To "Swift Boat" or not to "Swift Boat." That is the Question

[kennetha]

I don't think there is any doubt that the Swift Boating campaign and Kerry's not altogether adept response to it played a role in returning the current regime to the White House. Such tactics work. Obviously, though, they are, shall we say, more than a little bit unsavory.

Here's a question, should we dems be willing to do a little swift boating of our own, if it would help us achieve victory?

I ask because it strikes me that some of the stuff about Palin seems ripe for Swift Boat like tactics. And by such tactics I mean the use of a kind of willful distortion and/or exaggeration and/or omission of pertinent facts designed to put the worst possible spin on something, with the goal of raising doubts and questions about the opponent -- even if you know the answers to the questions and know that the doubts have no real basis -- in order to convince the not terribly attentive or well informed to vote against the opponent and in favor of you.

By doing so, you place the burden on the other person to point out your distortions, exaggerations, to answer the questions and quiet the doubts. You thereby make them spend valuable time and resources not pushing their own message.

I can see some justification for the acceptability of this on the grounds that the other person is the competitor. It's not your job to make the case on your competitors behalf, to provide a spin on events and actions that is even a little favorable to the competitor.

Still part of me finds such tactics quite unsavory. I don't think they are illegal. And I'm not even sure I'd call them immoral? About the worst I would say is that they are somehow dishonorable.

But if you can do it, and can be reasonably confident that doing it would not backfire -- that's an important stipulation. otherwise you'd be going against your own self interest in using such tactics -- and can reasonably confident that they would actually work to drive down the competitor's vote and/or drive up your own vote, should you do it?

Or shouldn't you at least just wink at others who are doing it on your behalf?

Why or why not?

[politicasista]

1. You should visit this link rather than let the media off the hook

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... /

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

[karynnj]

5. Nice post sista

I think the question in the op also ignores the reality of the media. What the Republicans did could NOT be done by the Democrats. The reason the SBVT gained credence was because the entire media treated it as he said, they said. Where it was a sitting Senator, with a history of integrity and honesty, and the official record on his side vs people already shown to have motives and to have lied. Notice the difference with McCain, a Democrat lists major issues where McCain's position has indisputably changed completely and he/she is asked, "Are you questioning his integrity?"

Note the difference, in 2004, they should have said with that incredulous tone, "Are you questioning his integrity?" They didn't - they were neutral. In the example given, they had no reason to ask that question - implying the Democrat was somehow wrong to honestly and correctly identify McCain's real shifts on political issues.

Now, would that same media - that considered valid comments from a high level Democrat wrong, play he said, they said with someone clearly lying about McCain? (The other question is even if you were ok with it morally, which I am not, why would you make stuff up when there is so much that is true that is negative if brought up.)

[politicasista]

10. Thank you

:hi:

[Hamlette]

9. I think the impact of Swiftboating is exaggerated.

I think you have to hit a real soft spot. While I loved Kerry for his activities during Vietnam, I had forgotten (didn't realize?) how many people hated him for what he said/did. I heard from many military families in 2004 how pissed they were about the "lies" he spread when he testified in the 70s. Swiftboating might not have worked without that.

It was the first time it was done by an "outside" group. Somehow they seemed less partisan, because they were not connected to the campaign, than more (which they were.)

Obama has been great so far at responding. The media, as much as I believe they are not on our side, might have a tad of guilt for letting them get away unquestioned in 2004 and don't want to feel responsible for another Bush.

[Bonobo]

2. Swiftboating is a wildly inappropriate comparison. So I reject the premise of your OP entirely. nt

[kennetha]

4. then abstract away from the details of the particular case, then.

[msongs]

3. truth is always fair game even though it may appear to be negative.. nt

[JVS]

6. We seek the truth. The dirty horrible disgusting truth.

[donco6]

7. Swift boating involves intentionally distributing lies.

All people here have done is press for the truth. No one's written any books. No one's produced any commercials.

Your original premise is false.

[kennetha]

8. I didn't mean to imply

that anyone here has done any Swiftboating.

I said that a lot of stuff about her is "ripe" for Swiftboating. And I wondered if given such ripeness Swift boating is okay or not okay.

Abstract away from the particular case, if that would help. But given just the facts of Palin's situation, somebody who was intent on "swiftboating" could have a field day. You might think the facts are enough, without any swiftboating. I don't have a firm view about that since I don't pretend to know the facts.


I was just wondering if we dems should consider swift-boating beyond the pale as a technique in our quiver own quivers.

[donco6]

11. If you agree with my def. of "swiftboating" then, no, it's never OK.

It's intentionally spreading lies. Never OK with me.

[Stephist]

12. Don't Swiftboat But Use the Truth.

Show the hypocrisy of Palin's family and her own talking points. Pointing out the hypocrisy of her James Dobson talking points is neither swift boating nor insulting the Daughter.