facilitate the school-to-work transition. Federal support for vocational education has declined approximately 30 percent in real dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, such competitors as Germany spend dramatically more on training the best educated and now the highest-paid workers in the world. American students attend school for 180 days per year while Japanese children go to school for 243 days and German children for 240 days. This means that our children attend school for 25 percent less time each year than their future competitors.

This is unacceptable. There is no question that our priorities have become skewed. The space station will cost us $2 billion this year, while the Federal Government will spend only $630 million on primary and secondary education. Over 80 percent of prison inmates are dropouts, and they each cost us between $15,000 and $30,000 per year to incarcerate. This situation is totally unacceptable.

We should be prepared to use any mechanism necessary to find more money to invest in our one true asset--our people. We can find this money in pork-barrel projects; in entitlement programs; we can reexamine the issue of the gas tax--surely Americans would be willing to pay a few more pennies a gallon to educate our children for the global competition they will face. There are many other places we can look for the resources--if we are serious and committed to the objective.

We need to begin by quickly funneling more money into our education budget. I strongly support Senator Jefford's suggestion that we add money to education spending in increments of 1 percent of the Federal budget until it accounts for 10 percent in the year 2004. I also agree with Senator Simon and Senator Dodd that we must abandon property tax supported education which leads to inequities among school systems.

Next, we need to quickly put in place the School-to-Work Program on which the President and Senator Kennedy have been

working. And we must not be shy about fully funding these, either. This is no place to be penny wise and pound foolish.

We must quickly enact the Worker Adjustment Program that Secretary Reich has been drafting--and I believe that we should attach it to the NAFTA as part of the implementing legislation to ensure that full help is available for all workers who need it. In addition to streamlining our disparate adjustment programs, this plan would make unemployment insurance flexible so that workers could use it as income support while they retrain--a need that did not exist when the UI system was designed to buttress workers who were temporarily laid off. It will also put the Federal Government in the business of smoothing out the labor market's information flows--so that displaced workers can find out where jobs are, what kinds of skills they require, and how they can obtain them.

And I believe, Mr. President, that we should go beyond the administration's current proposals and create an Incumbent Worker Training Program. During the campaign, President Clinton discussed encouraging companies to train their workers and I feel that we must return to that concept. We cannot wait to do this until our companies lose the global competition and our workers are downsized out of their jobs. We must help them retain the jobs they have by ensuring that they are the most technically adept in the world.

But it is not enough, Mr. President, to say `if we train them, the jobs will come.' Because the jobs may not come. A recent 2-year study of the American system of capital investment by researchers at the Harvard Business School raises the question of whether U.S. companies are sufficiently focused on the long-term to be competitive and to create high-wage jobs.

The report points out that leading American firms in many industries are outinvested by their Japanese counterparts; that the R&D portfolios of American firms include a smaller share of long-term projects than those of European and Japanese firms and that American firms invest at a lower rate than both Japanese and German firms in intangible assets--such as human resource development. The report relays the fact that American CEO's believe that their firms have shorter investment horizons than their international competitors. As a result, they sometimes confuse cutting back and downsizing with a solution--restructuring may give a short-term lift to a company's stock but unless the savings are invested in productive assets, it will not help the company compete better with its German rivals over the long run.

This would explain why the Bose Co., which I mentioned a few moments ago, feels the need to remain proudly privately held in order to continue investing in R&D and its workers without

pressure from Wall Street? Surely something needs to be changed if our capital system forces companies to take a short-term view when their international competitors are resolutely focused on the long-term.

In order to encourage U.S. companies to invest in their long-term growth, we must make permanent the R&D tax credit; we must put in place a full capital gains tax cut for long-term investments; we must make available support for the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program as well as its manufacturing extension programs; and we must take the lead in communicating that both the private sector and the public sector should make people the center of any industrial policy.

There is plenty of evidence that the Mexicans have learned the lesson from Germany and Japan that a national strategy focused on creating high-wage jobs is a necessity in the new global economy. An influential Business Week article pointed out months ago that Mexico has no intention of settling for millions of low-wage jobs supporting high-wage jobs in the United States.

President Carlos Salinas' dream is the creation of millions of high-wage jobs in Mexico. As I mentioned earlier, the real thing for us to be wary of, if NAFTA passes, is not that Mexico will welch on the deal, and not even that ti will comply with a vengeance. What must concern us is that we will fall short.

After all, it is President Salinas who declared 6 years ago that he would slay hyperinflation, drastically reduce debt, and liberate job creation in Mexico. That's exactly what he did.

It is our political system which declared that it would eradicate the Federal deficit, and create millions of well-paid jobs to replace those that went abroad in one long `morning for America.' Need I say more?

So, Mr. President, when it comes to trade with Mexico, we have met the enemy, and it is us.

Millions of Americans understand this in their bones. They understand our stake in following the path of high-skill, high-wage jobs, and in electing Bill Clinton last year they expressed their belief that Government must play a role.

But when it comes to NAFTA , Mr. President, a treaty that even proponents concede will create some short-term job loss, the debate has become a game of `who do you trust?'

And the people are not in a trusting mood.

We have yet to see the implementing legislation or to have an inkling of how much money will be found to pay for cleaning up the border or providing training for workers. We have yet to see if we will invest in the American worker before we increase his vulnerability.

With so much of the NAFTA package left to be seen, to, at this time, call the package a resounding success or a resounding failure seems somewhat premature.

We should use NAFTA as the wake-up call to attend to the real agenda of this Nation. We should do what President Clinton called on us to do in his campaign, put people first.

My urgent plea to the President, and to the leaders of my own party is that we go back to the people, back to the same dialog from last year's campaign about putting people first, and that we resolve to enact a clear and effective strategy for ensuring each American the means to find a job paying a livable wage throughout his or her lifetime, no matter how the international economy may buffet us.

I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for permitting me to make this lengthy statement.

I yield the floor.

[DemNoir]

4. Not anymore

But I did cry daily when he refused to defend himself against the swift boat smears. And many other times during his inept campaign.

[derby378]

7. That was a really stupid decision his campaign made

Refusing to take Karl Rove head-on is tantamount to political suicide.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. And now we all pay for the mistakes of the campaign strategists

[blm]

25. BULL! Check out the DU Research Forum - you are assisting corporate media

and their successful effort to downplay Kerry's attack on the swiftliars.

[DemNoir]

48. Double Bull

His retorts were late and weak. He even admits that now.

[blm]

58. His attack on Swiftliars in midAUGUST was an HOUR SPEECH in front of the

FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION that the newsmedia mysteriously chose to NOT COVER and few barely even reported. Kerry IS stuck now dealing with the lack of media coverage. That doesn't give you or anyone the right to get away with saying the counter didn't happen - you empower the media to manipulate the perception of any Dem campaign when you believe their editted down versions of the actual campaign efforts.

Did you even bother to check out the Research Forum and ythe actual FACTS contained there.

[DemNoir]

68. I dont get your point

Since Kerry himself now admits his handling of the swiftboat matter was a huge mistake.

[blm]

83. His mistake was not controlling media better - a mistake that no Dem can

rectify when the media is owned by Bush's allies.

Kerry is taking responsibility because that is what leaders do, even when they are not at fault.

[BooScout]

72. Quit blaming everyone but Kerry....

The buck stops with him. He admits he screwed it up why can't you?

[blm]

87. DU Research Forum PROVES he countered.

Kerry takes the ultimate blame because leaders do.

[BooScout]

92. DU research does not make up my mind about anyone....

I make up my own mind. Do you honestly believe half the tin foil theories posted here?

Kerry voted wrong on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. He didn't respond properly to the Swift Boaters. I remember shouting at him on tv and telling him to respond...........but fucking noooooo.....he was above it all. He needed to get down in the trenches and fight back because lives depended on it. He did not do it.

I voted for him but I won't again, unless he becomes the party nominee. If he becomes the nominee I will support him and vote for him butI would rather have another choice. There is nothing wrong with that.

[blm]

104. The FACTS about the SWiftlie counters are laid out - not conspiracy theory

If YOU failed to note his speech to the Firefighters Convention then YOU FAILED TO DO YOUR JOB AS AN ACTIVIST CITIZEN and did not spread the truth to other citizens.

And further - the RESEARCH FORUM IS FILLED WITH DOCUMENTED FACTS, NOT THEORIES.

[BooScout]

171. Ya know....

I said 'here' as in GD not the research forum when I was referring to tin foil hat theories don't you? You assume alot of things about me......most of them wrong.

BTW, your pissypant attitude of following me around and bludgeonng me about my opinion on Kerry is begginning to wear thin. Do you honestly think you will change anyones mind with that attitude? I give you a fail yourself as an activist when you lord your know it all attitude over peoples opinions that happen to be different than your own. Alienatig people is not good for the cause brother Lib.

[blm]

179. Opinions based in fact are one thing - opinions based in RW media spin

is a whole other ballgame.

I don't mind alienating a person who mocks the appearance of a cancer patient's before and after pics based on Drudge's reporting.

[BooScout]

183. Where the hell is the ignore button....

[blm]

127. Here are the FACTS that YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE:

The correct links are in the research forum thread - this is a quick copy since you refuse to READ THE FACTS in the Research group.


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc ...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c ....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143 ...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka ... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift ...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h ...




Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

[ProSense]

36. Here's the link to the Research Forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Don't miss the video posted there.

[Sydnie]

6. Not nearly ... but do quite often

Even on a regular day watching C-SPAN. I ache for new leadership ... and for his presidency.

[pocoloco]

9. I get PO'ed Big Time!

Flip Flopping Loser!

[globalvillage]

37. Nice RW talking point n/t

[ProSense]

41. As Kerry said:

Dissenters are not always right.


But I know a lot of them are right wingnuts.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. That would be bush**. But nice try.

[movonne]

10. I even cry more when I see Gore...I think about a country that would

be doing very well now instead of what we got..I will never forgive the supreme court for doing this to our country.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. My exact thought! He won, and would have been re-elected in '04!!!

and he put up a fight..and did not cave when Rove and Co tried to take it away.
My only regret is that he did not continue the fight into the Senate in January...

[derby378]

24. But, at the same time...

Gore deserves some of the blame for his measly "me, too" performance in the 2000 debates against Bush. Instead of going for the throat, he simply rolled over.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Those watched the debates thought Gore won. The only ones who

thought Bush won one were the ones who listened to the media spinners.
It was all bullshit.
Bush was lying throughout all the "debates" and we all knew it!!!

[derby378]

42. Just because Bush was lying...

...doesn't mean that Gore couldn't have tried harder. If Gore hand't lost his own home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have been an issue, and 9/11 would never have happened.

[Olney Blue]

39. Gore did fine. And he won the popular vote.

[derby378]

45. Not fine enough - he didn't win Tennessee

The rest is history...

[BrklynLiberal]

51. He won the popular vote! He was the duly elected President.

[Lorien]

112. He won Florida too. I had a front row seat for the theft of election 2000

(written about by Greg Palast, so I won't bother with the details again here). Bush was selected by the Supreme Court. It was a bloodless coup.

[SammyWinstonJack]

116. Yes because there wasn't any evidence of election fraud in Tennessee,

now was there?

[Samantha]

189. Gore lost Tennessee by 70,000 votes

The State of Tennessee was a mini-Florida, with all of the same "irregularities." The names of many African-Americans who registered through the motor vehicle administration mysteriously did not appear on the voter rolls election day. The complaints coming out of that state from people who had been disenfranchised due to long lines at the polls, unannounced sudden moving of polling places, failure of poll workers to accept identification of African-American voters, the list is endless, were well documented.

Complaints filed from this State were prosecuted by the DOJ.

It makes me so angry to hear people say Gore couldn't even win his home state. They forget the influence of people like Fred Thompson, who sent his aid down to Florida to bang on the doors of placing counting votes during the recount, and the win-at-all cost of the Republicans during this contest.

Tennessee was stolen just like the State of Florida was because it was meant to be a huge embarrassment to Gore. The only lasting embarrassment that lingers from 2000 is the stench of theft which permeated that election.

I say this as a former Tennessean (much of my family still lives there) who has yet to recover from the shock of what happened there in 2000.

[otohara]

108. I'm With You - Love Al Gore

Kerry, he's a good man, but doesn't inspire me like Gore.

[ultraist]

14. No

Kerry refused to fight the swiftboat liars and made the decision to walk away rather than insist all of the votes get counted. What a disappointment.

[INdemo]

16. Well the fact is I believe our country will make good for the wrong

that was done by the corrupt Republicans involved in the election fraud in 2004 and will elect him in 2008...There is no doubt in my mind he will be our next President.

[Libby2]

17. YES

I cry for my country and what could have been.

[Warpy]

21. No, I get very angry

My anger is at Kerry, who knuckled under to the DLC during his campaign.

My anger is at the DLC bunglers, those corporate lobbyists who were sent in to make sure Kerry said nothing controversial and never fought the right wing hate machine during his campaign.

My anger is at the GOP slime machine, at the Smear Boat assholes and the party that funded them, and at Kerry for not suing them the day that book came out, thus tying up their resources and threatening to expose their funding through the power of the subpoena. And he STILL hasn't done that.

My anger is at the ugly convergence of voting machine companies and a corrupt party that disenfranchised so many of us.

My anger is at men like Governor Richardson of NM, who prevented an honest recount and a forensic examination of those voting machines.

My anger is at the Democrats in general, because they ignored YEARS of warning about black box voting, no paper trails, no accountability, and a hacked vote, and they CONTINUE to ignore it.

My anger is at Kerry for copying his platform from the DLC site, thus making sure working people would realize once again that the Democrats didn't give a shit about them.

My anger is at the major media, who all happily lied by omission when it came to the administration, but wouldn't cut any Democrat a single break, having talking heads talk about their ITINERARY while never allowing sound bites of their speeches.

My anger is about corruption, about waste, about pigheaded stupidity, and about lost opportunities. I will never get over it.

[derby378]

35. Fortunately, your anger is not with most of us...

Are you a precinct chair? If not, I recommend looking into it - I think it's time we DU the Democratic Party from the ground up.

[dogday]

46. Richardson and Kerry are the best of friends

are they not????? Why would he not allow a recount????

[Warpy]

50. They are both rich men who did well with the tax cuts

That's all I can figure. Otherwise, it's just venality and a piss poor realpolitik decision.

[karynnj]

198. I never heard they were friends

Richardson was a Clinton friend

[fedupinBushcountry]

47. Why is your anger not

at the people who voted for Bush ? Those are the ones to blame. Those are the ones that have been blinded by the fear and smear crap, those are the ones who refused to open their minds to change, and those are the ones that care more about themselves then the whole of Americans.

[ewagner]

29. The WORST DAY of a Kerry Presidency

would have been INFINITELY BETTER than the Best Day of the Bush Administration.

[BrklynLiberal]

34. The best day of the Bush administration will be Jan 20, 2009!

or whatever day the new Democratic President is inaugurated..
unless Bush is impeached before then

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. You are dead right.

[LSK]

40. you want to really cry??

Go to the CSPAN archives and find the Kerry event in Cleveland with Bruce the night before the election.

[glitch]

90. That one breaks my heart. I recorded it, but I can't watch it yet.

I'll never forget that amazing, massive crowd.

[wisteria]

52. Absolutely, he should be our President. n/t

[nevergiveup]

53. John Kerry is a good man

but he ran a horrible campaign. He played soldier at the convention and then went awol when attacked by the swift boat lunatics. I would vote for him again but please, oh please, give me another choice.

[ProSense]

61. Wrong!

Do the research:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[mtnsnake]

65. One of the most accurate posts ever, word for word

I would vote for him again, too, but it'll never come to that because whe won't be getting the nod in 2008 unless the only people voting in the primaries are people from DU.

[blm]

73. Check out the DU Research Forum - it proves you bought into corp media

version of the campaign - Corp media REFUSED TO COVER or even report on the many attacks Kerry's campaign launched to counter the swiftliars. They especially ignored his HOURLONG attack on the swftliars and their BushInc allies in a speech to the FIREFIGHTERS CONVENTION in midAugust that corporate media MYSTERIOUSLY ignored and few even reportd on it occurring at all.

You empower the media and their ability to maintain perception of our Dem candidates when you accept the success of their manipulations and further the wrong.

[Maven]

130. Please stop repeating this...we GET IT

He gave a speech, and the MSM didn't report on it. Wah. The fact remains that he did not retaliate strongly enough...the "Issues" ad specifically was pretty bland and came across like a kid going "I'm gonna TELL!" And after retaliating, he should have gone on the offensive and all-out attacked BUSH'S "military" record. We needed someone who was willing to get his hands a little dirty, and Kerry's patrician above-the-fray demeanor didn't get it done.

I'm glad you've compiled the data and that makes you feel better. But the rest of the country wasn't and isn't aware of the day-to-day happenings at the goddamn DU Research Forum.

You say "HOURLONG speech" like it was a good thing he spent an HOUR on the defensive. What he should have done was to CHANGE THE SUBJECT and, frankly, point the finger back at his hypocrite opponent. Bush had so little ground to stand on, it would almost have been TOO EASY.

And his handling of the IWR was inexcusable. He should have VOTED AGAINST IT. PERIOD. And barring that, he should have said that voting for it was a MISTAKE. Don't tell me that as a Washington insider, he didn't know that the rationale was phony.

Like many others here, I voted for Kerry and would work my ass off for him again on a local level were he chosen as our candidate. But there are better choices for '08.

[blm]

167. Go ahead and let the media keep getting away with it, and see how the next

nominee does because no one could admit what the media did to push the perception, and instead, choose to promote the media perception.


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).


Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boa