Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Don't Have A Problem With Any Democrat Seeking The Presidency...But

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:12 PM
Original message
I Don't Have A Problem With Any Democrat Seeking The Presidency...But
I hope the debates are limited to those polling above 5% at the time of the debates. We don't need another 8 guys up on stage giving 30 second answers so they have enough time to let everyone speak. If that makes for a debate with only three or four candidates, so be it. Better to have our four top candidates with enough time to give a clear, non-sound bite answer than have 8 guys spitting out talking points. That was one of my gripes with the 2004 primary debates. You knew Gephardt, Leiberman, Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich weren't going to get the nomination, why did they need to stand up there at the podium and take time away from the candidates who the country really needed to hear give long, detailed policy positions and explainations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Maybe it could be like the NFL playoffs
First seed debates eight seed, then debates the winner of four versus five and so on.

I agree eight on the stage is way too many; and no one starts or ends with an advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. or something like a random draw
with two candidates picked at random to debate eachother for an hour, then two more, and so on and so forth...

Or a tag team, two on one side, two on the other - moderates vs. liberals. Al Sharpton can bring a megaphone and be a manager, like Jimmy Hart. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe instead of cutting back on the candidates they should allow more time for answers.
I believe nothing is over till it is over and everyone should have a chance to be heard. Polling usually only measures popularity and not necessarily competence on real ideas.Debate determines the weak from the strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A Simple Game Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Yep, let them go all day. If you don't want to listen to
the whole thing, read the Cliff Notes the next day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. I disagree. For many of the candidates the primary debates are
a first chance at real national exposure. And it's the "other voices" that keep the frontrunners from just spouting sound bites. Would anybody have even mentioned national health care if Kucinich hadn't been there to bring it up last time?

The primary debates are not a popularity poll - they are forums for establishing the planks in the party platform. I say, the more the merrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I agree.
I want those 'fringe' candidates there forcing the front runners to address issues which they might ignore otherwise. Also, they expose us to a wider variety of ideas and opinions. I think that the end winner will be stronger for having to claw his way through the pack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. was kerry stronger?
No. I think he would have been stronger had he gone 90 minutes with just Edwards, Dean and Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I think he would have been stronger if he had stood up for himself.
But he didn't. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. He did. Corpmedia chose to not report it or give his speeches doing so the airtime.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. sorry. I'm just not buying it.
if your message isn't getting out, you stay on message until it
does
. it's called campaign discipline.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Kerry attacking the swifts should not have been a message. He was in a contest with Bush
and if he kept bringing up the swifts who, thanks to McCain-Feingold were an independent group, then wouldn't the media started in on 'Kerry is so obsessed with the swifts that he isn't on message about Bush' - you know it. Too bad many BIGNAME Dems wouldn't pitch in to help. Bush sure had plenty of big names showing up for him everyday.

Anyone who believes the media wasn't complicit in the way this played out, wasn't paying attention. BTW - Kerry still overcame all this and got 60-65 million votes. BushInc had to suppress and steal votes to stay in power.


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

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



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

The battle with the people really behind this group will never end. But there are veterans coming forth with a book of their own that will unmask the swifts for the lying GOP operatives they are. We need to support those vets when their book comes out. Truth matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
talk hard Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. this only proves what a lousy candidate Kerry was
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 06:07 PM by talk hard
Even with all this crap you posted his message was STILL not heard. He was a terrible candidate and reminded us of that recently.

No thanx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Baloney - Kerry EXCEEDED expectations. Had the DNC done its job and secured
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 06:43 PM by blm
the election process and countered the RNC's vote suppression and stealing, then Kerry would have taken office.

The RNC dragged Bush back into power - the DNC blew ANOTHER presidential election with their targetted state national strategy that oversaw the collapse of Dem party infrastructures in too many states.

Kerry kicked Bush's ass in their matchups. RNC kicked DNC's ass, and RW media completely swarmed left media.

BTW - Dean is STILL working to rebuild those infrastructures left to collapse by the two previous chairmen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
talk hard Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. he was wimpy and let the Swifties run all over him
The sad part is that happened in spite of all the crap you posted. Keep right on blaming everybody else for his shortcomings -- it doesnt' make it so and only shows how pathetic pepole are making excuses for him. Yawn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. It's pathetic that people believe the DNC and LW media countered effectively and
choose to blame the ONLY part of the campaign that WON a matchup - Kerry trounced all over Bush DECISIVELY in every one of their one to one matchups.

Can you say that the DNC and the left media did the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
talk hard Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. whats pathetic is you twisting words
who cares if he won the debates when he didnt' win the matchup with the Swifties, That's what sunk him. He had the mic and attention to come back at em & all the crap you posted proves he had no effect in that matchup. That wasn't anybody's fault but his own. Thats why he wont' get a seocnd chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. The swifts did not sink Kerry. You don't gain 10 million more votes than 2000
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 04:23 PM by blm
by running a bad campaign or being 'sunk' by the swiftliars.

And it's fantasy to believe that the media was NOT COMPLICIT when they refused to cover Kerry's Aug 19 speech to the Firefighters Convention where he countered the swifts AND especially since the Firefighters endorsed Kerry - the only post 9-11 firefighters' story that the media chose to ignore en masse.

And once Kerry made the speech attacking the swifts it was up to the big name Dems and Dem spokespeople to PARROT and reinforce his attacks as a frontal assault - Bush had all the bigname GOPs and RW media countering attacks on him, so he wouldn't have to.

Funny, how Kerry is the only one who gets your blame, when no one in their fair mind would dare claim that Bush gets all the credit for his brilliant campaign and his defense of his own record and charges made against him. Why? Because Bush NEVER LIFTED A DAMN FINGER to defend himself on ANYTHING. He didn't have to. He had the RNC, bigname GOPs and a RW media machine do it all for him. Somehow, that all managed to escape your attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
talk hard Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. dude, you are the master of bending & twisting the conversation
I posted on comments about Kerry, this is about Kerry, not all the others you are trying to smush this conversation over to. You have a really wierd way of trying to change the topic becuase you can't defend your point. You dont' know anything else about how I think other than what we'ere talking about.You do get that other people think they way they want and that your opinion is your opinion?!!??!! I think you are wrong and have a Pollyanna view of Kerry & every time you post you prove that. Get a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
35.  I counter spin and lies against most Dems and especially Kerry because
he has done the most to earn the defense for those of us residing in the anti-corruption, open government wing of the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cadmium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. There was no match up with the Swifties. CNN and the rest of
them -- not just Fox only wanted to talk about this story. They built it up over several weeks. Democrats have gotten better at is calling talk radio, but still not good enough. I listened to financial shows during this time period (Ron Insana, Bob Brinker, and Neil Cavuto) and whenever they had open lines or didn't have a guest they were bombarded by people parroting Swift Boat charges. If Kerry can be faulted on this it is because he didn't have better organization/contacts in the media--but I doubt that could have been possible in any way. Look at what Bush's people were able to do over Janet Jackson's breast and Dan Rather questioning Bush's military record. Also I think that this issue has been totally overplayed. By September the charges were debunked and Swiftboat smears were starting to work in Kerry's favor. The effect of the swiftboat stuff was pretty much nullified after the first debate

The Orange Alerts dominated the news every time Kerry-Edwards got momentum. This was much more important that the Sboaters--no good way to defend against this. Now I would like to see this investigated by Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Agreed, agreed,agreed, agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree with the problem but
At the time when the first debates were being planned it was not at all clear that Lieberman and Gephardt would not get the nomination. In January of 2003 an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll had Lieberman at 25% and Gephardt at 17%. They were the two front runners for the nomination at that point (which was a little closer to the actual primaries than the current polls are today).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. yeah, but come on
did anyone really consider Liberman or Gephardt a serious candidate? They were washed-up old news. I always thought it would come down to Dean or Kerry. Almost the same as this year where I think it'll come down to Obama or Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. It depends on whether anyone takes the beltway pundits seriously
Some people actually do. It happens every cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I was actually scared that Dean and Kerry the only two I really liked
would split the same vote - preventing either from winning. Leiberman and Gepheardt were considered possible when the debates started.

When googling through Iowa stuff trying to find something from January 2004, I read lots of pundits Dec/Jan stuff - they weren't exactly too accurate. One even titled his report "Kerry in Death Spiral" predicting that his campaign would be dead after NH even if he did the best "he possibly could". The best he could do was 3rd behind Dean and Gepheardt in Iowa (which they said was lack luster for him - but the start of a surge if Edwards beat Kerry to get number 3 ) followed by at best a 3rd to Dean and Clark in NH. This was written a week before the caucus.

Now, if 2004 were more like all the books like "Making of a President 19.., Kerry would have lost the momentum to someone else, who lost if to another person. It is those latter people who often get the nomination. (In fact in mid 1991 when they were starting up the debates where was Bill Clinton?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Doesn't matter whether you considered them "serious" or not
Our first debate is scheduled for April, iirc. Back in April 2003, Lieberman and Gephardt were polling high and Dean was at only 1 or 2%. So by the criteria you lay out in your OP, they would have be included in the first debate and Dean would not have been. Is that what you think should have happened?

Point is, polls this early mostly just reflect name recognition. In early 03, Lieberman had run as VP and Gephardt was minority leader. The rest were relatively unknown. But one of the ways legitimate candidates gain name recognition is from the debates. In fact, it's one of the few ways not completely controlled by the corporate media, so let's think before we give the gate-keepers more power than they already have, ok?

I happen to agree with you that there's a problem of having too many people on stage, but the answer isn't to narrow the field based on bad assumptions about polling data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
28. Kerry was at under 5 percent at certain points
he even came at less than Sharpton at at least one time i remember.

i think a better idea is to break up the debates depending on how many candidates there are. if there are 10 running, and lets say one of the debates is for a health care debate, instead of one debate with all the candidates. break it up into 2 or 3 different sets of debates for that one event with each candidate allowed to parcitipate in one of them. i know overall it will be longer but i think it would be worth it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. I disagree.
How else will people ever hear what others have to say? You sure can't count on the "media" to educate them before the debates. If all contenders got equal coverage before the polling started, during the polling, and up until the debates were scheduled, you might have a case. Or a case for more debates. Still, the debates are the only time many voters hear the actual voice of all the contenders. Limiting their choices to beltway, corporate candidates ahead of time seems like a corrupt selection, to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. At various points before the debates
the candidates you list were polling higher than ones that became key players. The other thing is what poll would you use? How far before a debate? Should it change for each debate as people become viable or go below 5%.

In 2003, Lieberman polled higher than 5%. Dean was below 1 or 2% till late spring, than was highest by December. Kerry in December 2003 was below Sharpton in one poll - and went on to do well. Gepheart was the favorite to win Iowa as the debates began.

Using that rule now would limit the choice to Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore and Kerry. I think people could see a senario - say with Gore not running that someone could USE the debates to enter that group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think we should worry less about who participates in the debates

and worry much more about who is chosen to moderate the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lpbk2713 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's probably better that they do their fragmenting in the primaries.



Rather than form their own party.

If it hadn't been for Nader taking away as many Dem votes as he did BushCo would probably be nothing more than a bad dream now.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. Nah...I thought Sharpton was a hoot!
I see your point, but there is something good about what people like Gephardt, Kucinich and even Sharpton had to say on issues. It was frustrating when the first debate had 10 people on the stage...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
26. I'd like to see a series of debates with different combinations of
two or three candidates at a time, but with all of them asked exactly the same questions and given the same time to answer.

So you could have a debate between A and B, between B and C, between C and D, and so on till E (or whatever) and A.

The ten-candidate format is indeed awkward, but how is any candidate who ISN"T backed by massive contributions from PACs and corporate interests supposed to get heard? And make no mistake, the corporate interests back only candidates who won't make the changes that need to be made in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. I hope they have all sorts of voices represented
there will be time to narrow their focus as the process progresses, but even though, say, kucinich had about no shot at the nomination, I think the democratic party was better off for having him in the discussion. The primaries are for the party, and the voters of the party deserve to hear (and pass judgment on) a broad spectrum of voices within the democratic party. As the race tightens, then the frontrunners can take their message to the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
32. We've got to hear this everyday for the next two years, doen't THAT excite you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. My response....
More debates! Quite simple really :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cadmium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
37. I want all the candidates in debates. These debates would have been
much poorer without Al Sharpton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
38. I like watching people like Sharpton. He's important and effective at driving a point home for
average Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC