Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why I don't expect big name Dems and Dem pundits to push the RFK article.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 04:12 PM
Original message
Why I don't expect big name Dems and Dem pundits to push the RFK article.
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 04:37 PM by blm
Because it goes against everything THEY have been selling for the last couple decades - their EXPENSIVE services.

There is ALOT of money to be made in consulting for strategists. These strategists often double as pundits and spokespeople for the Dem party and get most of the allowed airtime from the media.

Except they make their living telling Dem lawmakers and politicians what THEY say they are doing WRONG and what THEY think NEEDS to be done and said to get elected.

Gore won - yet there were so many mewling about what they think he did wrong. Kennedy's article proves Kerry CLOBBERED Bush and Bush had to go to great lengths to suppress votes, purge voter rolls and rig machines all over the country to stay in power.

But, that's never been the storyline that makes money for Dem party strategists and pundits. No - it's CRUCIAL to their paychecks to paint Kerry as an out of touch loser who should have listened to them. Only by stressing MISTAKES and EXAGGERATING those mistakes' impact on the race, do they frighten the next crop of contenders and party elders into paying BIG MONEY for their services and thereby controlling the Dem message which they want to move rightward.

If the voting machines were banned state by state and Dems get a square count, Dems will be victorious because the Dem priorities and issues are the right ones for most Americans and always have been - and the consultant and strategist business would shrink to its appropriate size and role within the party.

Just my 2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ok - make that 4 cents
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Actually, 3 of those cents went to bush.
the other one was scrubbed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. hah.... I just saw this.... yep - THAT'S the real problem, isn't it?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. good point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick and nominating n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, Elected Democrats Think THEY Would Have Won That Race
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 06:41 PM by cryingshame
of course it wasn't fraud or theft. Democrat X just ran a lousy campaign.

And it is not just elected Dems and strategists.

Many, many Dean supporters attacked Kerry the night of the POTUS election and said DEAN would have won. They just bought the lie Kerry lost and ignored the early threads tracking malfeasance inOhio and elsewheres.

So let's not just dump on the Consultant people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. heh... well, I always hope people will see themselves on that score and
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 06:51 PM by blm
make their own personal adjustment.

;)

BTW, I recall that Bill Clinton said that post 9-11 he doubted he could win in 2004 if he was running for the first time. I think they all KNOW they couldn't have done better, but their egos and their supporters insist that they could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Not to dump on all those geniuses in the DLC or anything, but
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 06:49 PM by Steve_DeShazer
Oh, what the hell. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. YES! YES! YES! We *all* must STOP dissecting past campaigns and
accusing Dems of making dumb campaign decisions or having defective personalities when they actually WON. Could they have made better decisions? Maybe. But they WON and if we force the winners into the offices they won then everyone would be Wednesday-morning quarterbacking in an entirely different way.

The key issues are this:

What DO we do in a democracy when we know election fraud is in progress?

What is the responsibility of candidates to be educated and have a strategy to inhibit, detect, and fight back against fraud?

What is the responsibility of citizens to be educated and have a strategy to inhibit, detect, and fight back against fraud?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Dems need to say we were right and we are STILL right.
Instead, the pundits want to move the platform right, while others complain it needs to move left. I say the Dem platform the last two elections were the best platforms any party could have and STILL be a true BIG TENT party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes, no more navel-gazing please. We already have winning "strategies"
Getting the job done should be the only strategy. Economy, healthcare, infrastructure, foreign policy, etc,. Either an administration is failing, or it is not.

Until we have transparent, verifiable voting systems all the paid yak is just so much pissing in the wind.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoody Boo Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Wait! We already have winning strategies?
Making Gay Marriage an issue when it can't even pass in a blue state was a winning strategy? Selecting a nominee who could not win the South even if he whistled Dixe and hoisted a Confederate Flag was a winning strategy? Ignoring the Swiftboat Vets was a winning strategy?

With winning strategies like, it all came down to winning the electoral votes of a single state to take the Whitehouse?

I hope there is not anyone claiming that there was massive election fraud across the South, because, in reality, there doesn't have to be when the "winning strategies" lose the South for us before the campaigns even get going in earnest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Like I said, policies are what will win a race.
republicans are losing the south. Approval of Bush and his policies continue to drop in southern states.

Some are learning the meaning of "voting against their own interests", voting for their own self-destruction, really. They're learning it in the hardest way possible.

They may not vote for a democrat, but chances are good that they may not vote at all.

We won the past two presidential elections. And somehow, that included the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoody Boo Donating Member (634 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Republican Numbers...
along with the President's numbers are dropping in the south because they are seen as not conservative enough.

It is a big mistake to assume that this will translate into converts to our side with no effort from us. We relied on Bush disapproval once already and all we got for our efforts was four more years of Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No mistake. Just a crime. Democrats won the past two elections.
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 08:19 PM by Kurovski
You're a little wrapped up in Republican thought processes.

Like I said, those people you mention will NOT VOTE at all. If the Repubs aren't extremist enough, the people you speak of will remain at home, and carp about how wicked the world is like they always do. Rove has agonized for years over grabbing those folks by the neck.

The repubs today are not conservative. They are extremist. They are corrupt. they are criminal. Real conservatives bid sad farewell to the Republican Party. It's because the Republican Party is EXTREMIST.

And, as you state, some of the real extremist voters think Republicans are not extreme enough.

The Republicans are in a great big shit-can. Their only option is to steal elections. They saw that coming and prepared quite well for that.

EDIT: And Republicans have failed the American people in everything they have done. Not suprising considering the fact that they're extremist criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. NC was stolen. And there were counters to the swifts - media would not
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 08:54 PM by blm
show up or cover them - check out the Research Forum - the data is all there - chronologically, too.

You can get the proper links on the Research Forum thread.

Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response

Edited on Mon May-29-06 01:05 PM by ProSense

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...



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
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?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518



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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Thanks for posting all the info, blm.
Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Unfortunately many DUers push media perception and ignore facts.
That's a great weakness for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Wanna bet there's no BIG MONEY TO BE MADE in paper ballots?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. Maybe we can get Weyerhaeuser behind a paper ballot movement?
Just a little joke there.

No, no money to be made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Georgia-Pacific?? Yeah - you're right - they make more profit from GOP
lawmakers deregulating their industry, keeping workers' pay low, and giving them extra tax breaks.

The paper companies aren't interested in fair vote counts for Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomreedtoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. This may be the major (but not only) problem the party has.
I'm starting to suspect that the consultants and campaign managers have been the ones deluding the candidates into the wimpy, cowardly campaigns of the last two elections. That doesn't absolve Gore or Kerry for their own actions - in the final analysis it's their campaign - but these clowns don't help.

There are other problems in the party, IMHO - the influence of the DLC, dragging their feet about the voting machines and media ownership, and several others - but certainly these guys who were hired even though they lost time after time are a big part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. They were MADE part of the entire Dem infrastructure. Clinton made it so.
Edited on Sat Jun-03-06 10:10 AM by blm
By 2000 and 2004, the DNC was what Clinton made it to be. It was his people who were part of every aspect of it - and why the Dem party infrastructures of every crucial state were left to collapse after 1996 is a great mystery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sadly, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. Really almost as bad
as Republicans voting against their own self-interests.

You intimate Kerry won bigger than Gore, but Gore won by more than 500,000 votes that were counted, not to mention those lost to the various shenanigans (OK, I realize you are a Kerry fan and I a Gore fan, but that is still my impression), yet Gore seemed to fight more vigorously. That is perhaps because the Republicans cheated with a bigger margin in 2004 to dilute the CTs.

Still I think it's an unwillingness to subscribe to what might be construed as a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, giving further credence to Joseph Goebbels' "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

It's a crying shame.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Gore didn't have the electronic machines switching his votes to Bush.
Edited on Sat Jun-03-06 08:56 AM by blm
I made my assessment according to the ARTICLE - Kerry would have beate Bush by 3-5%.

No one who KNOWS Gore believes he would have fought the election if he was perceived to have lost the popular vote by 3 million. He was within 1500 votes in Florida, with the benefit of public perception that he also won the popular vote and THAT is why he wanted those 4 counties recounted.

How can peoiple even ASSUME that there is any similarity whatsoever? There isn't. You all compare two entirely different scenarios and ASSUME Gore would have acted differently.

If Gore was HALF the fighter you all think, then why didn't he spend the next four years strengthening the Dem party's election protection for 2004? He didn't. And the DNC didn't. The Dem party heads didn't. Kerry became the nominee in June 2004, and everyone on DU believes it was his job to play catch up and cover all the jobs the Dem party left UNDONE for the 3 and a half yeras prior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Gore faced his own brand of voter fraud.
Edited on Sat Jun-03-06 12:43 PM by AtomicKitten
There was the massive purging of voters in Florida and the ballot debacle. Black Box voting reared its ugly head in 2000; even I wrote extensively on that. When Junior was coming up short, Republican operatives scooped up military votes from overseas, late and after the fact, and brow-beat America into breaking the law and counting them anyway. There was a myriad of fraud techniques in 2000; perhaps you don't remember or don't know, or want to think Kerry was somehow screwed more than Gore; whatever. Guess what? They were both screwed, and so was America.

To this day, Kerry's own words that he didn't believe there was substantial fraud in Ohio haunt him and thereby us. Every time a piece surfaces on voter fraud, we are remined of Kerry's own words, thrown back in our faces as a rebuttal. Feh.

This is unfortunately a pissing contest between us because we support different candidates. People choose up sides here on DU based on that, and IMO that's nonsense.

I won't broach this subject again with you because you clearly take partisan support personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. That's NOT what I said at ALL. I know EVERY vote fraud problem Gore had -
and I only said that Kerry had the ADDED problem of machine fraud. Why argue a point that was NEVER made?

I suggest you start OVER with the post and read it the way it was written. You can avoid arguments by not adding factors that are not present in other people's posts. See - no pissing contest.

The post was never about Gore and Kerry's totals or who was screwed most - it was about the fact that consultants MISDIRECT the attention AWAY from election fraud problems because it doesn't pay their mortgagaes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. The nearest thing we have to an accurate vote estimate for 04
is the Edison-Mitofsky exit poll and it has Kerry winning by about 3%, which agrees with other estimates based on other premises.

And I agree totally with a lot of the posts on this thread. We need to quit bad-mouthing Kerry and Gore for their campaigning or anything else. they WON and Kerry won pretty big, almost a landslide.

It's coming. Eventually, the truth will out. Notice when people discuss the RFK article or the Mark Crispin Miller book or the Steve Freeman book which will be coming out in a few weeks, none of them will dispute the facts. They'll say, well if this is true why doesn't Kerry say something about it? Or they'll find some other detail that is irrelevant to the major points and then smear somebody or use a loaded phrase like crackpot or conspiracy theory or such.

The facts are there and they're not going to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Thanks - you totally GOT the point of the thread. The media gets Dems to
treat their leaders like losers and there are far too many joining them and using the perception to take the party further right and line their own pockets with their Bullshit ADVICE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
20. threadjack!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2659744


not much is going to change if you don't know what is in the wind.
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
22. a prediction . . . first Democractic presidential candidate to run . . .
WITHOUT paid consultants and WITHOUT corporate money WINS . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
31. I agree. We won the last 2 elections. But we NEED to stand up against the
election fraud. It is more and more prevalent. It is not going away without a huge fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-03-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. After Kerry saw the RS article he said we need to BAN electronic voting
state by state. I hope this IS the start of making it happen. The articxle may bring more lawmakers around to the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-04-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
35. Kick(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC