Anyone notice Drudge completely removed deserter referenced Kerry quote?

[TheWebHead]

After leading the issue atop his page most of the day, I think Matt was given a tap on the shoulder by the RNC indicating that the quote doesn't really hurt Kerry at all, but does turn up the screws on an investigation on the issue, which at best may clear him but cast him as being privileged to avoid deployment to Vietnam, or at worse, he was AWOL for a year. Fox News gave it zero coverage today -- and nothing over at Newsmax either.

In turn, if the RNC and it's media disciples drop the issue, investigations will be squashed and the whole issue of Bush's service stacked up miserably against Kerry's or Clark's service will be avoided.

[pocoloco]

1. LOL

Orders from Headquarters!

[Old and In the Way]

2. A nice big ad campaign from MoveOn could help.

Keep the pressure on. Lack of evidence is reinforced by lack of character witnesses who can vouch for his attendence.

Our candidates can't affirm or deny the story...but they can question Bush's character and tell the media to do their job and investigate the charges.

[kskiska]

3. Maybe because NewsMax has taken up the story

and supposedly debunked the desertion charge.

[rolodomo]

4. Not only that...

but he had links to both Moore's website and FactCheck.org earlier today but now those links have disappeared as well. The links were entitled Moore v. FactCheck or something like that. Even though the Factcheck article was more favorable to Bush, it still raised a lot of questions. Was Drudge's chain pulled? Was he told to get that article off his website? If so, then what happened today indicates higher ups are very uncomfortable with this story! :tinfoilhat:

edited: for --> or

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Will be interesting to see if Russert hits Clark with it tomorrow...

or lets it go --

[rolodomo]

7. I hope he turns it around into...

a broad issue on the right to speak out and to question the conduct of our leaders in a democracy. It might not hurt to add that he supports other people who have had legitimate public questions but then suffered unfair consequences (e.g., the Dixie Chicks). He should stick up for Moore but not get pulled into the details of the charge. I think stating again that he has not investigated into the issue is fine. However, he should also be prepared to argue that there is enough evidence to raise legitimate questions (e.g., the Boston Globe articles) and that it is not his job but the job of journalists to investigate further.

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. Debunking is not working

It can't. Short of very a compelling fabrication the only way they can cope with it is try to pretend the is no story.