Two years too late - DUers STILL ignoring Swiftliar data ignore the TRUTH

[blm]

that is available to all of us in the DU Research Forum.

Some are STILL ignoring the complicity of the media and are REPEATING the CORPORATE MEDIA LIES.

Shouldn't this site be all about spreading the FACTS and countering the LIES, instead of parroting the corporate media machine working for their GOP masters?

Do a gut-check and see WHO is really the one who accessed the truth too late, and did too little to counter the lies the last two years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[ginnyinWI]

1. there's too little interest in the truth at DU sometimes

Which makes us no better than some cable news shows. :(

[blm]

2. For a bunch of posters who hate the corporate media they sure do repeat it

if it can use it to attack Kerry and other Democrats.

[LittleClarkie]

14. What's getting me is that some thing that fighting for the truth

has a time limit. It's not too late for Kerry to fight for the truth, even if "no one cares now," he cares. It was his record, after all. Even if it means nothing in relation to 2004, I'm glad he's fighting those lying bastards. I find it quite satisfying. I can't even stand to look at those men. They're crazy.

[ginnyinWI]

25. And the fact is that O'Neil and his gang are still at it.

They're still attacking Kerry--used his testimony in a clip on FOX recently, so they could co-smear him along with Murtha, who has spoken out about Haditha.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605230005

So he has to debunk them once and for all.

[LittleClarkie]

51. And don't forget the recent swipe by Michelle Malkin

No, it's not dead.

[MindMatter]

3. We're not ignoring it

It is just that it is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no purpose served by Kerry making an issue of it now. He should have come out swinging at the time. He should have called those guys liars and demanded an apology instead of being so genteel about it.

What is the point of debating it now? If you are suggesting that this out to give Kerry a second chance, it proves just the opposite to me. It proves that the last thing we need is a guy who won't fight for something as basic as his honor.

I don't want to get into another cycle of Kerry bashing. He had his chance. He did things the way he thought was best. It did not work. That approach will never work against these thugs. We really need to move on.

[ProSense]

4. What approach besides debunking the lies do you suggest? n/t

[MindMatter]

15. How about ...

Calling the liars out immediately, in no uncertain terms?

It isn't necessary -- or even relevant -- to debunk this 3 years later as if it were some kind of never-ending college debate team exercise. The correct answer when your honor is impugned is to come straight out and call the liars out. Not 3 years later. Not 3 months later. Not even three hours later. IMMEDIATELY!

[blm]

5. You ARE IGNORING the FACT that he DID call them out and the MEDIA MACHINE

chose to IGNORE his personal efforts AND those of his crew who came out to counter the lies and did so AT THE TIME. You never BOTHERED to get the facts at the reserc forum site did you?

WHY do all of you ignore that Kerry attacked the swifts in an horlong speech to the firefighters convention on Aug 19, 2004? There was nothing GENTEEL about it - and it proves my point that so many of you are not INTERESTED in the facts - you only care about spreading the MEDIA PERCEPTION lies that were fed to you.

Read the facts at the DU research forum - and try to explain WHY the media chose to not report the most significant events of Kerry's counter to the swiftliars.

You can't FATHOM that the media was COMPLICIT? They had no INTENTION of Kerry's counters getting any airplay. YOU and those who spread their version perpetuate the lie.

[MindMatter]

16. He couched everything in such obtuse language ...

that one could never figure out what he really meant to say. That is probably why it is so rare for sitting Senators to win the Presidency. The Senate trains itself to opreate in some parallel universe where one never calls a spade a spade.

[blm]

17. More media CLAPTRAP - He did nothing of the sort and you're PROVING that

you don't even WANT to know the facts even though they're sitting right there in the Research Forum.

So, instead of supporting the truth, you cling to MEDIA PERCEPTION (R-Lies) instead of BOTHERING with the facts that exist.

If that's your comfort zone, then why even bother with this thread. It was meant for those who CARE ENOUGH about the truth to make certain they USE IT to counter RW lie machine.

[globalvillage]

6. Why is this important now?

Because in defending himself against the Liars, Sen Kerry is also defending the right of any service member who was honored with a medal not to have it questioned by the likes of that slimeball o'neil and his bunch of anti-American, anti-troop assholes or any other group who might think to do the same.

Because in defending himself against the Liars, Sen Kerry is also defending the right of anyone considering running for public office to do so without fear of media propagation of lies and distortions.

Because the TRUTH is always relevant.

I can't imagine that the campaign in '04 anticipated the severity of the SB attacks or the level of media complicity. I don't think Sen Kerry expected to have to defend his honorable service in the face of his opponent's questionable TANG history. I think what he expected to do in '04 was to tell the American people why he would have been a better choice for President. And he did that, brilliantly, to those who listened.

My question is, where were Sen Kerry's defenders? I heard Cleland and Clark and his Vietnam crewmates and a few mentions from a few others, but while Kerry was focusing on issues of importance to the American people, why was every Democrat not defending his service as he was being attacked by these assholes?

It's one thing to defend yourself in the face of smears and lies. Your defense becomes much more credible when your 'friends' rally behind you. When the Liars do this again, and they will if they're not stopped, every Dem had better rally to the defense of our candidate. Or the same will happen.

Learn from history, or prepare to see it repeated. To just 'move on' would be a terrible mistake. Sen Kerry learned some valuable lessons in '04. We need to do the same. His defense now, when he has enough evidence to prove their lies and can use it to help protect the '06 and future candidates from the same sort of treatment, is critical.

[eleny]

8. Dem vets running in '06 will no doubt be swiftboated

Kerry's speaking up again now is relevant so we have the reminder front and center. I can hear our slogan now: "There they go again."

[cassiepriam]

11. Bingo, my sentiments exactly.

And Kerry's refusal to come out swinging during the election has resulted in many lives being lost. He did what he thought was best, but in hindsight a horrific mistake.

[ProSense]

12. Kerry's refusal...has resulted in many lives being lost? Nonsense!

It's the MSM drowning them out that was the problem! Kerry dismissed them in the spring when the first appeared as an organized group. The MSM latched on to them after the convention and promoted them. Kerry even issued a direct challenge to Bush (the video is in the Research forum):

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...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2651634&mesg_id=2651634

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2880

In August, as opposed to spring, Kerry was hamstrung by campaign-spending laws. Members of his crew and veterans like Max Cleland made highly-visible public appearances during that period, even as other groups spent tens of millions of dollars to fill in the gap.

How much money would it have taken to counter a determined MSM?

[blm]

13. Except that your assertion has been proven FALSE in the DU Research Forum

which you and others still REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

Instead, you keep perpetuating the RW media PERCEPTION which covers their own lying asses.

Do people still claim that Dean screamed and ruined hiw own campaign, or do they acknowledge that the media DISTORTED that scream to cover their own bad reporting of the Iowa primary?

Keep letting the media win and see how far it gets the left.

[drm604]

18. It does matter.

It matters because in 2008 the people who were behind the swift vets nonsense will be behind similar smear campaigns against whoever we run, Kerry or someone else. If we could somehow publicly out them and show them for what they are it may blunt their future efforts.

I'm not talking about the publicly visible individuals who appeared in ads and wrote books. It wouldn't make sense for those same people to be telling stories about their past encounters with some new candidate. I'm talking about the people behind them, the people who will find new individuals to tell new lies about whoever the Democratic candidate is.

If we can find those people and prove their involvement it just might do some good. I'm not under any illusions about what we are likely to accomplish, but we do have to at least try.

[ginnyinWI]

26. I think it's relevant to Kerry, though.

He needs to make an issue of it because they did assault his honor, and they are still doing it. See my post #25.

You can move on, you don't have to vote for him--but why shouldn't he work at clearing his name if he wants to? A lot of us here want to see him do just that.

[bowens43]

7. Wjo cares? It's over. Kerry sunk his own ship with his stupid

little salute and the "john Kerry reporting for duty' nonsense. That is why the swiftboaters were sucessful and that is why the media played up the soldier boy angle.

Kerry was being a phoney and everyone knew it.

[blm]

9. That's a RW media lie - Nixon planted that phoney meme - nice of you and

the RW media machine to resurrect it to suit your own arguments that meticulously AVOID ALL FACTS AND TRUTH.

Really - you just refuse to honor the DU Research Forum that will supply you with FACTS an instead you prefer your reliance on RW media perception.

[mtnsnake]

47. Why do you call anyone elses opinion a RW lie if its different from yours?

Just wondering.

[glitch]

85. Truth is different from opinion, it actually exists and can be verified

independently.

[blm]

86. When did RW lies become facts or the basis for Dem's opinions?

Nixon planted the meme that Kerry was a phony.

The RW machine always uses the word phony to describe Kerry, no matter what. He hunts for 50 years - he's a phony when he wears hunting clothes. He's on the cover of Windsurfer magazine in 1997 - he's a phony pretending he can windsurf for the younger voters. He rides motorcycles for 40 years - the phony pretended he rides Harleys.

They kept riding Kerry as a phony throughout his investigations into IranContra and BCCI, too. To distract from the facts being revealed, they said Kerry was only dogging them to make a name for himself and that he was a showboat attacking presidents to get on camera. Yep - Kerry's investigation was phony.

It's just amazing to me that any Democrat with an ounce of historic sense would use that same word to attack Kerry.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. Thanks for being an example of exactly what this thread is about

Who cares about truth? Well certainly not those who profit from or feel comforted by lies. So where do you fit?

[ginnyinWI]

27. bingo--you nailed it perfectly. n/t

[karynnj]

22. What was phony about it

He was a genuine war hero and he was starting a campaign for President (which is what that meant). The rest of the hour long speech was about his vision and where he thought the country should go. It was considered to be a very good speech even by the Republicans watching it.

The Republicans started the "if he didn't talk about it" nonsense - but in reality consider that books aren't written overnight. The SBVT started this probably even before Kerry clinched the nomination. The fact that people saw Kerry's crew and heard some the story was likely good - as it acted as a counter to the SBVT.

[MH1]

23. It's not over for the '06 Fighting Dems. nt

[redwitch]

66. I loved when he did that

Guess it takes all kinds...

[fedupinBushcountry]

87. Another hit and run bash post

but you not only put down Kerry , you also put down vets by your "soldier boy" and "phoney" play on words.

So you back the lying sleazy scum swiftboaters, how nice, hope you feel good . :puke:

[Major Hogwash]

19. Good post, blm.

And I agree with you.

But, it is never too late to straighten out the lies that were told about Kerry's service.

They trashed Al Gore and he was a Vietnam veteran, too!

[blm]

20. They trashed Murtha and are trashing vets running in 2006.

Why people help spread the media lies with more energy than they defend the FACTS is just disgusting to me.

[Canuckistanian]

21. OK, OK, I'm convinced already

I was astounded by the actual things he did do to counter the lies.

That should have been enough.

I just read Jamison Foser's latest essay on Media Matters this morning as well:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260016

It should be required reading for all DUers and others who believe that something is wrong with the media in this country.

[blm]

24. THANK YOU!!! I agree - the media is an overlooked enemy and it doesn't

help when WE SMARTIES here at DU are the ones doing the overlooking in our haste to trip up our own team.

And THAT is why I am a repetitive yadamatic when it comes to this issue - people are focusing on the WRONG lessons from 2000 and 2004. They do not KNOW the enemy if they think it was really just Gore or Kerry to blame.

You never see any of the guys at Media Matters attacking Dem campaigns - they know it's the media DISTORTING the campaigns beyond any recognition. Hell, they made Bush out to be a figure of heroic proportions for using a megaphone on a pile of burning ash and bodies. Utterky disgusting.

From your excellent link:

Why do we insist on revisiting ancient history? Because the same garbage keeps happening over and over again. Because too many people -- journalists, activists, progressive leaders -- downplay the media's failings. Sure, they went overboard with Clinton, they say, but sex sells. But it wasn't just sex, and it wasn't just Clinton. Sure, they were a bit unfair to Al Gore, someone might concede, but he had it coming -- he was stiff and insincere. But it isn't just Al Gore. Sure, too many reporters may have been complicit in the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's smears of John Kerry, but he invited it by speaking openly and honestly about his service. Sure, Howard Dean's "scream" was overplayed, but he had it coming -- it was crazy! Sure, media elites fawn all over Bush, but he's just so likable! And John McCain, too. And Rudy Giuliani. They're all just so real and authentic.

At this point, you'd have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can't continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It's all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her. The smearing of Jack Murtha should prove that to anyone who still doubts it.

Meanwhile, any conservative who comes along is going to be praised for being strong and authentic and likable. Ask yourself: What prominent Republican is routinely portrayed in the media as a phony the way Al Gore and Hillary Rodham Clinton are?

[ginnyinWI]

28. Dems are too used to seeing Dems get victimized by the media

Part of that article posed the question: suppose an article ran on the front page of the NYTimes about John McCain's marriage(s): why the first one failed, how many affairs he had, and what's up with his current marriage? People would be shocked! Yet doing a dissection of the Clintons' marriage is somehow normal.

We need to stop acting like abused spouses to get used to the abuse, and realize what's being done is damned wrong. Raise objections with loud voices. This applies to us lay people as well as those in elected office.

[blm]

29. "I was astounded by the actual things he did to counter the lies."

See, Canuck, what you said there is the whole ball of wax. Media can even make Democrats ignore the facts by fostering a false perception - just like the "scream" was meant for us all to blame Dean, we are all supposed to blame Kerry and be distracted from the fact that the media themselves were manipulating the news at every turn.

I think it would be VERY helpful to the case if you posted what you just wrote in a separate thread. People like me get ignored too easily because I AM repetitive. Some realize I do it stick up for the truth and others think I'm just nuts. ;)))))

In any case, a fresh perspective - yours - could be invaluable to the whole argument about the media. Not everyone is going to pick up Boehlert's book or read Media Matters. But, they might read your post and be encouraged to look again with an open mind.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Why are people fighting about this now?

Don't we have 2006 elections coming up?

blm, you are the coolest researcher guy on DU. You really whip the llama's ass. If I had something to say about the Swift Boat Guys For Truth (sic - only the corporate media machine perpetuates this lie of their title, I put "sic" after it to not be like them), I'm sure it would be so wrong and you could yell at me about it, because you're that much smarter than me. I still perpetuate the lies of the right-wing by accident because I don't check the DU research forum about stuff that happened two years ago like I should.

Now can we all drop it?

[blm]

33. NYT article about Kerry and the swifts. Plus, some 06 candidates are being

targeted with smears from the same people behind the swifts, so it needs to get out. Dems just need to get the facts and STICK to them because that's the only way to get on the same page.

[LoZoccolo]

38. The best way to get people to understand is berate them, too.

First they have to be accused of right-wing spin, then they learn not to perpetuate it. It's in that order.

[blm]

43. It was a counter to a thread who chose the opposite interpretation of the

NYT article. I say my piece straightforward - people can choose to appreciate it or not - we all know I'm not here to be popular. ;))))

[Catchawave]

31. It's not just about the swiftliars...it's about

veterans who still can't let go of that era. About 30-40 million who won't vote for Kerry in '08 either :cry:

[blm]

34. Except now Kissinger's papers reveal that Kerry was telling the TRUTH to

those vets, and NOW there is full documentation. Didn't you read the Friday news dump?

[Catchawave]

36. I have no problem with Kerry telling

the truth, but many VN vets did. Sort of a defection of that band of brothers thing....just sayin' ...

[blm]

37. Did you read the Kissinger document?

.

[Catchawave]

39. Yes.

I've read all the documents, you still have a gazillion VN vets that hate them all...sad for them, and us :(

[blm]

41. I think your numbers are WAY OFF.

Kerry got more vet votes than Gore or Clinton got. And ALOT more vets will be pissed at the RW machine that lied for Nixon and Kissinger.They only USED Kerry to distract from their own machinations, just as Kerry was telling them back then.

I highly doubt that every vet you describe will not open their eyes to the truth about what Kissinger did. Many people ARE capable of epiphanies whether admitted or not - and that includes vets.

Amazing how you and I can know such different vets. Alot of vets from WW2, Korea and Vietnam are close with my husband's family as his grandfather was commander of Shaw AF Base in SC for many years. So they are not only vets but SOUTHERN vets. Many love and at the very least respect Kerry. They know he was being honest and they know his long record of fighting for their rights and better benefits and treatment for their families. Many don't - but, even those numbers will change with new information from Kissinger's records.

[MH1]

42. Military votes too

Remember how they never came out with the polling numbers of how the military voted after the 2004 election? * was supposed to be crowing about that....but we got crickets. So I guess we know what story those numbers told, huh.

[Catchawave]

45. I'm married to a vet...

VN/Beirut...my Dad was a WW2/Korea/VN vet....sucks being me huh?

Trust me...no one I know respects Kerry's WAR record. Saluting/reporting for Duty at the '04 Dem convention was the biggest mistake ever, imho.

Can we please move on ?

[blm]

46. I think that is just WEIRD - I stick to truth and facts - they matter.

Anyone can be attacked with lies if the people in power are determined to do it. Even a veteran. Shame it works on some. I guess that's why I'm a stickler for truth and accuracy. I don't kowtow to spin or lies - I do my best to give facts to others, too, and SHARE the tools so they recognize the manipulativeness of lies.

I don't think it benefits this nation to give in to lies or media perception, especially when those lies are designed to destroy our democracy.

[fedupinBushcountry]

50. Well you know

I'm married to a Vietnam Vet who served 20 years and he proudly cast his vote for Kerry, as did my father (WWII) my 2 brothers (Vietnam Vets).

I happen to live in the same area as you, why because my husband retired here. I guess you never attended any of the John Kerry meet-ups , you would of been shocked to see how many vets and active duty attended. I guess you didn't go to the Memorial Day parade in '04 in Portsmouth which John Kerry attended and I guess you didn't see him shaking hands and being greeted by vets in full uniform. I guess you really missed him when he came to Chesapeake during the primaries and they were passing out Veteran for Kerry bumper stickers and they ran out and people were asking where they could get one.

I can't put a number of military including veterans that voted for Kerry to be honest for those numbers never came out, and neither should you.

[blm]

91. Didn't Kerry win a county in Virginia with heavy vet numbers that hadn't

gone to the Dems since Johnson ran in 64?

[fedupinBushcountry]

99. Yep

Fairfax county

[blm]

100. Yep, that's it. Thanks.

I knew there was a significant turnaround in Virginia with heavy military votes, but I couldn't remember the county.

[Catchawave]

103. I bet you're not supporting Jim Webb then ?

Just a hunch :hi:

[karynnj]

97. Your sample size is unimpressive

and they are correlated. The 2 vets I know - one a Republican WWII vet voted for Kerry - he did it after reading the entire 1971 transcript and saying he could see where he was coming from. (He had been impressed with Kerry in the primary debates and this had been his remaining concern.) The other was a vietnam vet, who spent the summer wearing his VN Vet for Kerry button. (His daghter said that 2004 was the first time he felt comfortable talking about VN to her.)

So, do I think all vets voted Kerry - of course not. The VN vet usually votes Democratic. The WWII vet has voted Republican most of his life, but he is a social moderate. Just like you - I don't have enough information on vets.

[Catchawave]

104. LOL....

I know you don't support Jim Webb.

I'm so sorry I started this. I'm glad you know "two vets" ! Not quite the sampling of those who stay home or vote republican on election days.

[Mass]

63. Most of them will never vote for a Dem anyway.

[karynnj]

96. Statistics please

Did Herry do worse than the typical Democrat does with veterans? I think Kerry did better among veterans than previous Democratic candidates. The few veterans I know voted for Kerry. Kerry did less well among white women concerned about security, but better with the male vote than Gore.

Many Veterans are RW - they will not vote for any Democrat.

[OzarkDem]

32. Kerry should keep fighting it - good for him

He needs to fight the news media on their complicity and sue the swiftboat creeps, too.

[MindMatter]

35. I'd like to report a problem with the system.

Somehow my browser is stuck in 2004.

I've tried to flush my cache, but still it is coming with 2004.

Seriously folks. What do you expect to accomplish with any of this? Even if you win the issue, most people will just see it as sour grapes. If has absolutely no relevance to anything important to us in 2006.

It would be a whole lot more productive to figure out how to counter the NEXT attack IMMEDIATELY instead of getting around to it 2 years after the fact.

[blm]

40. They're using it as a template to DEFEND other vets running for office.

This same team put together the Patriot Project to defend ALL Democratic vets running for office in 06.

They have collected the necessary information and records to make a quick response team. The shame is that the media loyalty to BushInc is so bad that a veteram can't depend on them to do their job and report the facts - and THAT is the bottom line to the whole problem.

Either you see it or you don't. If the DU research forum and Boehlert's article can't make you see it, then that's another story, isn't it?

[MH1]

44. You may need to turn your system off for awhile. nt

[OzarkDem]

49. Any attempt to deal with the "swiftboating" issue will help all candidates

The case should be made in a broader way - sending a message to the news media that their complicity is unacceptable.

I would guess Kerry is making this appeal for the benefit of all Dem candidates.

[blm]

84. Bingo - he has already funded a group to defend ALL Dem vets who speak out

and run for office. What they learned about the tactic from digging through the swift mud will benefit EVERY candidate in 06 and 08.

Too bad MacAuliffe didn't have this kind of team in place in 2002 and 2004.

[depakid]

48. Nobody is ignoring anything

Many of us, however- do not forget (and aren't going to get sucked into bullshit revisionist history).

Especially those of us who went through the trauma of the Kerry campaign REFUSING TO FIGHT BACK- much less the ban on so called "Bush bashing" during the convention.

We knew damn well what was happening- and what it would probably cost us.

[ProSense]

52. The link in the OP contradicts your statement n/t

[sandnsea]

53. I have my August 2004 emails

Here's some points from the John Hurley one requesting we all write letters, call radio shows, call local tv news, etc. I also have an email about the vet rally at the bridge in Eugene, as well as the one calling for a rally at the Clackamas Courthouse against Al French. YOU may not have known anybody was fighting back, including the Kerry campaign, but that's for YOU to explain.

How many times and how many people have to call a lie a lie before people like you can hear it?
August 2004 email - call to action talking points:

John Kerry volunteered for the Navy, for Vietnam, and for swift boat duty.

The U.S. Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts.

John McCain called the attacks by Swift Boat Veterans for Bush "dishonest and dishonorable," and he called on George Bush to condemn the ad. George Bush has refused to do so. What is taking him so long? Why won't George Bush condemn these ads?

The crewmates who served with John Kerry stand with him.

Swift Boat Veterans for Bush did not serve with John Kerry in Vietnam; John O'Neill, the author of the book of lies and distortions, never laid eyes on John Kerry in Vietnam.

Kerry's crewmates said of this ad: "These assertions are garbage; these people weren't there with John Kerry. If he hadn't made the right command decisions, in my opinion, we would be some of the names on that wall." -Crewmate PCF 94, Gene Thorson, in response to assertions that Kerry acted poorly in combat.

"That's a pure fabrication...the fire was strong enough to knock out Tommy Belodeau's machine gun...I was in the middle of the firefight." -Jim Rassmann, Special Forces Officer saved by John Kerry, in response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assertion that there was no enemy fire on the day that Rassmann was rescued by Lt. Kerry.

"It was a hellacious firefight, I don't know how these guys could stretch the truth like this" -Senior enlisted man PCF 94 Del Sandusky in response to the same assertion.

Some of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush were in John's chain of command and wrote glowing Fitness Reports on him; George Elliott: "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed...LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group." (fitness report of John Kerry, by LTCMDR George Elliott, 18 Dec 1969.)

These attacks on John Kerry are part of a Bush smear campaign against John Kerry; they are financed by Bob Perry, a Texas Republican friend of Karl Rove, and are organized and promoted by a Republican communications firm, Spaeth Communications.

[depakid]

54. Kerry needed his own strong response

and his own ads- which he "held off" during late July and August, under the assumption that he "wouldn't have enough money" (which turned out- as we know- to have been a gross miscalculation- he 10's of millions left over after November 4).

We argued and argued about that- Kerry going blank- and lying back and taking it. Relying on surrugates to fight that battle (and going blank on the air) was suicidally stupid-

And sure enough, those of us who remember the Dukakis campaign called that deja vu- his reticence did indeed cost him his momentum- and the election. It's possible he could have salvaged it, had he come out forcefully in answer to Bush's "if you knew then what you know now" challenge about the war.

But he didn't. He ended up giving some wishy washy answer instead. That right at the beginning of Sept, if I recall.

[sandnsea]

55. "argued and argued about that"

Exactly. So don't say the rebuttals weren't out there because they were since you admit you argued and argued about them. What needed to happen is for the arguing to stop and for people to pick up the information available and use it. Just like we did with Hackett and Murtha. If they hadn't had the support of the grassroots, the attacks on them wouldn't have been stopped cold either. You never saw a Republican freaking out over Bush being ridiculed over his cod piece moment did you?? No, because they just keep on attacking. If we don't learn that, we're going to have the same smear campaigns for years to come. Bush didn't do the attacking, his surrogates did. So don't pretend the candidate has to be directly involved either. I don't know what it is about Democrats that some large group always prefers to shoot our candidate instead of the opponent, but that's the biggest problem.

And no matter what bogus bullshit you candidate shooters start with, you always drag in some other pointless line of right wing crap that you should have been fighting in 2004 too.

[depakid]

56. What we argued about

Was Kerry's failure to respond- and his so called "high road" "strategy."

Kerry and his campaign BLEW IT- big time. I lived through it and watched it. It was sheer incompetence.

They acted just like the Dukakis campaign and allowed themselves to get smeared for weeks without fighting back- and the smears stuck. Deja Vu.

If it were worth the time crying over spilt milk, I'd drag up the posts for those weeks. I remember the situation clear as day.

(which, incidently- is why I didn't support the man during the primaries- because I had a feeling his team would pull something like that- even though they expressly promised not to).

[sandnsea]

57. The campaign put the rebuttals out there

You wanted Kerry to get into a direct spitting match with O'Neill. The surrogates were out there, I've got the emails of the rallies vets staged in Oregon. LOTS of people around the country were working their butts off getting the correct information out, AND encouraging people like you to do the same. THAT was the high road, exposing them for liars instead of having John Kerry get into a spitting match with a worthless piece of shit. I know that fighting was going on, and people kept saying to stop fighting and get out there and spread the correct information. So don't sit here now and call it revisionism since you know good and well that all of this information was at your disposal in 2004. YOU chose to attack the candidate instead of stand up for him, and as long as Democrats do that, we'll lose.

[depakid]

58. Hey- I saw a disaster in the making

as did a lot of other people- including (as we now know) John Edwards and Mark Mellman.

But Mary Beth Cahill & old Bob (perennial loser) Shrum didn't want to "dignify" the attacks with a forceful response from the campaign and the candidate. Same exact mistake Dukakis made.

These were worthless pieces of shit- and shameless liars- and Kerry needed to get up and say so- in no uncertain terms and match not only their ads, but the admittedly one sided media presence.

Kerry needed to make news -act like a leader who's had his face slapped- and not rely on a bunch of surrogates. He couldn't afford to do that in any case, because they were way outnumbered and by themselves- were drowned out by the right wing echo chamber.

That's the way the political board was laid out. And that's the way it had to be played.

Not doing so cost us all the federal courts- among other things- and I'll NEVER forget that.

[sandnsea]

59. That was the 3rd attack

They knocked the other two down quickly. So when this attack came along, they did the same thing. It really wasn't a big deal, except to certain groups of people who were looking for anything to pick at Kerry about. And those people were out in force in August, whereas they didn't even know what had gone on previously. Too often, WE perpetuate this smear crap with our own chicken little antics that the media picks up on. They run with stuff because they see that WE think something is a story.

There's an article on this in Salon I think. Do you know that this actually didn't pick up steam on the cable channels until Kerry personally responded?? It may well be that Cahill and Shrum were right, that this would have been nothing if Kerry hadn't addressed it directly.

How many surrogates do you think were out there? How many people do you think stood beside Kerry, in one way or another? Since you seem to think there were so many people on the other side.

In the end, this stuff works because WE let it work. They are busy making phone calls and writing letters, and we're busy yelling at our candidate. That's what happened, no matter how much you want to deny it, that's the way it went down.

[depakid]

60. I have a very good memory

and I pay attention, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I know exactly what I saw- and it was so close to what I saw when I worked for the Dukakis campaign in California in '88 that I had trouble sleeping at night. Cahill was Susan Estrich all over again....

The American mass media is what it is- and one can't expect a fair shake out of them- it wasn't "chicken little stories from the left that were making all the rounds- day after day. It was the unrebutted swift liars and their ads.

Progressive candidates have to make news- or buy time. Fight fire with fire. That's just the way it is.

Unfortunately, I don't see the party or its candidates having learned that lesson yet.

Let's hope Kulongoski's ready and willing to do that- 'cause if he's not- I guarantee you our governor's race this fall isn't going to have a happy ending.

[sandnsea]

61. I have links

Here's one that shows that some people had the good sense to know they had to be the echo chamber.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x69031

Here's one that shows the campaign response starting in May, although I think there was a response before that in April.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

Again, just because YOU chose to sit on the sidelines and pick apart the campaign, doesn't mean that everybody was. It will never be enough to have a campaign fight alone. It takes the supporters getting in the fight with them and the ones least likely to do that are the ones who scream the loudest for red meat. Odd.

[depakid]

64. Sitting on the sidelines?

And just what was I supposed to do? Write an LTTE about the swift boat liars? LOL!

Raise $100,000 and put counter-commercials on the air in early August? Sorry- it's not very realistic to expect anyone else to try to smack down these pissants- that's the campaign's job. That was Kerry's job- and he failed to do it.

Here's another link that describes how it went down:

: Underestimating the Swift Boat ads, the Kerry team suffered from their slow response.

"The Swift Boat ads—a first round charging that Kerry had lied to win his medals, then a second batch accusing him of betraying his mates by calling them war criminals—were misleading, but they were very effective. The Kerry high command failed to see the potential for damage until it was too late.

To respond to the ads would be to dignify them, argued both Bob Shrum and Mary Beth Cahill. Mostly the ads were stirring up the Republican true believers, not winning over the "persuadables," the undecided voters. At least that's what most of Kerry's advisers wanted to believe. It would be a mistake for him to hit back; the persuadables don't like negative campaigning. Better to float above it all.

But Kerry's chief pollster, Mark Mellman, wasn't so sure. He could see that the Swift Boat ads were having an impact—not much at the very beginning, but soon a measurable dent in Kerry's support. The old-fashioned mainstream press was ignoring the claims of the Swifties, but on Fox News, the "fair and balanced" cable network whose viewership was rough 80 percent pro-Bush, the Swifties were getting plenty of air time. And not just on Fox. Other cable networks, possibly trying to catch up with their flag-waving (and higher-rated) competitor, had jumped into the fray. The Swifties had bought only a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of ads, but each played over and over—free—on the cable channels, CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox. The Swift Boat charges were the source of constant debate in the blogosphere, the new online world of bloggers, the modern-day Internet pamphleteers whose screeds were widely read—especially by the young bookers and producers who set the agenda on cable TV.

With all this churning in the new media, the story was bound to spill out into the undecided electorate. Mellman could see it in the numbers. So, too, could Kerry's old campaign manager, Jim Jordan. As an adviser to America Coming Together, he saw lots of polling. He could see that in West Virginia, a key battleground state, 65 percent of voters told one survey that they had seen the group's first ad, which was impossible—but they had clearly heard about it. A fairly small slice—16 percent—said the ad made them feel less favorable to Kerry. Jordan knew that the real number was higher. People don't like to admit that they're influenced by propaganda."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

on edit- here's some DU links from the time (almost forgot about old Tad Devine- wish I had).

Aug 11 TPM: Smearboat effective in persuading independents

Depakid wrote: Kerry's getting Gored

he's getting VERY BAD advice from his campaign stategists. He needs to clean house again- this election is too important to leave in the hands of people like Tad Devine, who never seems to learn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=611378

--------------

Aug 19 depakid wrote: The trouble is that this isn't Masschusetts

and this isn't the only thing Kerry has to deal with.

He's facing the combined might of an unrestrained right wing media and the Republican smear machine. They have been and will continue to hit him with all sorts of false accusations and distortions- and unless he counter attacks soon and makes Bush the issue, he'll be walking down the same sorry path as Michael Dukakis- whose campaign at least at this point, he seems determined to mimic....

Why his people don't get this is totally beyond me. My guess is that they are so insular and ingrained with the Democratic establishment that they are unable to see that a change in their plans is necessary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=637320#638524
------------

Sept 4, 2004 depakid wrote: It's also a sense of deja vu

coupled with the fact that some posters are probably too young to remember how many times this exact same thing has happened to us before.

I'm not relying on the debates- unless kerry changes his style between now and then, I don't expect to see the kind of zingers out of him that will lead the punditocracy to conclude anything other than the debates were at best a draw.

-----------------

Sept 3: The High Road is paved with losers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=739538#740170

------------------
There are dozens of others with similar (prescient) sentiments-

[sandnsea]

65. My god YES

Letters and phone calls to radio shows and tv news matters. I've gotten stories changed by sending emails promptly. All of that matters. If we had had a unified chorus repeating the truth, all across the country, they would have known they were risking a serious backlash to continue their attacks. It doesn't matter two bits what the campaign does, it matters what the voters do.

And that article pretty much says what I said. If WE hadn't quivered at the first sign of an attack, then there wouldn't have been any dent in support. WE fail when we cower in front of that shit. That is what causes those persuadables to lose their guts, when they see US losing our guts, not the campaign. They just want to be on the winning team, that's all.

The article also says the mainstream wasn't carrying the story and it didn't get traction except for, in part, the "constant debate" in the blogosphere. Exactly what I said, they peeked over at the liberal blogs and saw there was something to exploit and they did. It happens all the time. We're our own worst enemy.

Finally, it was only two weeks before the campaign put ads up. That doesn't mean they hadn't done anything in the mean time, as the article also states. They were putting the rebuttal out there, the media and the grassroots didn't run with it. I don't expect the media to tell the truth about their complicity in not playing Clark's or Rassman's response as frequently as they played O'Neill's attacks. And apparently the leftie bloggers won't tell the truth about their own complicity either.

You had a choice in August 2004. You chose to bitch and whine. I hope you choose a different path the next time a Democrat is attacked.

[depakid]

67. Well, my hope is that

the next Dem to get attacked has a look at the big picture and doesn't rely on LTTE's and other "deck chair on the Titanic" things to get him or herself elected.

Frankly I think you COMPLETELY miss the big picture- even after all this time and all these losses- you (and unfortunately- many Dem "consultants" and "strategists") still don't see what has to be done to win.

That's one (among several) reasons why unlike others- I'm not optimistic about this fall- we've lost 6 in a row- and the Rahm Emmanuels of the world seem not to have learned a thing.

I've seen the exact same pattern too many times before. It's been going on all year- cave in, roll over, give a wishy washy speech like the sorry response to the SOTU- and/or punt away what could be firey issues- one after another- and I don't see much evidence of it changing in terms of a nationalized campaign- or concerted efforts by the Dem leadership in the Senate to stand up to and contrast themselves- and their party- with the far right.

[sandnsea]

69. The problem is intimidated voters

The problem is not wanting to be identified as one of the lily-livered, owl loving, hedonist socialists who would think that there's such a thing as free anything, be it health care or food. That's the bottom line problem, all candidates aside. We've been permanently branded and all they have to do is apply a couple of features of the new product to the old brand, and -poof- they have an effective smear campaign in no time flat. What the candidate does will never matter, the change has to come from US.

It wasn't just him not fighting back that got argued over. There were also the "where there's smoke there's fire" posts. And daily 'where's his records' posts. And doubts about Cambodia. I still see posts about him injuring himself and lying about his 1971 testimony. When WE are so easily intimidated into doubting our own candidate, someone like John Kerry for chrissake, then that is a real signal of a problem with US. And truthfully, I think some people were quite happy to find something to criticize, because too many were still pouting over their own primary loss.

It's like when Buzzflash put up that article with "jellocrats". Well who the hell is going to vote for a jellocrat? And yet, the biggest jellocrats are usually the grassroots, not the politicians in DC.

[depakid]

71. Easy answer to that

Smear them back harder!

Ridicule them from time to time- hell, there's so much ammunition out there on popular issues- and yet it rarely is ever gets used. After the nightmare of the past 6 years- after all of the extremist bills that have gone through- after all the sorry stinking results- there's enough emotional material out there to make any anywhere Republican out to be a villain. Guilt by association.

Think about it. If the far right wins by playing like that with lies- imagine what the Dems could do if they just played hardball- in no uncertain terms- with the truth?

[sandnsea]

72. Harry Reid

You have a chance and oddly enough, you did just what I said, attacked the Democrat instead of the smear campaign. Guilt by action right in front of my face I'd say.

[depakid]

75. Harry Reid is part of the problem-

What's he done the past year and a half?

Flap his jaws a lot- then back off- or maybe even apologize- or maybe vote with the opposition!

Nice- let's legitimize the far right- piss off our base and undercut working people by voting for the bankruptcy bill. Brilliant.

The man can't even keep discipline in his own party- a handful (or more) cross over and vote with the Republicans on almost every single bill- no matter how egregious- and every single nominee- no matter how extreme- or corrupt. If it wasn't for the defeat of HIMMA and two other health care bills a couple of weeks ago- his record would be an 'O'fer.

Now, contrast that with what Bob Dole did as minority leader with only 41 votes in 1993-1995.

Yep- Old Bob Dole the obstructionist. Voters sure punished the Republicans for that in the following elections, huh?

[sandnsea]

78. Their voters don't quiver

Ours do, at the drop of a hat. Just like you did with the boxing accusation against Harry Reid. When in doubt, attack the Dem first. Look at immigration, half the people here want to build a fence and deport immigrants, so what's the politicians supposed to do?

[depakid]

80. I disagree

Our voters wouldn't quiver AT ALL if the Dems actually went on the offensive against the far right and exposed them for who they were.

People are just dying for someone to stand up and do that- at this point-maybe even on both sides of the aisle. What they don't want though, is timidity- people who are afraid to be bold and call it like it is.

Damn right I criticize Harry Reid based on his record -and yeasterday on his ethics. What he did was just dumb. Ya don't go get and comped by the Nevada Athletic Commission while a bill is pending- and you SURE DON'T DO IT if you're going to be sitting with John McCain!

That's not just unethical- that's suicidally stupid!

Like this wasn't foreseeable:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900913.html

Now, how are you supposed to contrast the party with the far right- or create any confidence in your leadership when you do things like that?

[sandnsea]

81. Listen, right this second

I am launching an attack on the right wing, I am telling you that this is a contrived smear campaign againt Harry Reid and doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It doesn't do any good because YOU don't want to believe it. Just like YOU and/or people like YOU didn't want to believe the truth about John Kerry in August 2004. YOU prefer to attack Democrats. I wasn't going to say this, but I had you on ignore for a very long time. I don't think you're interested in the Democratic Party at all, I think you want to destroy it and jump for joy every time something comes out to give you the teensiest bit of ammunition against Democrats. I would bet you sat back and sneered every time an attack was launched at the Kerry campaign because you were salivating over the day you could say "I told you so". You never cared who won the election because they're all the same to you anyway.

I have to go, this is a pointless conversation and I've got work to do.

[depakid]

82. Reid shot himself in the foot!

Nobody made him take those tickets- the guy's a former prosecuter! He knew better!

And as far as saying I told you so- I was praying (like other people) that I'd be wrong- my guess is there's a post or two (probably more) down there with those exact sentiments.

Bottom line is that I wasn't wrong in 2004- nor was I wrong about the so called "strategy" in 2002. Go back and look for those if you want. Lots of us weren't wrong- and lots of us today don't have our partisan blinders on today, either

I can't help that you don't like the analysis- I've been avidly watching and/or involved in politics and public policy for over 25 years- I call 'em honestly, like I see 'em.

And for the record- I hope and pray I'm wrong about 2006 as well.

[sandnsea]

83. Yep, perpetual cynic

Everybody's wrong but you. And by god you'll do everything in your power to make sure others are beat into the dirt, right or wrong, just so you can prove they were going to be beaten into the dirt. I don't know why we have so many of that type of person in and around the Democratic Party, but there's no doubt we do.

Bye.

[ProSense]

94. Appears Reid did nothing wrong in taking those tickets!

AP: Reid Arguably Not Beyond Reproach

By Paul Kiel - May 30, 2006, 12:25 AM

If at first you don't succeed...

Back in February, the AP's John Solomon ran a lengthy piece detailing alleged contacts between Jack Abramoff's team at Greenberg Traurig and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). As Josh pointed out, although the article concentrated on the fact that Team Abramoff was lobbying Reid on behalf of sweatshop owners in the Northern Marianas, Solomon failed to note that Reid actually voted against the legislation Abramoff was pushing.

Well, Solomon has written a new piece purporting to illustrate still more of Reid's ethical improprieties. He's managed to actually make a weaker case than in his last story.

Snip...

Only, there is an exception for gifts from governmental agencies (like the Nevada Athletic Commission) in the Senate ethics rules. So there is nothing untoward about Reid having accepted the free tickets.

But it would still seem pretty bad if Reid had accepted the tickets and then stumped shamelessly for the commission.

Only, he didn't. As was the case with Abramoff and the Marianas, Reid voted against the peddler's interest....

Snip...

Solomon is so dead-set on illustrating bipartisan parity on corruption that he's blind to the weakness of the arguments he's making. If this is the best that he can come up with after several months, I have to say that Reid seems remarkably incorruptible.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000772.php

[depakid]

95. Ethics are ethics- I've studied them myself

Whether he's reaching or not- and what his motivations are, is beside the point.

"Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual states.

Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900913.html

If I knew that- as a prosecutor, Reid certainly knew that, too.

Sorry, but ethics are a two edged sword. Now, if people want to round up other suspects (like 3/4'rs of the Republican party) please be my guest! ;-)

[fedupinBushcountry]

70. Did you even read the whole article

it seems like you cherry picked your talking points.

but on Fox News, the "fair and balanced" cable network whose viewership was rough 80 percent pro-Bush, the Swifties were getting plenty of air time. And not just on Fox. Other cable networks, possibly trying to catch up with their flag-waving (and higher-rated) competitor, had jumped into the fray. The Swifties had bought only a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of ads, but each played over and over?free?on the cable channels, CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox.

Now tell me how many times the fair and balanced media ran the Move-On ad about Bush and his military record. Where was the media with people to respond to that. How many times did the media put the slimebags on with no counter balance ?

My God, W. Virginia give me a break that is one state, not the whole damn country. If I remember correctly the Repubs also put out the flyer about Kerry if elected would ban the bible in W. Virginia, come on now, where was the media for that lie. Funny I heard Kerry and Edwards respond to that garbage.

Where was the media to Kerry's trashing of Bush and Cheney at midnight as soon as the Republican purple-heart band-aid convention was over ?

By the way Kerry handed money over to the DNC because he knew he would be limited during the month of August thanks to the poor scheduling of the Dem convention, where was the Dem establishment then ?

Nope to easy to blame Kerry when you weren't 100% behind him in the first place.

[depakid]

73. Wrong

The Kerry campaign had how much money left over?

If you read my posts- you'll see I'm not (and never have been- even before & during the '04 convention) disputing that the corporate media had it in for Kerry.

DUH.

Reality check. That's why the campaign HAD TO respond- forcefully- itself.

Yet they refused to hit back at the swift boat ads- and that was a conscious choice. They "put a stop" to the "bush bashing" before the convention- and didn't pick it up again 'til September. Hell, they damn near invited what happened- and many of us saw it coming. Go back and have a search of the relevant dates on this forum yourself- and you'll see what I mean.

You're being very naive if you expect the media- even the NY Times (with Adam Nagourney- lol, or the LA Times with Browstein) to give the Dems- or any Dem- fair and/or equal coverage on its own. Not going to happen that way. The deck is stacked- but that doesn't mean they can't fire with fire- do what Republicans do- and win.

Hell- they've got just about every popular issue on their side!

[MindMatter]

89. You are missing the most basic point

"Some people argued ..."
"The campaign asserted ..."
"The Kerry/Edwards campaign responded ..."
You don't seem to get the point that when a man's manhood is attacked, you don't go into hiding for 60 days and expect surrogates and press releases to fight that fight.

People here have come up with all sorts of innteresting, but totally irrelevant stuff. Show me when Kerry stood up and called these guys liars. I'm not sure that ever happened.

And don't show me quotes of him talking about the liars being "sadly mistaken", "playing fast and loose with the facts", or "having an active imagination". You have to confront those liars head on and you have to do it immediately.

DOing it a week after the fact is too late. Doing it years later, well, that just makes us all look silly.

[blm]

92. Not if it goes to court and PREVENTS it from happening to the next guy.

Why are YOU so adamnat that the swifts SHOULDN'T be put down now that Kerry has accumulated all the evidence he needs to definitively refute every lie?

[sandnsea]

98. Show me where Bush did that

Show me where he took on Michael Moore or Wes Clark directly when they accused him of being AWOL. He didn't, it was done through surrogates. The one attacked basically stays out of the fray except maybe to make some sort of "I know the facts and I'm sure the truth will come through" statement.

Gosh how could that always be enough for Republicans, but is NEVER enough for Democrats. Because they don't run their own candidates through the mud, that's why. Just like our own supposed supporters are doing right now with Harry Reid. It happens every single time the right wing flaps their gums, our "balls and spine grassroots" run for cover.

[sendero]

68. You are wasting your time..

... these people don't get it any more than Shrum got it. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT, AND THEY NEVER WILL. They are living in some Camelot myth that never even existed, where the media was "fair" and all points of view got equal treatment.

I particularly laugh at that long list of items including where Kerry "speaks of his service" and stuff. You know, stuff that puts Americans to sleep and will never get media time, period.

The Firefighter speech was not bad, but when it didn't get coverage it should be been repeated and repeated and if that didn't work an informercial should have been financed by the campaign.

When over-the-top attacks are not countered with over-the-top responses, there are a number of Americans who will believe them. If someone says, in a crowded room, that you stole the bake-sale money and your response is an offhand whisper of "did not", most of the people in the room WHO DO NOT KNOW YOU now believe you took the bake-sale money.

Human beings are not that damned hard to understand but Dem political consultants seem to go out of their way not to.

[globalvillage]

74. Except that I DID say I didn't steal the bake sale money.

I stood on the church steps and announced that I didn't steal it. Some of my friends backed me up and said they were there with me during the bake sale, and they know I didn't steal it.
But the accusation made the church bulletin, week after week, and so everyone who was not at the bake sale thought, hmmm...maybe she did steal the bake sale money.
The problem is that everyone who KNOWS I would never steal the bake sale money didn't stand up and say "That's crazy, she would never have stolen the bake sale money, and you know it."
Doesn't matter how long I stand on the steps screaming that I didn't steal it. Unless the congregation is standing behind me in support, there are those who are always going to believe I stole it because it was in the bulletin, after all.

Until they find the money under the bingo machine, which, apparently, they have.

Where was the rest of the congregation when I was accused of stealing the bake sale money?

That said, Sen Kerry has said he should have put more money behind the attacks. I just don't know if it would have made much of a difference without support from EVERY leading Democrat denouncing the lies alongside him.

That's how I see it.

[sendero]

76. Every leading Dem..

.. including those who were his political rivals? Surely you jest.

Kerry's perpetual rehabilitation campaign is wearing thin.

[globalvillage]

77. Clark stood up. n/t

[sendero]

79. I'm not surprised..

... Clark is a mega-class act.

[CarolNYC]

102. Clark

Yes, he did and, if his remarks to a gathering I attended last spring are any indication, it was one of his great frustrations of the campaign that others didn't stand as strongly with JK. He was pretty darn upset to get phone calls from Dems who thought maybe we should investigate the charges, etc, etc....He got pretty passionate talking about it...For Wes, once he dropped out, the only political rivals were those running as Republicans.

That said, it didn't help when you had stuff like what happened when Wes spoke at a Kerry rally in Tacoma that summer. He came out pretty strongly against the attacks, bringing up Bush's 'honorable discharge' and saying that he thought it was "outrageous that the president of the United States can question the medals and the service and the valor of American veterans who have served." It sounded good to me and it sounded good to the crowd...

But, barely before the words were out of Clark's mouth, the Kerry campaign was disavowing them, a Kerry spokesman saying that, yes, Wes was obviously angered by the attacks but "he doesn't speak for us, though." Perhaps Kerry himself then came along and said that the spokesman didn't actually speak for him and that he agreed with and stood by Wes' comments and that wasn't reported by the media but it doesn't seem likely to me.

I imagine Wes didn't care one way or another what the spokesman said but, to Clark supporters who were hoping that Kerry would come out swinging against these attacks and who had been treated to Clark's spokesman responding to someone who questioned Wes' overheard "I'll beat the shit out of them" statement regarding Republicans trying to question his patriotism with a statement that what Wes really meant to say was he'd beat the living shit out of them, it was really frustrating.

I do appreciate the fact that JK did say a lot of things that weren't reported or reported well by the media and I appreciate the work someone put into gathering the info for that research thread. There's no question the media was, and will continue to be, a big problem and they should be ashamed.

[blm]

101. In a general there are not supposed to be any rivals - it becomes a team.

That you would say what you did is remarkable for its truth - there were few Democrats standing up against BushInc alongside Kerry in 2004 - and those who did were primary contenders who "got" how important it was to stand together.

[MindMatter]

90. Here's the transcript of that speech.

Dear friends,

I am here today to talk with you about a set of ugly allegations you may have heard last month. As many of you know, I have long been a supporter of bake sales. In fact, in my younger days, I used to make bake sale cakes with my bare hands. I have always felt that a man's character could accurately be measured by how he responded at the moment of truth, when it was time to put the icing on the cake.

Now there are people who say that I never iced my own cakes. In fact some have made the outlandish claim that I don't even like cake. Let me assure everyone that cake-liking spreads through every vein in my body.

Although I am a man who grew up with advantages, I have never forgotten the importance of cakes to American society. Cake sales are as American as, well, as Apple Pie. And a great many fine organizations depend on the revenue from those cake sales modest as they may be.

Some have suggested that I might have stolen some of that cake sale money long ago. I ask you, "Is this the face of a man who would take cake away from needy babies?" Indeed, stealing cake sale money would have been the farthest thing from my mind. Next month, I will put before you a greoup of honorable gentlemen who will tell you in no uncertain terms about times they witnessed me sneaking money INTO the cake fund.

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, those who say the John Kerry stole money from the cake fund are engaging in the selective manipulation of facts, and I think you should just consider the source.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to set the record straight.

[Mass]

62. Sadly, many people here are too obtuse to see how it is relevant to the 06

campaign (or dont care because thrashing Kerry is part of a larger agenda and they think the liars somehow will not thrash their candidate - talk about seeing thru pink glasses).

[JNelson6563]

88. Wow. How about some panic

to go with your hysteria?

When oh when can we let go of the debacle that was Campaign '04???

Of course as long as one is occupied with 04 (or 08 for that matter) one is far too busy to bother with the endless elections we need to win this year....

Oy! :eyes:

[blm]

93. Kerry is working to STOP Swifts from doing it to other vets running in 06

If you want him to stop his Patriot Project to defend vet candidates because it wastes time, then contact his office.