The BG still cannot decide whether the SBVT were right or wrong?

[Mass]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/candidates_batt_1.html

The 2004 campaign provides an object lesson: Senator John Kerry believed that he had carefully honed his image as a Vietnam war hero and national security expert. Then came the group called Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, which launched an all-out effort to destroy Kerry's image. Fair or not _ and Kerry to this day says the group grossly distorted his record _ the attacks hurt Kerry and may have cost him the election. In the minds of some voters, the definition of Kerry was provided by such opponents. In the 2008 race, the effort by candidates to define themselves is likely to matched by the effort to avoid being defined by others.

[TayTay]

1. The Senator has some agreement with this

There is a way of looking at something objectively that does not imply crushing criticism for it's own sake. This is a fair statement in the BGlobe. There is nothing more basic in politics than the idear that you either define yourself to the voters or you will be defined by your opponents. (It happens all the time.)

Sen. Kerry has declared an effort to protect other Democrats from the effects of being smeared by others. Why would he do this if he didn't believe that you need to defend good people from vicious attacks and untruths that are out there and can harm candidates?

[Mass]

2. I'm not sure I understand you?

I find the BG unfair because it is not only the Senator that has said that the record was distorted. The Globe made an examination of the records and found that they did not support the SBVT's records.

[TayTay]

4. I agree. But the Globe story you cite

Is not unfair. It is inline with that.

The SBVT were liars. However, they did damage in 04. We need to be pro-active in preventing that from happening in the future and innoculating Democrats from the smears we know are going to come. Most voters don't go and do their own research on the smears and a lot of voters believe them. No newspaper series or blog accounts will ever be enough to stem the damage once it has gathered up momentum. We have to fight these things before they do the harm. That is the point.

[MBS]

5. still, the BG article suggested that there was DOUBT about whether the

attacks were fair. And that's really beyond the pale. (And should be answered by somebody).

[MBS]

3. Tay, I don't understand your comment either

How in the world could the SBVT ATTACKS be considered fair????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TayTay]

9. The attacks are unfair

And must be fought.

Fair or unfair is beside the point in politics. Damage was done. We can't let that happen again. Ever.

[karynnj]

6. I would agree if you leave out - fair or not

It was not honest or fair. I realize that the phrase is often used as rhetoric meaning regardless of whether it was a fair thing to do - they did it. The problem is that the literal interpretation is exactly as Mass said - and the BG knows beyond a reasonable doubt that it was untrue. I read the fair or not as if it said true or not, because it is not fair to use blatant lies as they did.

The problem is that this follows the idiotic BG article on Pickens offer where they left open whether it was true and had O'Reilly calling Kerry's credibility into question. The fact is that the BG years ago started some of the lies.

I realize that Kerry would agree that 1) he was smeared and 2) we need to protect others. I do think that there is also a third point that I hope Kerry also thinks which is that there is a need to hit even ambiguous implications that the SBVT were not a black or white case. There is something really disgusting in people accepting that it was ok to sacrifice John Kerry's genuine status as a war hero to make it a less reprehensible act of the President of the US. The irony is had Kerry won (if the election and media were fair), his election would have been seen as vindicating him and proving the SBVT liars. The fact is that there is truth independent of winning or losing.

The BG could have in fact made a STRONGER case by saying that in 2004 the truth was known and parts of the media ignored it. It shouldn't be that hard for them to do - the MSM print media (except the Washington Post) was fairer than cable tv. I suspect that they don't want to admit the truth - that part of the reason the President is still President is that large parts of the media condoned lies. Because they did, the media OWES it to John Kerry to make it clear that the Navy record is 100% behind him. (I suspect that like most of his/her peers the BG writer likely avoided going to Vietnam and never really respected what Kerry did. That this is still used to raise questions, not as an accomplishment is a really crappy way to repay a well connected 25 year old, who repeatedly risked his life, when he had everything to look forward to. They were more accepting to Clinton when they understood why it was ok that with a Rhodes scholarship in the offing he thought it better avoid service. The prevailing view was agreement that he was "too precious" to lose.)

[MBS]

7. thanks, Karynnj, you summarized the problem well

I'd only add that I'd also change, in addition to "fair or not", the following statement that "kerry . . SAYS the group grossly distorted his record" is also misleading, implying as it does that it's a "he said/she said " kind of situation , rather than an issue of well-documented, throughly confirmed FACT.

I share Mass's frustration here.

[karynnj]

8. good point - I just saw your other comment

In some ways, this is insidious because though both the "Kerry says" and the "fair or not" it raises questions not overtly where people overtly challenge them but in what is positioned as the assumed known background of the problem. In away that is a sneaky way to get a point in unchallenged into people's minds. Especially when it is often repeated.

[TayTay]

10. But that apology will never come

The media does not look back. The more distance we get from 2004 the more the MSM will accept common wisdom that the SBVT were liars AND that they did damage. They print and believe both.

The attacks were unfair. However, that will not stop more attacks from being made this year on other Dems. The MSM will read the talking points from the Repubs and affiliated groups and print them. That will be unfair. Lies will find the light of day.

What do we do to prevent damage from being done to other Democrats? How do we take the lessons of 2004 forward and protect our people from these attacks based on lies? They are inherently unfair. They must be fought. Isn't that the lesson going forward? We can't dwell on "fair or unfair," they are unfair. And they will happen again.

[ladym55]

15. You have that right!

The media in some kind of warped view of "fair and balanced" no longer stands behind little things like FACTS. The SBVT were lying--big time--and the media waffled and wobbled and left all sorts of little weasel words in their supposedly "objective" news articles that have allowed a seed of doubt to remain.

And when the BG continues to use weasel words about SBVT TODAY when Kerry's record has been proven 100% correct .... :grr: :banghead:

[TayTay]

11. How would you answer this question?

as posed in this thread? What did it mean and what does it mean for '08?

[ray of light]

12. MY question would be slightly different.

It would be, "When will the media accept AND APOLOGIVE FOR their role they wrongfully played in the 2004 swiftboat liars for bush ads?"

[TayTay]

13. They never will.

Never. They never apologize for anything.

The SBVT were liars. We did "win" that fight in a sense. "Swiftboating" someone means lying about someones record in order to score cheap political points and publicity. That is how the word is used now. This drives the RW crazy, btw, because they want the SBVT Liars to be seen as some sort of truth-squad. The public does not see them that way.

There was nothing legitimate in the SBVT attacks. No Democrat should ever support what they did or agree with their points. That is a basic test of being a Democrat now.

HOWEVER, our Dems, going forward, are going to be attacked. The news media is not going to be an ally in defending Democrats. This is just not going to happen. The news media is going to do what it does, including following pack journalism that invents "common wisdom" and then sticks by this no matter what the actual truth or the facts were. That is regrettable and sad and something we have to accept. We have to fight the lies and smears. The news media will not, in many instances, do it for us.

So, how do we prevent these lies from causing harm in the first place? The idear that Democrats are 'weak' is still out there and is the background for the quote in the OP in this thread. How do we fight it? How do we innoculate our Democrats against attacks we know are going to come from all sides and be repeated in a news media that is not dedicated to getting the 'truth' out, but to reporting on a 'horserace' that sees things like Swiftboating as a part of the process, as this BGlobe article shows?

These are separate questions. The Swiftboaters were liars. Now, how do we prevent this year's group of liars from doing damage?

[MBS]

14. note that one can COMMENT at this link.

Someone, please do this. I'm ill today, so don't trust myself to write tip-top prose. But can someone step up to the plate, for JK, and for the facts?
My tack would be something along these lines: one is free to debate the role of the SBVT, and the timing of the Kerry campaign's response to the SBVT, in the national tragedy of Kerry's loss in the 2004 election (fraudulent or not). But there is NO debate about the FACTS, namely , that Kerry was a distinguished war hero, and that the SBVT are liars. In even implying that there is any question about these facts, the Globe has failed in its job to publish the facts. . .

Hope someone can pick up the ball from here.
I'm still steaming. The least the Globe can do, along with everyone else, is to give Sen. Kerry the credit he deserves.