John Kerry: "The Liars are back, It's time to finish them off"

[book_worm]

Kerry's latest e-mail:


Pick up the New York Times this morning and read the headline: "Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat."

Yes, Jerome Corsi, the right wing fringe author who made his bones smearing the Catholic Church and lying about my military record, is back atop the best seller list with an anti-Obama book chock full of lies.

If your blood isn't boiling yet, read this: "This is a fact: Today Barack Obama is subject to what is probably the greatest concentrated attacks of smears, lies and innuendo in the lifetime of anyone who reads these words."

Those are the words of Brent Budowsky in Editor and Publisher. He knows what he's talking about.

And it's not just Barack: up and down the ticket and all across the country, the rightwing smear machine is ramping up attacks on Democrats.


We've seen this movie before. The Republicans, without ideas, start running a negative campaign filled with personal attacks and misleading ads. The attacks get condemned, but they get lots of attention and get played on TV endlessly.

We've got to fight every way we can. I'm going on television and the radio pushing back every chance I get - just like I did on MSNBC a few days go - but I need your help.

Click here to watch that clip on MSNBC and sign up to our new, grassroots project to beat back the rightwing machine wherever it operates!

[demokatgurrl]

1. I love John Kerry

I know many didn't agree but I thought he was one tough dude, and yet the repukes were able to paint him as a girly-boy and Bush as macho.

[MBS]

19. he IS a tough dude, and his gutsy behavior

since his so-called "defeat" (not) in 2004 just reinforces the point.

[YvonneCa]

24. ...

... ;) :hi:

[bertman]

76. When you concede to your opponent without a fight it's not a "so-called defeat". It's just defeat.

Before you get all bent, I supported John Kerry, sent his campaign money, and electioneered for him. I'm a fellow Vietnam vet and think Kerry is one brave and patriotic American.

But, I was then, and still am, very unhappy with his hasty concession to Bush in '04.

Nuff said about that.

This is a good thing he is doing here.

[blm]

91. slowest concession in history.....

Gore conceded election night when he believed he was 50,000 votes behind Bush in Florida - then the math changed for him and he UNCONCEDED. Kerry conceded the next morning when the math showed a 137,000 vote deficit with no possibility of changing to favor him. And McAuliffe's failed stewardship of the DNC and Ohio's collapsed Dem party assured there would be no legal evidence for Kerry to access to make a legal case.

[YvonneCa]

23. Amazing...

...isn't it? And the media helped.

[snake in the grass]

73. John Kerry

While I really agree with his voting record and respect what he did when he returned from Vietnam, I have no respect for him as a Democratic politician. John Kerry talked the talk at the convention (...reporting for duty.) but went AWOL when it counted. Not only did he not defend himself, choosing to take the 'high road', but he could have contested Ohio yet decided to concede that same night with millions still in his campaign fund. Hell, the Boy King was already in bed that evening, so Kerry had to call again the next day to concede. I can't think of this without getting physically ill and now he wants to give Obama advice? John Kerry, a good man with a good heart, who bitterly let us and the world down by electing to roll over without a fight in 2004. For this I cannot forgive him and I would prefer he go away until after the election and keep his mouth shut.

[bertman]

77. well-stated, snake.

[ProSense]

78. You are

wrong.

I'll never forget the detractors when Kerry endorsed Obama. He continues to be Obama's best surrogate this election season.

[snake in the grass]

82. John Kerry again...

Your examples clearly demonstrate my point. Look at when he decided to question the results. It was long after the fact. I have to ask what good that will do? Will Bush say "my bad" and clear out of the White House? No, the time to fight was during the campaign, leading up to the election and the real trench warfare should have taken place immediately thereafter. Filing some paperwork and pissing and moaning about how unfair the Republicans are months or years after the fact is simply a joke without a punchline. That's what makes him now look ridiculous giving Obama advice on how to win. Kerry was the loser because he chose not to fight. He let Bush steal it again and that is unforgivable. Kerry had his chance, the odds were for him, the nation and the world wanted him, exit polls confirmed him and with all that backing, he folded like a coward. It sickens me to this day.

[ProSense]

83. No they do not "clearly" demonstrate your point.

They don't remotely demonstrate your point. "Long after the fact"? Your characterization of "filing some paperwork and pissing and moaning" and "he folded like a coward" is telling.

Nothing you say about Kerry resembles reality. He is out there speaking out against McCain and defending Obama as one of his best surrogate.

[snake in the grass]

86. John Kerry part 3

What is telling about my characterization? Not one damn thing. It sounds almost as though you are trying to insinuate something but I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it is great that he supports Obama, just as we all should if we hope to finally be rid of this Republican nightmare. That he supports Obama vociferously doesn't change the fact that a) he did fold without a fight after promising to insure each vote was counted and b) the best he could do was exactly what I said, namely file some complaints long after the fact, and piss and moan. Let me ask you this: Has his efforts to bring to light the fraud of 2004 amounted to anything? Are we on our way to healing the rift that Bush caused? And: Why did he concede so quickly without a fight, letting us down and allowing 4 more years of unspeakable crimes to take place? Power is not given to you, my friend. You have to take it. This is a concept that many Democrats don't want to recognize but that is how it's done. We don't have to sink to the lowest common denominator or go after the low hanging fruit. We just have to open our mouths and sink EVERY cheap shot the Republicans throw at us(Obama: "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - That was beautiful!). The voters had Kerry's back and all he had to do was step up and take it from Bush but, instead, he allowed President Flatline to keep it and in doing so...well, you know the rest. Whatever he's doing now, no matter how noble, doesn't change that fact.

[snake in the grass]

87. late edit after vista breakdown

I meant 'ensure' not 'insure'. Sorry and ash upon my head.

[karynnj]

93. All of us wanted Kerry as President as much as you did

but the facts are as the Democratic lawyers said on the day after the election when Kerry conceded. There were not enough outstanding votes for Kerry to win Ohio. That was a correct assessment. After the provisional ballots were counted Kerry was still about 59,000 votes behind. There was no real hope a recount would change this. In Gore's case, it was 537 votes and there were problems with hanging chads that did lead to many ballots being counted for Gore. That was not the case in 2004.

The fact is that Kerry's was the second SLOWEST concession - and that most concessions occur when the result is clear, before the last votes are counted. That's why the later numbers and % are different than the election eve numbers. As we learned in 2000, the military vote can take up to a week after the election to come in.

Even now, almost 4 years later there is still not the type of proof of election fraud that could be taken to court. There was no law that said you needed adequate machines, though Kerry and Feingold wrote and introduced legislation in 2006 that would have required paper ballots to be counted as regular votes in that case. It went nowhere.

[Enthusiast]

104. Bullshit! The proof was covered up.

Kerry won in Ohio!

[blm]

110. Yes, Kerry won, but McAuliffe's refusal to secure election process for 4yrs ASSURED there'd be no

legal evidence for any nominee to access to make a case in court.

THAT is what many do not understand about election fraud and how the RNC and GOP officials were allowed for four years to gain control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

[karynnj]

153. Did you personally have proof - and did you give it to Kerry?

The problem is they would have needed clear cut proof that he had more votes legitimately cast than Bush did.

[ProSense]

114. What utter crap.

That he supports Obama vociferously doesn't change the fact...Whatever he's doing now, no matter how noble, doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, but your whole reason for bringing up 2004 is to say what: "and now he wants to give Obama advice.?"


Well, you're late, he is. This post is about fighting smear, and you're arguing the stolen election.

What BS.

[snake in the grass]

141. John Kerry 4

I must assume you had a long night or you are a bit under the weather today because despite the fact that I underpinned my statement with a simple example, you seem to have a problem understanding me. Take a deep breath and relax. I am not arguing the stolen election and you know that full well. I used the election, or rather the way Kerry dealt with it, to illustrate how important it is to fight the smears; something Kerry refused to do. Instead, Kerry let that turd Rove walk all over him and it is impossible for me to respect someone like that. Not only did Kerry stretch out his neck but he handed them the knife as well. The time for being nice is over. It's time for the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs and that's not going to happen until our leaders and we face the fact that you can't fight a pig without getting dirty. I heard on the radio this morning on my way home that Kerry wants to help Obama because he is an 'expert' on swift-boating and I had to roll my eyes. He is an expert on letting the Republicans pinch his ass over and over again. Seriously, who is he trying to fool? He fucking lost! Obama seems to know what he is doing at the moment and I hope he is ready to get dirty because this could be the last chance for us and they are going to come at him like a bat out of Hell, but if he needs advice on how to slaughter the pig he shouldn't turn to Kerry. He should ask Bill Clinton. He actually beat them. Twice.

[ProSense]

149. You have such a way with confusing spin.

I am not arguing the stolen election...Seriously, who is he trying to fool? He fucking lost!

When does the it become clear that "the election was stolen" and "he lost" doesn't make any sense?

He should ask Bill Clinton. He actually beat them. Twice.

Maybe Hillary should have asked Bill Clinton, wait...she did. How'd that work out?

Give it a rest, you're obviously bitter for some reason. Get. Over. It.

[snake in the grass]

152. I admit that I am bitter...

because I hate seeing the Democrats lose because they refuse to get their hands dirty. I am bitter that an idiot like Bush could take the election twice and there are more people voting for American Idol than for the fucking presidency. I am sick of a 'I'd rather we lose with honor' type of attitude. Telling someone to get over something like this is ridiculous. If a thief breaks into your house every night and steals your valuables are you going to just get over it? Will you sit on your couch in a dark living room waiting for him to arrive so you can just hand over the goods? That's what we do. These pig fluffers get everything they want and we look like the losers and I, for one, am sick of it. Are you not? Getting over something as monstrous as the last 8 years would require some serious drugs.

[blm]

99. Did Bush steal it or did the RNC steal it for him? Where was DNC's counter to vote theft for 4yrs

after 2000s theft? The election gets stolen in those 4yrs, not just on election night.

I think you don't understand the scope of election fraud.

[snake in the grass]

143. Election fraud..

I do understand the scope and you are right inasmuch that the fight had been going on the entire 4 years. Hell, it is going on now and it disturbs me that Diebold is still deciding, but that is another matter for another post. The time for trench warfare was election day, at the latest. Kerry promised to fight and he didn't. I regret that some take offense to me pointing that out.

Kerry wasn't my first choice at the time but I voted for him, I fought for him, I argued heatedly with my Republican relatives over him, and I was counting on him to stick to his word. In the end, for reasons alien to me, he accepted defeat and disappeared without a peep. That is until he started filing paperwork and publicly whining about how unfair the Republicans are. The point is, I don't think Obama needs Kerry's advice (support yes) on how to win. He's doing things differently. Obama is for me a fresh start. Kerry still stinks of unnecessary defeat.

[blm]

147. HAHAH...shows how much you know. Kerry's been behind Obama from the beginning and

over a year before the public endorsement. He put HIS national organization (minus the gawddawful Clinton loyalists) to work for Obama which is why he outorganized Clinton in so many states. Kerry's been his TOP personal advisor this entire time.

Listen - your beef is with McAuliffe and the Clinton loyalists who ran our party into the ground so that states like Ohio had no Dem party infrastructure in place to prevent a theft and produce legal evidence for Kerry to make a case in court.

He had the slowest concession in history and you only blaming him shows how little you know about how the RNC and GOP officials go about committing election fraud.

[Enthusiast]

102. Kerry won in Ohio.

Of this I have no doubt.

I would like Republicans to answer me. What kind of country do you want to live in? Do you actually want to live in a country where the votes of the citizens are ignored? This is not a democracy, it is a banana republic. The Bushs have a lot experience with banana republics.

[blm]

97. Your post is full of false claims. You shamefully repeat lies as if they were facts, and

obviously never BOTHERED to get the facts straight in the first place - because it's so much easier to accept the lies, isn't it?

DU has a Research Forum that gives a chronological rundown of the fight back that corporate media refused to show as they were completely complicit with GOP and the swifts throughout that entire election.

And Kerry's concession was the slowest in history and he had no choice about conceding because McAuliffe's stewardship of the DNC assured that there would be no legal evidence for Kerry and the Dem party election legal team to access as the GOP had spent four years gaining control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted, and McAuliffe and the state parties like Ohio sat on their hands for four years and let them do it.

Targeting Kerry with myths you hung your hat on is the lazy minded thing to do.

[snake in the grass]

144. you are right...

how narrow-minded of me. I must have imagined the last 4 years. Kerry fought every centimeter of the way. When the pig fluffers lied about him, he struck back twice as hard with the painful truth so that they soiled themselves. At the convention he exposed Bush for the brain dead anus with ears that he is. He impressed every shit kicker south of the Mason-Dixon line with his down-to-earth way of making a point that everyone understood, even the ones whose IQs are determined by the surrounding temperature or whose parents are siblings. When McAuliffe bucked he lit his ass up. Yes, he commanded authority. And that is why he is President.

Everything is peachy.

We are so happy and thankful.

Going to bed now after a long night shift.

It was a pleasure. Wish everyone, even Kerry, a nice day.

[blm]

150. Since you're too lazy to go to Research Forum and hang your hat on corpmedia revisionism.....

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...




(August 19, 2004 -- 01:26 PM EDT)

WELL, IT SEEMS there wasn't something in the air.

I didn't know the Kerry campaign was finally going to return fire today over this Swift Boat nonsense. But this morning, in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston, he responded squarely to the attacks. You can see complete text of the speech and the new response-ad they're running. But the key point is that he aimed his remarks at precisely the right target ...

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.
<...>


This is a good thing -- and not simply because Kerry has to respond to the president's surrogates who are trying (and, to an extent, succeeding) in damaging his candidacy with scurrilous and discredited attacks.

There is a meta-debate going on here, one that I'm not sure even the practitioners fully articulate to themselves and one that I'm painfully aware the victims don't fully understand.

Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

<…>

This meta-message behind the president's attacks on Kerry's war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

more



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

[Enthusiast]

98. Yeah, it was certainly not the 'high road'. nt

[oasis]

146. "help".??? Kerry should pony up part of the "attorney fund" that was never used to

contest the fraudulent 2004 election.

That'd help.

[blm]

148. false claim - Kerry was involved with three lawsuits in Ohio..... why do you pretend otherwise?

What happened to you?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. All key Democrats need to go in for the kill on McCain

now

Thanks John Kerry!

[merbex]

5. Yea, stop saying what great guy he is n/t

[MindMatter]

7. OK. But how?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. they could send out press releases

if they can't type they could write with a pen and there is always the telephone, email!

[iconicgnom]

74. 894 of 899. 894 of 899. Repeat after me: 894 of 899. That does not make for a good leader.

[drm604]

75. The problem is that a lot of right-wingers see high academic achievement as somehow suspect.

If you did good in school then you're an "elitist". If you were a low achiever then you're "one of the guys". It sounds insane, but it's true.

[iconicgnom]

84. Jeez, 894 of 899 is the bottom 0.7% !!

We get called "elitist" anyway!
Besides which, the Dems shouldn't be pandering to the lunatic fringe, they should be targeting the independent voter who pays little attention but isn't necessarily stupid. And the independent voter will understand what 894 of 899 means and it'll stick in people's minds because it's a bloody amazing low score. They'll listen to the fool and say "oh yah, that's why...."

[karynnj]

95. But in fairness, you need to consider the pool

In my area, one boy did get accepted to West Point. He was in the top 10 in a class of over 400 and I think my daughter said he was class President all 4 years.

McCain is clearly not stupid, the mistakes he makes in the middle and near east seem to stem from a disinterest in learning about other cultures and religions.

[merbex]

105. Do you even realize what you've done with this response???

You've eliminated a meme that can be used against McSame: he's stupid

Stupid when at Annapolis
Stupid now

All in the interest of being 'fair'

Consider this...

Do you think that if Obama graduated 4th from the bottom in his class the Republicans would refrain from using that because it isn't 'fair'?????

Please, I'm close to begging you.....

stop saying anything remotely nice about McSame from now until after Nov4th

[iconicgnom]

112. McCain didn't go to West Point.

He went to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis.

From wiki:
"Admissions requirements

To be admitted, candidates must be between seventeen and twenty-three years of age upon entrance, unmarried with no children, and of good moral character. The current process includes a college application, personality testing, standardized testing, and personal references. Candidates for admission must also undergo a physical aptitude test (the CFA or Candidate Fitness Assessment ) as well as a complete physical exam including a separate visual acuity test to be eligible for appointment. A medical waiver will automatically be sought on behalf of candidates with less than 20/20 vision, as well as a range of other injuries or illnesses. The physical aptitude test is most often administered by a high school physical education teacher or sports team coach.<37>"

Given these requirements I rather think that with his daddy and grandaddy for personal references McCain was a shoe in, even with a mediocre high school record.

[blogslut]

3. Get em, John

And when Obama becomes president - get them with the full force of the Senate. You got all the goods on them. Your time is coming.

[merbex]

4. If all he does is complain about the 'tactic' the Republicans are employing

he will be re-inforcing the 'democrats are wimps meme'

He needs to go after Corsi PERSONALLY

And Kerry needs to stop complimenting McSame

He needs to use the same tactics

[Inuca]

6. COMPLIMENTING McCain?!?!?!?

What on earth are you talking about?

[merbex]

11. He goes on MTP and essentially says what a great guy McSame is

and how he was someone Democrats could work with in the Senate

Kerry, Kerrey, and Feingold have all done that this summer

This has to stop

[ProSense]

13. He did no such thing

SEN. KERRY: No. What he was saying is they're trying to scare you. They're trying to scare the American people. And, believe me, I'm an expert on how they do that. They are engaged in character assassination, even John McCain's partner in a number of initiatives in the Senate, Russ Feingold, said yesterday, "They've decided they can't win on the issues, so now they're going to try to destroy his character." And that is exactly what this ad is calculated to do.

<...>

SEN. KERRY: No, he was talking--what he was talking about is this campaign to scare about the person, and that's what they do. They try to scare about the person. They try to attack the character. They can't win on health care. They can't win on the economy. Eighty-five percent of the people in the nation know the country's moving in the wrong direction. They can't win--in fact, and I want to take Joe on on this, he just said the question is, is he ready to lead? Barack Obama has proven that he has the right judgment. What people are electing here is a president who has the judgment to do what's right for America. Barack Obama is right about Iraq. Now George Bush, Prime Minister Maliki think we ought to set a deadline. He was right about Afghanistan. John McCain has been the slowest person to come to the question of Afghanistan and adding more troops. He was right about Pakistan, that we ought to have the ability to go in and take out a terrorist. And John McCain criticized him for taking that position. He's been right about North Korea and Iran and the notion that we ought to negotiate. Now the Bush administration is negotiating. The Bush administration has moved towards Barack Obama, not John McCain. And John McCain's judgment has been wrong, and it's dangerous for America.

MR. BROKAW: We're going to get to all those issues, but I also want to raise what a surrogate for Senator Obama had to say to my friend Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation." This is former General Wesley Clark talking about John McCain. He said, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." He described him as untested and untried. With all due respect, Senator Kerry, he could have been talking about your qualifications. You're a Vietnam veteran...

SEN. KERRY: Yeah, I, I don't agree. I don't agree with Wes Clark's comment. I think it was entirely inappropriate. I have nothing but enormous respect for John McCain's service. I had the privilege of standing with John McCain in the, in the cell in Hanoi when we visited there together, when we worked on the issue of Vietnam together. It was an emotional moment. I, I have awe for John McCain's experience as a prisoner of war, and he, and he does understand duty and service. But...

MR. BROKAW: But unless...

SEN. KERRY: But...

MR. BROKAW: Unless I missed it, though, Senator Obama has not specifically rebuked Wesley Clark's comments.

SEN. KERRY: Oh, I think they--I thought--I did, and others did, and I thought Obama had at the time. But here's what's important, Tom. Let's not get lost in this, you know--John McCain said this ought to be about big ideas. Medicare is about to implode. You know, John McCain has a health care plan that every expert has said does nothing for the people who have no health care.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Not true.

SEN. KERRY: It does nothing for the people that have no health care. It doesn't have a plan that's comprehensive to provide universal health care to all Americans. He doesn't--he's against the energy plan for tax credits for people in order to help them with the energy crisis today. Why? He just came out against this plan of the people in Congress on energy because he wants to protect Exxon.

<...>

SEN. KERRY: He has not changed--what he's prepared to do, Tom, is break America's gridlock by honoring a bipartisan effort if that is the only way to move us towards alternative and renewable fuels and, and, and an energy policy that's comprehensive. I think what you see in the response on this drilling is really the difference in how they might govern. Barack Obama doesn't want to drill offshore, doesn't believe it's the thing to do. There's a very--there's a four-state carefully circumscribed proposal in that, that, in that initiative that, that could conceivably allow some drilling. He doesn't want to do that. But if that's what gets us to the energy independence and to the other efforts, I think Joe Lieberman actually supports--now, he didn't support drilling. He's changed and moves in that direction. But here's the bottom line. Guess what? John McCain, out of hand, just rejected that proposal, telling The Wall Street Journal that it would result in raising taxes on the oil companies, on Exxon. ExxonMobil made $12 billion last quarter alone. No American corporation has ever made that much money in history, and John McCain wants to protect them.

link

Kerry: McCain is 'dangerous' for the country

[merbex]

16. You proved my point.....when McSame is questioning Obama's character

surrogates - of which John Kerry is one - should say NOTHING that can be taken as positive of McSame's character

When Kerry dissed Wes Clark statement in favor of Mcsame's service....Kerry made a huge mistake

[ProSense]

18. No, you proved my point. In fact, your response is not based on what Kerry said about McCain. Clark

not only said the same thing as Kerry did about McCain's service, but also offered more praise.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, OBAMA SUPPORTER: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voiced on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world but he hasn‘t held executive responsibility.

That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn‘t a war- time squadron. He hasn‘t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn‘t seen what it‘s like when diplomats come and say, “I don‘t know if we can get this point through or not. If you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle it publicly? He hasn‘t made those -

<...>

CLARK: Well, I honor John McCain‘s characters and I said in the show, he has been one of my heroes for a long time. I like John McCain. He‘s been over to my house and everything. This is about qualifications to be president. That‘s what this is about.

And, by the way, it‘s also a little bit about the nature of American politics today that a comment like this could be taken out of context the way it was and create such a hullabaloo. I think we ought to get back to the campaign.

But I want to make clear where I stand on honoring men and women and I don‘t care what their politics are, honoring men and women who serve our country. And I do.

<...>

ABRAMS: Let me read you from Bill Burton, the Obama campaign spokesperson, “As he said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain‘s service, and of course, he rejects yesterday‘s statement by General Clark.”

CLARK: Well, I agree with Senator Obama. I honor and respect John McCain‘s service as well and I think language of this type is—and this kind of discussion really shouldn‘t be part of the campaign.

more

[merbex]

20. Are you deliberately not seeing the message that those responses

give to the public?

That you can trust McSame?

While McSame ads are sowing distrust about Obama

A laundry list of programs or whining about the Mcsame ads achieves nothing because the American voter - not a partisan voter of which we here are partisan - are looking for the following things: that they can trust the person for whom they will vote, that they can believe in who that person is as he projects himself( ask John Edwards how that worked out) to the public,that he stands firmly for what he believes

McSame is actively trying to create doubt about Obama and Obama surrogates re-inforce the 'positive' about McSame

Kerry should immediately turn the subject or work to create doubt about McSame himself

He hasn't done this

[ProSense]

21. "John McCain's judgment has been wrong, and it's dangerous for America."

Are you deliberately missing that?

[merbex]

29. Okay, lets weigh the message....

"obama is a celebrity"

vs.

"McSame's judgement has been wrong"

Why do I, as a Democrat, have to get a Republican Senator's remarks about McSame with the quote which will get the emotional response that is needed to grab voters attention?

Thad Cochran R-MS ""The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Do you see the difference???

McCain's ad makes one pause and consider, Kerry's is boring and generic, and Cochran's is the one that grabs and holds the voters attention.

This is how democrats should be referencing Mcsame;let Obama saty 'above the fray' if you insist - I think he should be willing to push the envelope here but ALL Democratis surrogates should NEVER say one good thing about McSame from here till after Nov.

[ProSense]

31. You're really trying hard aren't you?

"obama is a celebrity"

vs.

"John McCain's judgment has been wrong, and it's dangerous for America."

McCain's ad makes one pause and consider, Kerry's is boring and generic

You cannot be serious?

McCain's ad was stupid, they're not working and people don't like him.

Maybe instead of parsing Kerry's comment you should stop giving McCain more credit than he deserves.

[merbex]

34. Did you ignore the swift boaters attack against Kerry or tell others

that 'no-one would or could possibly belive that'??

Look how well Kerry's strategy worked in 04

Please.

Check out the new most recent Pew Poll http://people-press.org/report/443/presidential-race-draws-even


Two factors appear to be at play in shifting voter sentiment. First, McCain is garnering more support from his base - including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants - than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period. Secondly and more generally, the Arizona senator has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done.

Conversely, Obama has made little progress in increasing his support among core Democrats since June - currently 83% favor him compared with 87% of Republicans who back McCain. The likely Democratic nominee is still getting relatively modest support from Hillary Clinton's former supporters: 72% of them support Obama, compared with the 88% support level that McCain receives from backers of his formal GOP rivals. Obama's strong points with voters are in being seen as the candidate with new ideas and as someone who connects well with ordinary people

Do yourself a favor:read George Lakoff's "Thinking Points" and Drew Westen's "Politial Brain"

[ProSense]

35. Ignore? Maybe it's you who

should understand the facts and then start focusing on 2008.

[merbex]

36. I understand now why you are defending Kerry's wimpy response

bemoaning the 'attack ads'

You think it's all the MSM's fault

What do you have against hitting back or even, I know this may be a shock to you... but even attack the political opponent first?

I have volunteered for enough elections to know what works and what doesn't

Your way we lose.

General elections are not primaries and thinking that Kerry's statement about McSame as well as Kerrey's and Feingold's help us is beyond naive...it's a recipe I have seen cooked every 4 years and it stinks when we lose

[ProSense]

51. No it's not all the MSM's fault. It's partly the fault of

the idiots who bought continue to take stock in everything they say. Also, who said anything about praising McCain helping us?

You're busy claiming McClown's idiotic ad trumped Kerry's repeated smack down of him, but what evidence do you have. McCain's ads aren't working. He's down in the polls against a less experienced opponent.

When you can produce evidence and show me elected Democrats who are consistently calling out McCain on his BS the way Kerry is, then we can continue this discussion.

[merbex]

55. What I'm saying is that you and Kerry and all the democrats who get on tv

and thinks it's ok to praise McSame, however slightly, does not help in any way achieve victory for Obama

Read Lakoff, Westen and Schaller, read any political science work that klooks at the past 30 years

People may say they don't like negative campaigning but there is a difference between negative and aggressive tagging of your opponent.

Obviously, you don't get that

What will convince you?

Another loss?

[The Wizard]

106. How about hitting back

with outrageous lies. Then it gets carried by the corporate media as news. It worked for the Swift Boat liars, but they had the cooperation of the corporate media.
Accuse McCane of being a raging homosexual and communist spy, of being a closet pedophile, a war criminal, a thief in league with the Bush cartel. Start calling him McKeating or McCunt.
Use the Pox News method of prefacing outlandish comments with "some people are saying" and framing things as questions like: "Would the voters care if they saw the pictures of John McCane tongue kissing Senator Larry Craig in an airport mens room?"
And when they're down, put a heel on the back of their necks. Hammer these assholes like flat head nails.
If we refuse to take off the gloves and beat the shit out of these talking butt plugs we will lose again.

[snake in the grass]

145. Praise Marduk!

You are right. That is why we lose. Democrats have a problem with confrontation for some reason. I suppose they don't want to step on someone else's toes or be perceived as rude. You know, work together to find a solution. Republicans of the brand 'pig fluffers' know this and use it to their advantage. They have no intention of working together but they will scream bloody murder if they don't get their way and, unfortunately, most Democratic office holders trip over their dicks to make them feel comfortable and end up giving them exactly what they want. Oh, there will be a little clause here or there so that they can say 'see, we did something', but make no mistake about it, they give in. Before 2006, they told us they couldn't get anything done because the swine had the majority. Now the swine are in the minority and they still get shit passed. How does that work? Bush is an obvious criminal but we let him pass. My only worry now is that when Obama takes office the Democrats will 'find their spines' and work against him. Well, that is if the swine let him in. I think they are shitting their diapers right now at the thought that a Democrat could wield the same power over them as President Hole-in-his-Head has the past 8 years. If the Democrats are seen as losers then they become losers. From here till November we must fight.

[karynnj]

40. Kerry's ad???? Do you mean Obama's

Frankly, I doubt many people paused and thought about the celebrity ad - if anything McCain seems jealous.

[merbex]

46. Check out the new Pew poll just out

McSame gets higher marks for 'leadership' because subliminally by putting Obama in an ad with Brittney and Paris he is sugessting that Obama is a 'lightweight" like Paris and Brittney.

Those are the emotions that the ad was designed to elicit and you have to stop thinking like a partisan and try to think like an ambivelent voter who must choose between a person who wants to be known as a 'maverick' and someone who stands for 'change'

McSame is tagging Obama

Is Obamam tagging McSame?????????????????

As what?

[Inuca]

47. McCain gets higher scores on leadership

because he has been in the Senate for ~25 years, because he has been involved in quite a few important initiatives, military record, press popularity for many years, etc. NOT because of a stupid ad.

[merbex]

50. And it's completely coincidental that this new poll, taken since that ad came out

essentially wipes out Obama's advantage in the previous Pew poll before the Paris Brittney celebrity ad?

Please

Keep drinking the koolaid, OR, start to pay attention to poll dates and significant happenings of the campaign - McSame's ad cycle the past almost 3 weeks is setting the stge for more to come and I can almost guarantee that every ad that re-inforces a 'tag' the Republicans want to give Obama will have an impact.

Are you afraid of aggressive ads initiated by Democrats that would tag McSame?????


Listen, if politicians could win by being the 'nice guy' they would.

But that isn't how you win.

You win by tagging the opponent as how you want the public to view him

[ProSense]

53. That's complete nonsense

There have been no major shifts in the polls, and in some Obama went up one.

[merbex]

60. Really? Explain the fiirst 4 paragraphs in the latest Pew poll

which came out today

http://people-press.org/report/443/presidential-race-draws-even

With less than two weeks to go before the start of the presidential nominating conventions, Barack Obama's lead over John McCain has disappeared. Pew's latest survey finds 46% of registered voters saying they favor or lean to the putative Democratic candidate, while 43% back his likely Republican rival. In late June, Obama held a comfortable 48%-to-40% margin over McCain, which narrowed in mid-July to 47% to 42%.

Two factors appear to be at play in shifting voter sentiment. First, McCain is garnering more support from his base - including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants - than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period. Secondly and more generally, the Arizona senator has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done.

Conversely, Obama has made little progress in increasing his support among core Democrats since June - currently 83% favor him compared with 87% of Republicans who back McCain. The likely Democratic nominee is still getting relatively modest support from Hillary Clinton's former supporters: 72% of them support Obama, compared with the 88% support level that McCain receives from backers of his formal GOP rivals. Obama's strong points with voters are in being seen as the candidate with new ideas and as someone who connects well with ordinary people.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, was conducted by telephone - both landline phones and cell phones - from July 31-August 10 among 2,414 registered voters. It finds that race, gender and age are strong drivers of support in a closely divided electorate. Almost nine-in-ten African American voters (88%) back Obama, while McCain leads 51% to 39% among whites. Since June, McCain has gained support among men who now favor him by a 49%-to-41% margin. In contrast, women favor Obama by a roughly comparable margin of 51% to 38%. The Democratic candidate holds a 24 percentage-point lead over his rival among voters younger than age 30, whereas voters over age 50 are more evenly split (47% McCain, 42% Obama).

[ProSense]

62. Here's what it doesn't say

"essentially wipes out Obama's advantage" (what you said).


It's one poll within the margin of error, nothing has changed.

[merbex]

65. You do realize that you should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges right?

This Pew poll can really only be accuratley compared to the last Pew poll

And in that comparison THEY say this:
'With less than two weeks to go before the start of the presidential nominating conventions, Barack Obama's lead over John McCain has disappeared. Pew's latest survey finds 46% of registered voters saying they favor or lean to the putative Democratic candidate, while 43% back his likely Republican rival. In late June, Obama held a comfortable 48%-to-40% margin over McCain, which narrowed in mid-July to 47% to 42%.'

You have to ask yourself what happened in that time period to cause that

Unless you like going around thinking everything is rosy

What happened was a barrage of ads launched by the McSame campaign which has questioned Barack Obama's perceived strength and his character and which has endeavored to tag Obama himself with a negative connotation

Butyou think we should just keep talking about "issues' and leave McSame alone to dsevelop the image that he wants to present to public about himself

We let him do that ...

We lose

[ProSense]

66. Stop quoting how it was written up, I can read the data myself. It's in the MoE and insignificant.

Poll shows people don't like McCain, but the headline reads "Poll: Trouble Signs in Obama's Lead"

[merbex]

90. deleted repeated post

[merbex]

92. deleted repeated post

[merbex]

94. You can read the words but does their meaning penetrate???

Your comprehension level is suspect

Either that or you just don't want to fight the way political science research says a campaign for President must be fought to win

[ProSense]

129. I can read spin and understand the difference between that and the data.

Can you?

Are you seriously trying to argue that although there has been no major shift in the data, I'm supposed to agree with Pew's spin?

[merbex]

137. The data clearly points out slippage by Obama and strengthening

by McSame

"Pew's latest survey finds 46% of registered voters saying they favor or lean to the putative Democratic candidate, while 43% back his likely Republican rival. In late June, Obama held a comfortable 48%-to-40% margin over McCain, which narrowed in mid-July to 47% to 42%."

And this all happened in a vacuum and you can point to nothing which happened in the past 30 days to cause this movement??

Wilfully ignorant and happy about it.

Poo-poohing it,....'it's only 2 points'....excuse me, Dukakis squandered an 18 pt lead which didn't evaporate overnight but it started just like this.

You are afraid to fight for this campaign on terms that will ensure victory.

Why?

Does it offend your sensibilities???

[ProSense]

140. "You are afraid to fight for this campaign on terms that will ensure victory."

What the hell are you talking about?

It's a poll. One poll. It isn't going to decide the election. Wake up!

Wake up!

[karynnj]

154. Prosense is right - a 2 point difference is WELL in the MOE

Now, if there were a series of polls all showing drops - you might have a point.

The fact is the campaign is doing what you state - though in a more subtle way. It was no accident that Kerry and others all spoke of McCain "confusing" the facts on Iraq and other international matters. Even the MTP you disagree with had Kerry saying POINT BLANK that McCain was running a dirty campaign. (He was even better with Kyl a few days earlier.) The fact is that the gentlemanly Kerry soberly calling McCain on running a dirty campaign labels McCain as dirty and mean - even though he does not use those words.

The main thing Kerry has argued is that McCain's positions take us in the wrong direction. That, not a character assassination is the Democrat's strongest case.

Here, Kerry is acting like he did in the primaries - he was willing to call Bill Clinton when he lied, but his main arguments were on why Obama would be a great President. Bill Clinton's actions were closer to what you recommend. I contend that Kerry's strong, but dignified words as a surrogate were far more helpful to Obama than Clinton's to his wife. That in spite of Clinton having far more power than Kerry from who he is.

[karynnj]

64. They are putting a lot of weight on a 2 point shift

in a poll that likely as an MOE as big as that. Incidentally, I did the calculation on percent Obama - not the difference between them - which would have a higher MOE. (Not to mention % Obama and % McCain are NOT independent.)

[merbex]

96. Go ahead, ignore a 2 point shift here, a 2 point shift 2 weeks later,

especially after the barrage of ads that started the decline -

pretty soon those 2 point shifts ad up

What do you have against aggressive campaigning which would define McSame in personal terms???????

Is it beneath you?

Do you think it doesn't work????

Do you disagree that most people vote for the person for POTUS and not because of issues?????

Yea, in my perfect world people vote based on serious issues.....but in reality they don't

Check all the studies that have been done the last 30 years

[karynnj]

155. The shift may not even be real

It is entirely possible that nothing changed and both these estimates reflect the identical situation. Have you taken a course in statistics. (disclaimer - I worked as a statistician for a major research company for 24 years.)

Should this be taken seriously? - of course, but the campaign is taking McCain's attacks seriously. But, you are over reacting to a change that is statistically insignificant.

[karynnj]

38. Kerry avoided stepping on the landmine, that Clark stepped on

Clark was backed into a comment that ignited a firestorm. Kerry was there as Obama's surrogate. Re-igniting the story that hurt Obama for a week, causing Obama to call Wes Clark's statement "inartful" would not be what the Obama campaign wants.

[merbex]

56. What don't you understand about minimizing your opponents perceived strengths?

Obama has 'inspired' millions.....therefore...

McSame is attacking that 'perceived strength' with some targetted pointed ads and the Pew poll shows that McSame has pulled even

When Clark questioned McSame's service and pointed out the lack of leadership in that service the other Democratic surrogates should have join in the chorus of the song Clark was singing.

You must tag your opponent....BTW, there are no lies involved in saying that the level of service that McSame achieved was pretty common and doesn't automatically translate to C-i-C material.

[karynnj]

61. Why because, like Clark, you think that

McCain was claiming leadership because of his service when young - just as he pointed out Kerry was just a lieutenant in 2004. McCain's leadership is from decades in the Senate.

(To eliminate partisanship, I think Kerry's leadership against the Vietnam war and his fight against Reagan's covert war in Central America and his leadership in fighting BCCI equal or best Clark's illustrious career. Clark in both cases misses that the Senators' services were used to make a case about their character and strength - not as the reason they are qualified to lead.)

The fact was that Clark's comments hurt. A week was spent on Clark dissed McCain's service - though that is not what he did. So, what did people take away from that week - MCCain as war hero.

[karynnj]

30. You absolutely missed at least 90% of what Kerry said

He spoke of how McCain was absolutely wrong on drilling for oil and Iraq. He did not say "he was a great guy". He said he respected his service and that he had gone with McCain in Vietnam to the place where he was a prisoner of war.

Kerry is not going to make a case that McCain is a bad person - he is making a case that he is wrong on every issue. NOW. Kerry spoke of how McCain had changed - there was a time when McCain DID work with Democrats.

[merbex]

37. You know what? Kerry and every other democrat who can get themselves on tv

DO have to make the case that McSame is a bad person:untrustworthy and inauthentic and if they can't do that they should stay the hell off tv

[karynnj]

42. You really have littlle sense of what will work

If major Democrats did what you said, all it would do is destroy whatever likability and credibility they have.

First of all, I doubt Kerry thinks McCain is untrustworthy or inauthentic - that's why he's said that his judgment is wrong - and if you think of it, he is saying that there are things McCain sincerely believes, but he is wrong on many important things.

Why attack the person who has most effectively protected Obama and hit McCain? Aren't there some other Senators and former Presidents you could comment on who have given McCain high praise - in this election cycle?

[merbex]

43. What works? What works is watching a 20 point lead evaporate

What works is tagging an image on democratic candidates while democrats 'stay above the fray'

What works is tagging your opponent with an image that makes it unpalatable for a voter to select him.

I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities....but all the research says that is what works

[karynnj]

59. Who had a 20 point lead - not Obama, not Kerry

I realize that negative campaigning can work --- but it can backfire as well. Who went negative in the primaries? Obama never really did - at different times Edwards and Clinton did - did they win?

There is also a difference between Democrats and Republicans. They start a smear - not with a high level politician, but someone seedy like Drudge - it is then echoed on EVERY radio and TV right wing show - and there are a lot of them - using nearly the same language. this leads to people hearing the same thing on different sources. This causes them to think it true. Meanwhile the candidate and top surrogates look like they have clean hands. Now, to protect themselves - even from valid charges, they have allies everywhere in the media. (ie Kerry starts to list issues where McCain's current position is night and day from his position of 5 or 6 years ago - and he was interrupted by Bob Schieffer, saying in a shocked tome, "Are you questioning his integrity?" Kerry quickly responded , "No, his judgment" and started to list things where McCain's judgment was wrong. Kerry succeeded in not giving them a useful sound bite. Or look at the whole Clark thing.

Now, look at the same things for Democrats. Assume that a Democrat was as unscrupulous, how would he start a smear. They can start it on a blog, in an email, with push polls etc, but how do we get the amplification they do. We can't. They have an already made talk radio and cable echo chamber. Then there is the MSM, how long before Obama would be called on to denounce it? OK, what about defense - as you can see McCain did not have to address either Kerry's or Clark's comments because Schieffer does it for him. Does that happen on the Democratic side? NO.

That is why to win we need to push the fight onto the ISSUES because we win there.

[merbex]

63. Dukakis had the 20 point lead( actually 18 I think to be completley accurate)

Who is talking about smears???????

You take a perceived strength and turn it into a negative

It isn't that hard to do .....McSame is a phoney SHOW HOW HE IS

What all partisan democrats must realize, and research backs this up, is that in General elections most people are voting for the person -not for issues.

Not fundamentally understanding that one thing is what costs us elections

[merbex]

45. One more thing:spend some bucks on Drew Westen's book "Political Brain"

it'll help you understand why we have lost too many elections since 1980

[VWolf]

10. Kerry didn't compliment Mc*

Kerrey (Bob) did.

[merbex]

12. Kerry, Kerrey and Feingold have all been to 'nice' about McSame this summer

this has to stop

[Inuca]

15. This is just not true

I don't know what KerrEy said, I know about Feingold's recent (?) comments, but Kerry has been anything but nice, unless by nice you mean polite + not attacking his service. Kerry has been consistently critical, very substantive criticism, and has been one of the best (maybe THE best) O surrogate out there.

[merbex]

17. Look, the McSame campaign is going after Obama's character

just like they did to Kerry.....

Have we learned NOTHING?????

Save NICE for after Nov.4th

Nice guys finish last

Ask Kerry, Gore, Dukakis

Now is the time to shed doubt about McSame's character because whether you realize or not that, that is the field that this game is played on

[karynnj]

32. Kerry is a gentleman, a statesman, and a serious legislator

He has acted with integrity and honor since he came into the public spotlight. I think his reasoned, fact based comments are much more effective than anything else. So, he is not YOUR kind of attack dog - and for that reason I respect him more.

Why not go after the people who praised McCain for what he is and does now - like HRC and Bill Clinton. Are you going to ask either of them to be your attack dog? Think of why you wouldn't ask them - and realize that Kerry has also earned his place as a respected party leader.

[merbex]

57. I like Kerry too and he is my Senator but that liking will be cold comfort

if we lose in Nov.

Hell, I like Dukakis and Gore and I hate that they lost..... we've had alomost 30 years to figure out what works and too many here thinks it benaeth them to use the tools to assure victory

I'm not even talking baout lying or dirty tricks

I'm talking about charcterizing McSame in human terms so that Joe and Jane public 'get'him:

immature 72 year old frat boy
vicious temper
phoney AND GIVE EXAMPLES

Stop talking about policy minutia

DEFINE MCSAME

That's how you win

[karynnj]

69. I agree that we need to win

I understand that you are not talking about lying or dirty tricks. i think Kerry would be the wrong messenger on McCain's temper, although he had to keep McCain from exploding when they worked together. Though McCain has told at least three stories about the 2004 Vp consideration and Kerry one, the fact is that if he were to speak of those days as an immediate disqualifier - he, not McCain, looks like the phony, which he isn't.

He has been doing a great job hitting him on the negative ads - I almost felt sorry for Kyl when they were paired to speak of them. He's also done a fantastic job, explaining why McCain is wrong on nearly everything he says about Iraq, Iran etc.

By the way, thank you and the rest of MA for sending Kennedy and Kerry to the Senate - in what has to be the strongest Democratic Senate delegation.

[cameozalaznick]

80. Merbex, I wish there were more like you...

In the Democratic party. I've got to give it to you for your effort in trying to convince these namby-pambys around here. You are absolutely right about definig one's aooponent. Another good book to read on the subject is "Take It Back" by Carville and Begala. I figured they were just going to talk about capitulating to Republicans and moving to the center and blah, blah, blah. But they really lay out a case for sticking to your guns.

You know, the republicans famously follow Reagan's 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." I think a collorary to that would be "Thou shalt not ever speak well of an opponent."

The rest of you who are arguing with merbex are wrong. Listen to him/her. This is the truth.

[merbex]

88. Thank you n/t

[karynnj]

101. Did Begala and Carville do what they preach here in 2004?

I didn't see it. I saw snarky attacks on Bush, which thrilled those already against Bush and irritated everyone else. I also saw them constantly speak of ABB. Now, ABX was always a primary concept, not a general election one. For instance, in 1992, I was not for Clinton but did not say I was ABB - I looked into Clinton and tried to find things to like and argued on those things. They simply whined that Kerry was not Clinton - which is true - Kerry doesn't lie.

[merbex]

107. "Snarky attacks on Bush' that offends you???????

My God, tI am close to speechless at your naivete

Oh and please show me where those 'irritated everyone else'

Run, don't walk, RUN and buy Drew Westen's book 'Political Brain' it will explain, in very readable form like a novel why we lost in 2004 and 2000 and even 1980

Are you even interested?

[blm]

113. I witnessed a different Carville - one protecting his war criminal wife and the Clinton legacy by

working against the 2004 nominee because Kerry is an open government Democrat who was also the lawmaker who exposed more government corruption of BushInc than any lawmaker in modern history. Clintons protected Poppy Bush and his cronies throughout the 90s and they didn't want that exposed, either.

TPM

From: The Coffee House
Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)
By M.J. Rosenberg - October 7, 2006, 9:11AM

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

>>>>>

[karynnj]

117. They did not offend me, but they also did not win people over

The problem was that if you did not already believe it, you weren't going to be won over by it. I do think that SERIOUS attacks on things Bush did worked. For example, Kerry's attacks on Bush not securing the KNOWN ammo dumps and his spelling out the consequences saying that that ammo was then in ieds that were killing or maiming "our kids" did connect and it drove the numbers until the OBL tape came out. I did not see Begala and Carville doing that - and if you remember neither did Jon Steward. They were more interested in entertaining. They and Michael Moore were why in polls more people thought Kerry went negative, than Bush.

The campaign needed to do two things - 1) define Kerry as a leader and 2) make a rational case against Bush. They helped very little in either. They hurt the first one by repeating constantly that Kerry was not listening to Clinton, who told him to avoid speaking of terrorism and Iraq because they were "Bush's issues" - ignoring that Kerry was the most prescient Senator on the danger of non-state terrorism. (Only now are people like Gates getting to where Kerry was in the late 1990s.) The fact is that Kerry did better when he gave the Iraq NYU speech and the U of P terrorism speech.

Can you give me one example where they helped Kerry by speaking of anything in his platform? Anything that he accomplished in the Senate? they were 2 of the most prominent Democrats on TV and the only person I heard them praise was WJC, who was not running.

Clinton, Begala, and Carville all seem to have bought their own mythology on 1992. The fact is that WJC beat a President at 33% approval. The vaunted "war room" often took as long as a week to get out something that was truthful. He had 4 stories on the draft issue alone - and he had to back down on things he denied. Kerry gave the media tons of proof on his service before the August attack. The media that hurt Kerry, helped Clinton - How many times was Bush throwing up in Asia mentioned?

By the way, where was Carville on election night?

By the way, I am not naive - I simply disagree on the effectiveness of what you suggest. I think, though, that

[merbex]

119. You are determined to believe that people respond to stuff that is in the 'platform'

What are you? A member of the losing Democratic consultant class that runs Democratic Presidential campaigns every 4 years?

Every single word in your response could have spilled out of the mouth of Bob Schrum......loser extrodinaire!

We will win by defining McSame the way we want the American public to view him.

If you think we win by getting people to memorize in intricate detail 'the platform' - Obama's I presume, or even McSame's -we will lose

What will convince you?

Another defeat???

Trust me, if we win it will be because of a human quality that the public either likes about Obama or dislikes about McSame....

That's how the vast majority of Americans decide for whom to vote

You may not

I may not

But all evidence says that is exactly how most people decide

[karynnj]

122. I'm not speaking of intricate detail

Why not speak of Kerry closing down OBL's bank - and that the techniques Jack Blum and he used were part of the way Kerry spoke against going after terrorists. This was pertinent to the biggest issue facing the country and Kerry had very major credentials here.

They never spoke of Kerry's alternative energy/environmental issues, which in the primaries were said to have been among the highest rated comments they had seen in any campaign. Yet both HRC, McCain and even the despicable T Bone Pickens have used Kerry's lines in their 2008 plans.

They didn't speak of his healthcare proposal or that he worked with Kennedy on the precursor bill to S-Chip and was an original co-sponsor. Note that Carville thought S-CHIP a big deal in 2008 when he was crediting HRC. Kerry had far more to do with it - though it was Kennedy's and Hatch's.

They could have helped Kerry get his message out, but they wasted their airtime.

If you think it was likability - then maybe they should have covered some of the stories mainly heard after the campaign that show Kerry as a pretty nice guy.

As to me, I have only volunteered and am certainly not at all connected to political consultants.

[merbex]

126. I don't mean to be insulting but I am astonished at your naivete

If you honestly care about winning to achieve all that seems to matter to you, and I can tell you care about the issues you raise, as do I, you must separate the partisan side of yourself from this and view those amongst us in the wider electorate who do not take such an active interest in policy, differently.

Because they are: different from partisans.

Please, I urge you to read Drew Westen's book "Political Brain'

What you respond to which is policy minutia( and I can tell you in great detail the differences all 8 Dem candidates had with one another at the start of this process) but what most people respond to is human qualities they discern in the candidate which they either favor or respond to negatively.

And I agree, I have met and interviewed Senator Kerry( I am an activist blogger) and he IS a nice guy. But they didn't talk about that in the campaign:they talked about his policies. They gave out a laundry list.

And they let the meme the Republicans tagged Kerry with to stand without fighting back. It isn't fighting back to complain and bitch and moan about how the other side is being 'mean'

You fight back by tagging the other guy with the human connotation you want them to think of.

So when Kerry is accused of being a liar and a coward essentially because they alleged he shot himself and he doesn't fight back vigorously from those charges he reinforces the wimp meme they are working at the same time.

I honestly do not understand why you do not see that.

Kerry should have responded immediately with fury because his honor was impugned AND he should have launched into an attack on Bush's service. Fight back.

Just get Westen's book.

I promise it will be the best $25 bucks you'll have spent this cycle.

[ProSense]

132. Are you getting a commission for pushing books? Here, free facts:

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).

Notice the gap?

More


Maybe you're the one who is naive to believe that Kerry's response to the Swift Liars was the only thing that allowed them maximum leverage. Ever heard of the media?

[merbex]

133. Didn't you notice that it wasn't John Kerry that showed outrage and fury

and righteous indignation about the lies told about him...his campaign put out a statement.

That was effective.

Not.

As far as commissions for books that quite clearly point out what went wrong for Democrats and more importantly to correct the losing streak giving great tips to WIN, I'd love them but I'm not getting any

You do know the definition of insanity don't you?

Keep doing the same thing over and over thinking you'll get a different result

Or in your case keep advocating doing the same thing over and over because you're positive we'll see a different result

[ProSense]

135. Speaking of comprehension:

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...

You: "his campaign put out a statement"


No one is advocating the nonsense you continue to inject into each post to escalate your bogus theory that somehow the sky is falling because everyone else is in the dark but you.

[cameozalaznick]

118. Carville and Begala were not allowed to do what they wanted in 2004

That's the point. They tried to get Kerry to come up with a theme and Kerry wanted to push a laundry list. Campaigns are not won by laundry lists. They are won on broader themes. Let's see... I think they call them.... oh yeah. MESSAGES.

Obama talks about disagreeing without being disagreeable. I think that's what merbex and I are trying to say. You MUST disagree. Must, must, must. You cannot win with capitulation. You cannot win without defining your opponent in a way that differentiates him/her, preferably negatively. The trick is to make it look like you're not going negative. But you have to criticize. You have to disagree.

And you have to take your opponent's strength and make it a weakness. In karate, you use your opponent's own strength against them. But you do it in self-defense.

You're being naive if you think it's any other way.

[ProSense]

120. James Carville is a saboteur

Stabbed Howard Dean in the back
Defended Scooter Libby
Stabbed Bill Richardson in the back
Wife is now promoting Swift Liar Corsi's book

In the run up to the primary, wrote: The Power of Hillary...

She lost!

His advice and judgment sucks.

[karynnj]

130. They were allowed to do whatever they wanted

on their shows. Are you saying that Kerry made them say he was ABB and to whine about his campaign?

[blm]

136. Bull - you don't shit about the real Carville.... he was protecting his war criminal wife

and his Bush protecting Clintons throughout 2004.

[blm]

103. Carville and Begala speak out of both sides of their mouth and contributed greatly to Dem inertia

from 2000-2005. Not to mention Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night 2004.

[Mass]

111. So, you're unhappy he is doing something. Better to do nothing, as most mainstream dems

do and as they did in 2004?

Grow a spine. Kerry is not perfect, but, contrarily to many who sat on the sidelines or took the safe bet of endorsing Hillary early on, he went for Obama when it was risky to do so, and has been strongly behind him and a strong surrogate. So, you should be happy he is doing something, not just whining because it is not what you would have done.

[The Wizard]

151. Kerry is a gentleman, a statesman, and a serious legislator

But the republican criminals in the McCane campaign aren't. They must be met with the same tactics they use. Don't show up to a gun fight wearing boxing gloves.

[YvonneCa]

25. I think you are confusing 'nice' with...

...'collegiality.' If you expect a sitting Senator to get down to the level of a Rush or Ann Coulter, you will always be disappointed. Senators are classier than that...and I, for one, am glad they are.

[Inuca]

49. Unfortunatelysome sitting senators

do get pretty low, but that's a whole different story....

[YvonneCa]

70. ...

...ya, but none of the ones I like. ;)

[blm]

28. BULLSHIT - Kerry's been hacking Mccain up regularly. It's Feingold, Kerrey and Clinton who've been

asskissing Mccain throughout this year.

[Mass]

67. Uh? Where were you? Kerry has been defending Obama against McCain attacks and

attacking McCain again and again. I know our Massachusetts media are too busy to report about him, but I would expect you read DU and other media from time to time?

A few examples among many.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6587330&mesg_id=6587330

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25955976#25955976

Even in the MTP with Lieberman (I guess this is what you are referring to), Kerry attacked McCain again and again. I have not read what Kerrey has said, and I disagree with what Feingold said. May be McCain was the way Feingold says at some point. He is no more at this point, which is what Kerry has been saying.

[bertman]

79. Everybody go back and read post #13 paragraph 4. If that isn't COMPLIMENTING MCCAIN,

WHAT THE HELL IS??

Not only that, he slammed Wes Clark for TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT McANUS.


I wish just one frigging person would just lay it out there that McAnus WAS LONG AGO A PRISONER OF WAR, BUT NOW HE IS A WARMONGER AND A FASCIST WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.

All of this John McCain served bravely blah blah blah, and John McCain suffered for his country blah blah blah is over and done with. He served, he got shot down and imprisoned, he came back and now he's riding on the same goddam broken-down nag despite having milked it beyond recognition and beaten it to fucking death.


WES CLARK WAS RIGHT ON THE MONEY. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T KERRY BACK HIM UP.

I watched the MSM news right after that incident (something I rarely do) and was appalled that all they ever showed was Kerry PRAISING MCANUS.

WILL WE NEVER LEARN???

[karynnj]

27. The same tactics? Not on your life

Read what Kerry wrote in the first line. This is brilliant - Corsi attacked the Catholic Church in his Free Republic rants - calling the well respected Pope John Paul II senile and other worse things. He also attacked Kerry's service.

The fact is that most people now see swiftboating as the despicable lies they are - Kerry's record is the OFFICIAL NAVY record. Kerry chose 2 things Corsi slandered - one a person guilty of running as a Democrat and the other a major religion.

Now, given Corsi's record of lying and the sickening FR rants, which were homophobic, anti-semitic and anti- Catholic, all Kerry needs to do is what he's done for a life time - tell the truth. In 2004, the RW dropped Corsi and used O'Neil and other SBVT instead of Corsi - even arguing that he wasn't really the co-author.

[Triana]

9. REPIGS can NOT WIN ON ISSUES and that's why they always do this...

...I've watched it all my life and it has only gotten WORSE.

The fuggin elephant only knows ONE trick - and that's it. LIE, CHEAT, and SMEAR so you can continue STEALING from the American People while getting them to vote against their own best interests.

It's the REPUBLICAN WAY. Robber barons, criminals, psychopaths, knuckle-draggers, pretentious hypocrites. Always quick to take the low road while putting up pretenses against it. Pffft!

[merbex]

108. Let's rephrase your statement: Republicans win when they successfully tag their opponent

as unpalatable to the voter <b>personally</b>

They seldom if ever win or run on issues

The Republicans win the White House more than Democrats

Democrats run emphasizing issues

Which method works??????????

You and practically everyone on this thread have a choice:

Have Obama run an issues based campaign and lose

Or

Have the Obama campaign start defining McSame negatively AND talk about issues and WIN

[ProSense]

14. Kerry Launches Obama-Helping Anti-Smear Website

Posted here.

[AspenRose]

33. Thank you Senator Kerry

If anyone understands how these cretins operate....it's you. :patriot:

[MBS]

109. ditto n/t

[YvonneCa]

22. This is a GREAT thing Senator Kerry is...

...doing. I received the email about this site and joined up right away. Some lessons have been learned...the hard way, sadly...about the need for an organized way to fight these smears. I hope this 'experiment' is successful. I think it will be if lots of people get involved and join the Senator's efforts.

Ways to get involved:

1. Pay attention to the news and/or online smears and report them to the site.

2. Post on this new website...a lot...and get it active and noticed.

3. Forward Kerry's email (if you get it) to other people that you think would participate.

4. Cross post news of success here at DU and in other places that you frequent.

5. Write letters (and email or send them) to sources of smears, letting them know you are on to them.

6. Write letters to news organizations when they feature a smear, spin one ENDLESSLY, or fail to report the truth.

7. Other suggestions ???


For my part, I have already forwarded Kerry's email about this to several friends and family members. My LTTE 'pen' is ready.

"Truth is the American bottom-line. Truth is fundamental to who we are."

Senator John Kerry

[WhiteTara]

26. linkie please

:)

[YvonneCa]

44. Here you go...

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/splash/

[WhiteTara]

54. thank you n/t

[pinto]

39. Kick.

:kick:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. "Kerry's latest press conference" would have more effect.

"RiF's latest post!!!" :woohoo:

[npincus]

48. Who is the publisher?

[Binka]

52. Simon & Schuster n/t

[barack the house]

58. WTG Kerry this is what to do take 'em on strongly.

[Top Cat]

68. Kerry always did shot straight

[NewJeffCT]

71. What happened to his million dollar challenge to T Boone Pickens?

Wasn't he the one behind the swiftboaters? Kerry had said he would take Pickens' challenge and donate the money to charity... was there a follow-up on that?

[ProSense]

72. Chicken Pickens

weaseled

[Kire]

81. Corsi got ripped apart on Larry King Live tonight

I posted a thread about it in the Media forum. It could use a few good rec's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387

[Dinger]

89. Done (K & R)

[Kire]

100. thanks - one more vote puts it on the greatest page (anyone?)

not a bad feat for the Media forum

one more rec, please! there's still time!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=109&topic_id=34387&mesg_id=34387

[johnaries]

85. Great! I get paid in 2 days and I will definitely donate. BUT....

Maybe I've been on DU too long and gotten too cynical. I know that no matter how much good this effort does there will be some who said "it didn't go far enough". Some of them will say they were "betrayed" because they donated money and it didn't change the world.

To those people, I can only say GROW UP! And I often wonder if they actually donated or if they just said they did so they could complain about it later.

I don't know how effective this new effort will be, but I will donate to it (along with DU) because I have faith that it will make "some" difference, even if not the difference I expected.

This is a fantastic effort. Even if it doesn't get a whole lt of media attention, it will still make a lot of difference in ways that may not be obvious to the average web surfer. Every little bit helps!

[Mass]

115. This thread is so mistaken it is sickening. If you want to behave like the GOP, join it.

We need serious people to lead this country, not jocks like Corsi. If this is your standard, no thank you. Note that most mainstream Republicans do not go on TV and call Obama a communist or a Muslim. They leave that to side people like Limbaugh and Corsi. So do not be foolish and expect that a Dem would do that. If you are so smart, because the next Corsi or the next Limbaugh. Otherwise, continue with your Monday morning quaterbacking.

[merbex]

124. You must be addicted to losing cause you can't see the difference

in aggressively tagging your opponent as untrustworthy, stupid, inauthentic, old AND immature AND lying about them

Who needs to lie when this is the real John McSame

I don't have to lie about McSame to say he is a phoney and show examples how he is a phoney

I don't have to lie about McSame to say he is stupid

I don't have to lie about McSame to say he is inauthentic because he is trying to be a good ole boy when he owns 8 houses and wears $500shoes

I don't have to lie when I say that McSame is addicted to lobbyists ( note the word addicted - I chose it deliberately - sorry if it offends your sensibilities - not)

I don't have to lie when I say his age AND the evidence of lackadaisical attitude toward scholarship (another way of saying STUPID) makes for continual gaffes we can ill afford

If you honestly think people vote based on issues for President it's clear you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years

[Mass]

125. LOL. Think whatever you want, who cares. If you want to be useful, DO SOMETHING.

Stop ranting after those who do fight.

[merbex]

127. I'm organizing 2 events in the next 3 weeks, plus I'm organizing canvassing

for my region: the area that went overwhelmingly for Clinton over Obama in MA so that it looks like it's possible McSame will carry the South Shore unless we organize and canvass

What are YOU doing?

[YvonneCa]

131. Your words, "If you honestly think people vote ...

...based on issues for President it's clear you haven't been paying attention for the past 30 years."


That is what Obama...with Kerry's support...is trying to change. No, it is not happening now....but our democracy will die if we don't change that. That means getting the truth out there (and I think most of us agree on that). That means it's important HOW we do that...like torture, it says a lot about WHO we Americans are. Our values as Americans have to start being FRONT AND CENTER in all we do...from campaigning to governing...starting NOW.

THAT'S change we can believe in.


:patriot:


Edited to add a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and what never will be."

[merbex]

134. Then you'll get all warm and fuzzy when we lose cause it was HOW

we lost that matters to you

I can't believe that you would compare an election in which I am advocating charcterizing the opponent in negative terms( truthful and negative terms) against torture.

You want to stop torture?

Stop Mcsame's election.

You do that by recognizing how most people make up their minds when they decide for whom to vote for President.

Most people decide based upon reactions to human charcteristics they see that the candidates have.

Your're going to change how they make up their minds in less than 75+ days????

They are suddenly going to rationally decide based upon policy differences??

It hasn't happened, and it won't happen.

[ProSense]

138. Why are you insisting that Obama will lose?

Most people decide based upon reactions to human charcteristics they see that the candidates have.

So what is it that you see that has turned you into the alarmist, that is other than a single poll, which still has Obama in the lead?

[YvonneCa]

142. It's sad, but...

...I'm sure you have lots of company in your beliefs and cynicism. But your cynicism is part of the problem.

I'm not saying Democrats should blindly be positive...where it is unwarranted. I AM saying that EVERYTHING we do as Americans re-defines us as a country (Torture did that, sadly.) Hatefulness does that. Campaigning in a way that betrays our own values also does that.

I don't believe the American public has been given the truth. I think they deserve a chance to decide their leaders based on truth.

[Jester Messiah]

116. Never compromise. Never blink. Never let it slide.

It can be tempting to just sigh and roll your eyes, and let the smirking republitard pass... but don't. Just don't. That's how they win.

[pipi_k]

121. I live in Mass...he's my Senator....

I've always liked him, but I wish he had fought this hard against the slimy pieces of dogshit who tore him a new one in '04.

No doubt lots of people who died in Iraq between then and now would probably still be alive. Or maybe not. Maybe the outcome of that election was a foregone conclusion even from the beginning. Who knows....

In any event, I'm glad he's ready and willing to fight them now.

[blm]

139. He did, but few Dems backed him up as the best known Dems then were supporting Bush publicly

especially the last Dem president who used his summer 2004 book tour to DEFEND Bush in every interview - defended him from the 'criticisms of the left' that just happened to be led by the Dem nominee at the time.

Kerry is doing for Obama what the best known and quisling Dems in power would not do for him - back him up.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

128. K&R