Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert, or Swifties revisited

[whometense]

Eric Alterman stands up: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

[MH1]

1. "a concerted effort by the press to look the other way"

Bingo.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

:banghead:

[ProSense]

2. Great find and report! Thanks! I am again

:mad:

[whometense]

3. I agree with both of you

:grr: and :banghead:

Not to mention the obvious followup: with the press arrayed like this against him, what could Kerry have done to counteract this?

Here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743289315/sr=8-1/qid=1147962645/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3109573-0184612?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (Hardcover)
by Eric Boehlert

[karynnj]

4. Great article and good point - even if Kerry had millions of dollars

of ads to throw at this - for many people, the key would be that the "objective" media disputed Kerry's assertions - so there must be some questions.

It is so sick that the media chickened out on insisting the obvious - that there were gaps in Bush's record and that Kerry's service was exemplary and he was a hero. I hope all the less honorable media people see the truth when they look in the mirror.

[blm]

5. Has to go in GD with a subject line that reads - The DEFINITIVE TRUTH

about the Swiftliars and the corporate media who abetted them.

[whometense]

6. ok, done

;-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2633840

[demdiva]

7. Agreed

[beachmom]

8. Thanks for the excerpt, Whometense (did I mention that I missed your

thoughtful posts while you were out of the country?).

For some reason, when I read this shameful, horrible history about our press/media, I almost want to cry -- the injustice of it all. Had Kerry won, then it would have been just a blip, but the way Kerry talked about it yesterday on the Stephanie Miller show -- the two big lies of the campaign -- Iraq and these charges. Well, I think this will actually be a historical chapter it is such a heinous act. I wish, we the American people, could sue the media for propaganda peddling, but I suppose that would be futile . . .

[whometense]

9. beachmom,

Thanks so much. It's nice to know I was missed. :-)

Will Durst made an appearance on Rachel Maddow's show this morning and said some hideous things about Kerry. Rachel responded pretty gently with a few questions about the role of the press in smearing both Gore and Kerry during their presidential campaigns. Durst, echoing the sentiments we mostly see out in GD, gave Gore more of a pass than Kerry, but still insisted that it was the fault of the candidates that their defense did not break through.

I've been thinking about it ever since. It bothers me a bit when Kerry takes the blame for not putting more money into fighting the Swift Liars - he was in a box, and I'm quite sure he knows that if he'd put money into that fight he would have been caught short in the last few weeks before the election. Probably the only possible solutions would have been either to opt out of federal financing or delay his acceptance of the nomination. Of course, either of those options would have caused massive howlings of rage from all sides. And there's no guarantee that money would have made a difference, with the press so entrenched against him (as they also definitely were against Gore.)

Along with voting issues, it seems to me that these are the two most urgent problems for democrats in 2006 and going into 2008. Blaming Kerry is stupid, shortsighted, and dooms us to thinking that the magical "perfect" or "perfectly new" candidate will be able to effortlessly surmount all such obstacles. Absolving Gore of any and all flaws he may have had as a candidate is equally stupid and shortsighted. I do hope the vast majority of non-web dwellers out there have clearer vision on these issues.

[beachmom]

10. Gore was no better than Kerry, and in fact was worse in the debates

But Gore won the popular vote, so that is what people are using as their "proof" that he was better than Kerry. Never mind that 2004 was in a completely different era than 2000, and Kerry had an uphill battle against a wartime president.

I'm a bit conflicted about the SBVT -- responding more would have put it more in the MSM, but perhaps that IS irrelevant since more people get their news in alternative ways like cable news, talk radio, late night comedy, and the internet.

Did anyone read this from The Atlantic from the French writer Bernard Henri Levy who walked in the footsteps of de Tocqueville about meeting John Kerry?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/levy
(Subscription only)

So finally, just before our descent to Des Moines, I'm granted the little one-on-one. My impressions? A nice man, in shirtsleeves, joking with his staff, of a piece with the man I have seen looking for volunteers to toss a football around with him on the tarmac so he can stretch his legs. A European at heart. He is interested to hear that this whole story of Francophobia is just bullshit made up by the Washington press corps, and that in all the months I've been traveling through the heartland of America, I've never met any ordinary citizens who are angry with me for being French. A good candidate. A courageous activist, fully involved in the battle that's under way, absorbed in his role and his mission, inspired, passionate. A rationalist above all. A real rationalist, a man of the Enlightenment and of his word. Not doubting for a single instant that truth—even if it takes a while to come to light; even if the professional masters of deceit and disinformation appear to be gaining the upper hand—will always win out. That's why he took so long to react to the scurrilous campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans, which cast aspersions on his past as a Vietnam hero. That's also why he himself is always ill at ease with that terse style of argument, and why he prefers long, drawn-out explanations that are reasonable, articulate, sensible. Is he naive? Optimistic? Does he fatally underestimate the irrational factors that can decide an election? Just a few more days, and we'll find out.

Kerry's Dissent speech was important to me because it told us in no uncertain terms that the 2004 campaign did NOT change him for the worse. I was worried that what happened to him would make him question his values of truth and honor; that since these very qualities seemed to be shown as a weakness in the election that he would abandon them. Thank God he did not. Now he is putting them at the forefront of all of his rhetoric, staying true to himself, showing the depth of character he has. I know that conventional wisdom that says "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing" is just not true. When I think of great Americans who changed our country for the better, they were usually NOT presidents -- Harriet Tubman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Benjamin Franklin, MLK, Rosa Parks, and so many others. Yes, I would like Sen. Kerry to be president, but more important to me is that he fight for what he knows is right.

OT a little, but, although the Iraq War is the most important issue, I would like to hear him stick up for gay people -- between them being murdered in Iraq and being demonized now with that ridiculous gay marriage amendment, I would like to hear a speech that says no to such hatred, but in American terms like the Dissent speech. Howard Dean has really been making some missteps on this issue lately; Feingold has been fantastic; Hillary will throw them from the ship just like her husband would have; and I know Kerry has got to be disgusted with what went on in the Senate yesterday. I just feel like the two weakest groups in this country -- illegal immigrants and gays -- have been trashed and dragged through the mud, that I would like to hear an affirmation on us protecting the weakest among us. Anyway, probably is not a good idea politically, but I still would like to hear it.

[whometense]

12. I hadn't read that,

and it's wonderful. I have mixed feelings about Levy, but I think his view of JK is pretty much dead on.

When we were in London we went to the British Museum, and they happened to have a fascinating exhibit about the Enlightenment. While we were going through it my husband made a comment about how interesting it was to see this view of the Age, now that our current state of enlightenment has come to an end. Startled me a little, but it was hard to argue his point.

My thought about JK running again, aside from his experience with the experience, goes along with Levy's observation that you highlighted. It seems to me that by the time we next vote for a president the country will be literally starving for someone like Kerry - a man of his word, and a rational optimist.

[karynnj]

14. Thanks for posting this - I hadn't seen it and it's great

Kerry in the past has always been great on gay rights - even the recently repeated answer in the debate (ignoring the lamentable Cheney reference) was absolutely beautiful. I would hope that if he did speak on this, it would be broader and inclusive - rather than focusing on gays. Celebrating the diversity, respecting everyone and giving them rights is American. I really do understand why he balks at using the word, "marriage", it is generational. It also seems where the country is.

I agree that Hillary would throw them from the bus, if it would help numbers. This saddens me as in the 1990s, I thought she was better than Bill. I really don't understand the inexplicable statement that young people are lazy either. My husband thought it might be an attempt at a "Sistah Soljah (Sp??) moment". But at a time when kids have it rough it makes no sense. It's like she has hardened over time - something Kerry hasn't done.

[karynnj]

11. The voting issues may be the easier to address

Kerry's answers on the Stephanie Miller show were excellent and suggested that they were trying to figure out what to do for 2006. That Kerry spoke very frankly was good. From the comments, Kerry clearly is informed on what is provable and it's clear that he is outraged at the fact that a lot of suppression was done "legally".

The idea that Kerry didn't fight back is harder to address. That book really does have the facts and they were worse than I thought they were. The problem is whether the press - most of which comes out looking pretty bad - will really let these facts get much traction. Reading through some of the detailed descriptions of the coverage, it is amazing how biased it was. The naive postings that a livid Kerry could have just gone on TV and blasted hem (like Dean would have :) or as McCain did) and ended their coverage is laughable. Doing just that imploded both their campaigns.

The problem is I know people who say that Kerry didn't get his message out, didn't fight the swiftboat people - so he was a poor candidate. One person saying this really liked Kerry and was surprised by this - thinking may MA politics was maybe just more civilized. The problem is that these people didn't see that the media landscape changed drasticly in 4 years. Kerry had many ideas, brilliant speeches that explained them well, and tons of positive energy.

If this were 1992, he would have done as well or better than Clinton. (The media covered then excused Clinton of being a womanizer and the whole ROTC thing - where the problem I had as a former anti-war person, really was not avoiding the war, which in 1969 (?) made sense, but the nasty snarky letter sent when he no longer needed the ROTC position was a troubling thing to do to someone who had tried to help you.) The media showed the excitement building in the rallies at the end and showed a pathetic Bush I calling Clinton and Gore "Bozo and Ozone Man". Kerry's rallies at the end were at least as exciting and bigger. If they would have shown Kerry as the hero he really is, he would have won.

The problem is that the media controls the transmission of the message. They didn't let Kerry's message out in 2004 and, now when the Bush administration is worse than they likely thought possible, it seems unlikely that they will admit what they did in 2004. Several media people have instead gone after the Democrats (often Kerry) for not speaking out - often implying that they (the media) did. On the SBVT, their after coverage, that called them liars, but effective, blames Kerry and ignores their own role. How far off they were is shown by the fact that, to my knowledge, NOT ONE TV or print media star really called the Republicans out on the purple heart bandaids. There should have been a huge amount of outrage. The lack of it signalled the media thought it was fair and that Kerry deserved it, which in and of itself gave the charges credibility.

Tim Russert was worse, demanding after the election that Kerry sign form 180 and questioning his Cambodia comments. Kerry was still the one on trial and, to my knowledge, Russert has said nothing since Kerry did release his records which contained exactly what Kerry said (and showed)they did in 2004. That this was demanded after the SBVT were caught in enough lies that they should have been totally rejected makes this unexcusable. Kerry did not deserve that. Russert had the nerve to demand that a respected US Senator, who has dealt honestly with everyone in his long public life, prove what the offical records always showed. The real challange is that Kerry can not force the media to be fair or honest about what happened and they may not treat him any better. The question is can people demand that the media play fair.

The problem with this Russert thing is that he is respected and he is signally that Kerry has to prove his honesty. Russert demanded less from the SBVT, implicitly initially giving them the benefit of the "doubt". Kerry has jumped through every hoop, but I don't see Russert accepting the truth or apololgizing to Kerry.

[whometense]

13. An excellent question.

And one I think about every single day.

Thanks for mentioning Dean. What people fail to realize/accept is that if Kerry had ranted about how unfair the media was (either in 2004 or on Stephanie's show) he would have been characterized as a whiner. People hate a whiner. That's why there is such a huge need for a unified democratic voice on this subject, even if they can't agree on anything else.

But Biden and Hillary and some others are so obsessed with cultivating the media for their own ends that they insist on sucking up, subverting the message, and will inevitably be surprised by how little benefit their sucking up reaps them in the end.

I wish I knew the answer. One answer is the internet echo chamber - the hue and cry from "the blogs" has forced some coverage of issues the MSM preferred to ignore. I donate to FAIR and Media Matters because I feel like they're making a really useful effort. Countering every lie we see out there with facts feels like spitting into the wind, but I guess it's something.

In 2004 I waited and waited for the MSM to come around. They didn't. I waited and waited for democrats to jump into the fray and fight like hell for Kerry. With a few exceptions, they didn't. And, most idiotically of all, I waited and waited for "republicans of conscience" to stand up and say "Enough." Obviously, they didn't either. All this leaves me with a sense that it's somehow up to us (no institutional support) and that my money goes ONLY to places that walk the straight and narrow path of truth - right now that's a few nonprofits and Kerry.

[ProSense]

16. (Edited) People can try

to hold the media accountable, but that's an enormous task. I slightly remember the impact of an early 1970s boycott of New York Daily News (imagine if the public decided not to buy a major newspaper or watch a network for a day or two!).

Then, there is the self-preservation problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1185472&mesg_id=1185472


The MSM will ultimately find a way to protect it's interest. It's similar to the Net Neutrality issue, where the telecos are funding an ad against the effort disguised as a grassroots initiative (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/12/142846/419 - and a lot of left blogs have the ad posted).

Enter certain Democrats/liberals (across the political landscape) who know that by making any off-the-wall assertion about Kerry (mostly, but others too) will almost guarantee MSM coverage. If only the MSM would pick up Kerry's own statements or cover his events with such impetus.

No matter how effective alternative media is, it simply isn't enough to overcome wide-scale complicity by the main stream media. If only 10% to 20% of the voting public relies on the MSM for objectivity, then 12 million to 24 million people were affected, confused, misled. Kerry only need to attract (take away from Bush) 1.5% (1.8 million votes) from the overall vote to win. That's the other issue covered up -- how close this election actually was (or Bush poor showing, even as a war-time incumbent):

In the last two campaigns, the parties divided the electoral map almost exactly in half. In 2000, George W. Bush won the second-narrowest Electoral College victory since 1800. In 2004, Bush won a smaller share of Electoral College votes than any reelected president except Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook7may07,1,3221992.column?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Edited to add: The task of holding the media accountable is enormous only because it requires a concerted effort on the part of the public. Sinclair Broadcast and Clear Channel come to mind, decent outrage, but it would have to really impact the company's bottomline to really effect change (as opposed to appeasement).

[whometense]

15. Another relevant quote

from the Daily Howler (who is far too Gore-obsessed for my taste, and far too kind to McCain as well, but is correct here, IMHO.)

Let’s return to that term here—script-blindness. Yes, Cohen challenged McCain to explain his stand on the war in Iraq (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/16/06). But Cohen did something else in his piece—he recited the press corps’ fundamental script about Saint McCain, the fawning script which will send McCain to the White House if it isn’t effectively challenged (starting now). What did Cohen do in this piece? He praised McCain’s “stunning” character traits (along with his humor, his modesty, his honesty and his decency). He said McCain’s campaign bus, the“Straight Talk Express,” had been “aptly-named.” And he seemed to say that McCain has “always talk plainly and candidly to the American people.” While we think McCain is a perfectly decent sort, these are the childish, hyperbolic claims the solon is planning to ride to the White House. The press has recited these childish claims for years—and we liberals still can’t spot this script as the source of our coming problem. Indeed, we praise a column which extends this script, without saying one word about it.

In 1999 and 2000, the press corps invented a Demon Liar named Gore (inventing his “lies,” since he wouldn’t tell any). Now, they’ve invented a Saint named McCain—and Matt and Ezra still don’t see the pattern. In early 2004, we were surprised when liberal writers failed to react to the gathering pieces of spin which eventually took down the Kerry campaign (by paving the way for the Swift Boat attacks). But in the case of the sainted McCain, how obvious (and foolish) must a script be before liberals are willing to stand and confront it? As far as we know, McCain is a perfectly decent guy—but he isn’t the Sun God returned to the earth, and a long string of major Dem figures are perfectly decent people too, every bit as decent as McCain. (More—much more—to come on this topic.) But so what? A childish press corps keeps calling him saint—and script-blind liberals across the spectrum seem unable to spot this.

[MH1]

17. "the gathering pieces of spin" - which included new Dem Saint Webb

I wonder when Democrats who support him will wake up and realize they've been had?

(I just saw another pro-Webb post on GD and had to ignore it before my stress level got too high.)

On McCain, that's a good assessment. Except the part, "As far as we know, McCain is a perfectly decent guy" - now that he's consorting with the fundies and the swifties, calling him "a decent guy" even seems a stretch.

[beachmom]

18. Um, well, um, actually . . . Kerry met with Webb

Did you see this:

Per Mass:


Apparently, Kerry and Webb met last Friday (it was in the WaPo), and I do not think he is a man who lets personnal issues go ahead of winning. They may not campaign together because apparently, Kerry is too left wing for VA (that was Kaine's view at least), but I dont think he will stay uninvolved. Allen's seat is too important.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...



And on Friday, Webb had a private meeting with the party's 2004 presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry.

[MH1]

19. Well that's good to know.

Link doesn't work though.

I still think Webb is a potential DINO. Just reading what he wrote on Vietnam, plus the fact that the people pumping him on dailykos are people I never saw there before they started pumping up Webb.

Also, what Webb wrote about Kerry is, unfortunately, not just "personal". We are all suffering the effects of what the swift liars did and there is no doubt in my mind that Webb enabled them. In fact he is still associated with Carlton Sherwood, who is suing Kerry.

If Kerry is trying to work with Webb, that is probably necessary and maybe good, because it seems Webb is "anointed." But that doesn't mean I automatically like Webb any better. I might back off bitching about him though, if I know he and Kerry have settled things. But I don't understand how that can be, with the Sherwood business. Maybe Webb really isn't part of it - but then he should publicly denounce it. And based on his own writings, I think he won't. I sure won't be holding my breath.

I guess it comes down to, I just don't know. I have a lot of respect for Kerry if he is turning the other cheek though, because that is what it is.

[beachmom]

20. Sorry, I copied wrong. Here is the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051301005.html

Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada and six other current and former senators, including former Democratic National Committee chairman Christopher J. Dodd, a senator from Connecticut, broke the usual primary neutrality to offer their support. And on Friday, Webb had a private meeting with the party's 2004 presidential nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry.

Even before this happened, I cooled on the fight against Webb. I realized that Kerry had said nothing about the race, and as someone who usually blogs to help Kerry out, I didn't want ANYONE to get the impression that my outrage about Webb's remarks had anything to do with Kerry's views on Webb for which I knew nothing. In light of this meeting, I feel that my commenting on the Paul Hackett thread on dKos and on one other thread on GD here is sufficient to get the word out on his words from 2004 and before that. Plus, I felt like a broken record after a while -- I was literally a one issue person, not knowing a whole lot about Miller. Still, I'm voting for Miller in June, and for the Dem in November.

Edited to add: if those kooky Bushbots can say "Jesus is in the White House", then I think turning the other cheek to what Webb has said makes our guy even MORE of a JC figure, wouldn't you say?

[ProSense]

21. I wonder if Webb

is backing down from his position. Some of the info at this link current (indicating that the site has been updated):

Converted from Republican; supported Robb & Kerry

Yes, James Webb used to be a Republican, but now, like many disillusioned veterans and pragmatic former-Republicans, he's a Democrat.

In 1994, Webb strongly endorsed and defended Chuck Robb against Ollie North's scurrilous attacks.

In 2004, Webb condemned the "Swift Boat" attacks against Presidential Candidate John Kerry.

Source: Draft Webb website, www.draftjameswebb.com Jan 3, 2006

http://www.issues2000.org/Social/James_Webb_Principles_+_Values.htm

The source is not his campaign site though. I wonder if he feels any regret for the stupid RW crap he spewed?

[karynnj]

22. He might - I don't like that he is lying though

Although this is not his web site, the 2004 statement does not seem to be true unless there is something else he said at some point. I strongly dislike that he (or people around him) are lying. I wish he had defended Kerry in 2004, it would have meant something if he condemned it in 2004. Condemning it in 2006 counts for nothing. The fact is that rather than condemning the attacks, he participated in a mild form of them. This makes it not a little fib, but its 180 degrees off. If I were Miller, I'd call him on it.

If he is saying that now because he regrets what he spewed, he should honestly appologize and take back what he said instead. It's significant that he still had it on his web site relatively recently. This leaves me thinking that he regrets it only because it could hurt him in the primary. I suspect that polling may have showed the trashing hurt him.

Another question is would he actively defend John Kerry if Kerry were attacked again.

[blm]

23. Keeping this kicked for reference.

.