Well, well, well. Let's take a trip in the wayback machine of dkos during the SBVT attack

[beachmom]

I was researching for that McCain diary of the time when Kerry defended McCain in 2000. I eventually got some good links that led me to this diary dated August 21, 2004:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/21/23649/5768

Right in the thick of the SBVT attacks. So I suppose Kossaks are bitching that "Kerry isn't fighting back", right? Actually, not really. Here are a few:

Follow this link.. (none / 0)
..and see what Kerry's campaign has in response:

http://www.johnkerry.com/oldtricks

"Strength and wisdom are not opposing values" - Bill Clinton.

by RAST on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 08:15:01 PM PDT

I wish that link still worked but alas it's long gone. Sounds like the Kerry campaign had something good up that night though.

You're giving Shrub too much credit (none / 0)
This is ROVE's tactic.

by Elizabeth D on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 08:24:10 PM PDT

I liked this comment because it showed back then that people were more likely to blame Rove, figuring in that Bush was clueless as to what was going on. This coming from DAILYKOS! This is evidence of how Bush was simply better liked back then, when even a lefty site couldn't fathom that Bush probably enjoyed these attacks (I am SURE he did). This was before we found out that Bush signed the declassification of documents during Plamegate.

I love these series of comments:

i've said this before and I'll say it again (none / 1)
This will backfire big time, the whole swift boat veteran thing.

They knew flip-flopper was becoming a joke (although it stuck), and that 'Massachusetts Liberal' was not working at all... and now they are forcing John Kerry to go over his military service again and again, giving Kerry many chances to counterpunch in a convincing and decisive way.



by alxt on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 08:34:11 PM PDT

It is (none / 0)

highlighting his heroics. I think this will end up being a net positive for Kerry.

by Unstable Isotope on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 06:40:14 AM PDT

Only at this point does someone point out the danger, but he's talking about his Dad (sigh) in Ohio:

If, and only if... (none / 0)

...the fact that they are lying gets as much play as the initial SBVT heaping pile of crap, which is doubtful.

While visiting my parents in Ohio this weekend, I showed my Republican father the "Dirty Tricks" ad. He watched it three times, and apparently he saw it again later on television.

He's not thrilled with Bush, but the "Kerry is a liar and flip flopper" memes have stuck with him, despite mountainous evidence to the contrary. He's a smart and thoughthful guy but doesn't seek out much in terms of news beyond the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Fox, with some occasional CNN thrown in. I put the NYT article on his pillow before my flight back to New York this morning, but he thinks the Times is a leftist rag, so it may not resonate. I've tried time and time again.

My point: for Joe Schmo somewhat dissatisfied Republican in swing states to get it, this story has to be huge, even bigger than the initial SBVT crap. So huge that it reaches people who rely on one or two news sources. I'm doing my best, but I'm not sure that the story will get enough play beyond the NYT/WaPo/Chicago Tribune to resonate with the people who are most susceptible to seeing and being poisoned by SBVT.

Ugh.

by ltj201 on Sun Aug 22, 2004 at 01:08:27 PM PDT

That was the only comment that was cautious about what was going on. But I simply did not see the stuff we saw post 2004, blaming Kerry for "not fighting back". Clearly, there were responses, like what John McCain said, which the Kerry campaign put into an ad (which McCain later asked to be pulled), and they were happening on a daily basis. And lefty bloggers were not en masse "screaming" liked they claimed they were after the fact.

I will add that Democrats weren't screaming during this time either. It is a myth that there were huge swaths of Democrats telling Kerry to fight back. I just don't see that in this diary, and I frankly don't remember it at the time. THIS was happening, however:

These lies about Kerry have also (4.00 / 7)
solidified his support too. I know several Dems who had supported Dean or Clark and were reluctant Kerry supporters as part of the ABB group. They are LIVID over these lies!

I think Bush will rue the day these ads appeared. I think - like David Gergen who has served presidents of both parties honorably - that Bush will be hurt by these smear tactics.

I like the Kerry ad based on the McCain comments in 2000. Kerry's strong support for the Arizona senator when he was attacked in 2000 clearly show Kerry's moral character and his lack of partisanship -- something this country will badly need in 2005 after this bitter campaign.

It's like Kerry's saving the life of Nevada Republican Senator Chic Hecht in 1988 when he chocked at a banquet. (See "Former GOP Sen. Hecht owes life to Democratic candidate Kerry by Kirsten Searer in the Las Vegas Sun of Feb. 6, 2004.) Damn Kerry impresses the hell out of me!

And I was a Dean organizer in my area of Ohio. I'm proud of Gov. Dean for his work since the spring, and now I'm strongly supporting Kerry.

by Retired in Ohio on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 08:37:40 PM PDT

So we've got an Ohio Dean supporter outraged and probably ended up volunteering for Kerry in Ohio.

Go to the diary. There is more gushing about how Republicans are condemning this and so forth. It felt like a net win day for Kerry .... on August 21, 2004. If the Kerry campaign is going to be labelled inept in handling this, then what about rank and file Dems/bloggers, most of whom did not view Kerry's response as disasterous when it was happening in real time. It was just a bullshit attack on him with lies, and the facts were coming out all favoring Kerry. That is how I viewed it at the time. I wonder if that GOP father in OH was probably not going to vote for a Democrat anyway, and simply used these attacks to keep that opinion. I know that was true where I was -- GOP folks talked about the SBVT attacks. Nobody else did.

[beachmom]

1. Wow, this is a great link:

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/appendixb.htm#B4

Praise from Josh Marshall at the time (he kind of is unimpressed with what Edwards said, but thought Kerry's new ad that day called "Old Tricks" was great):

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.php#003302

Today at a rally, John Edwards said, among other things, "This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush. We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."

Okay for today. But no more of this.

We already know what kind of a man he is. He's got a track record.

...

Far more important, it's whining. Begging. At a minimum, it can come off or be characterized that way. And it sounds weak. This is about hitting back, not flaunting high-mindedness.

If the president's behavior is really as bad as the Kerry-Edwards team is saying it is, then it's really past the point of asking him to do the right thing and redeem himself.

The excellent ad the Kerry campaign put out today -- the one with McCain confronting Bush -- ends with the line "America can do better."

It doesn't say, "George W. Bush, please stop" or "George W. Bush should do the right thing." It says "America can do better" or, in other words, he's shown us what kind of person he is and he shouldn't be president.

No need to be nasty. "America can do better" says all that needs be said. Drive that point home and move the debate back to the president's failed record at home and abroad.

You know, history matters, even our recent history. And quite frankly, I am sick of this crap that Kerry "didn't fight back" when he did and was PRAISED for his tactics at the time. So he comes 120K votes short of the presidency, and then the finger pointing starts. Well, the geniuses pointing the fingers post Nov. 2004 re-wrote history, and frankly I'm calling them on their dishonesty.

Oh, and more -- the risk of "fighting back" if it is too fast and furious:

Underscoring how personal the dispute has become, Bush's campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, went on CNN and said the Kerry campaign has come "unhinged," and that Kerry himself "looks wild-eyed." Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Kerry is "losing his cool." In 2000, the Bush campaign used similar language to portray rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as potentially too unstable to run the country.

Of course, this was a total lie. I did not see one moment in public where Kerry "lost his cool". Not one. But see how they were setting it up?

[fedupinBushcountry]

3. From JohnKerry.com on 8/21/04

http://web.archive.org/web/20040821011755/http://blog.johnkerry.com/

From 8/2/04

Kerry Surges Among Veterans
http://web.archive.org/web/20040804045015/http://blog.johnkerry.com/

8/10/04

Jim Rassman Speaks Out
http://web.archive.org/web/20040811091908/http://blog.johnkerry.com/

[wisteria]

4. You are right Beachmom. And, I am sick of the BS that he didn't fight back n/t

[blm]

6. It was McAuliffe spreading that whole 'Kerry didn't fight back' lie to convince Dems

they "needed Clintons again, because they know how to 'fight back' even if you don't like their centrism politics."

This would seem attractive to many, but a few of us knew it was a lie from TeamClinton and wouldn't give into the lie the last 3 1/2 years and NOW we are seeing how IMPORTANT it was for our PARTY and for Obama's candidacy that we stuck to our guns.

Hurray for.....................us.

[beachmom]

7. I heard it first from Begala shortly after the 2004 election.

Some crap about if he couldn't defend himself then how could he defend the country? And people bought that!!!!! Was McAuliffe whispering stuff during the election? I am not sure what he was doing. I just know he was the bozo who set the date for the convention 5 weeks before Bush's. THAT was the big handicap.

[blm]

8. Sure it was Begala and Carville on TV, while McAuliffe used the DNC network to trash Kerry

all over the country at state and local meetings when they 'assess' what went right and what went wrong post-election.

I attended the luncheon meeting in NC and the speaker started out by asking how many were just "ABB in the election - Anybody But Bush" which we know now as a tactic to diminish the personal story and attributes of a nominee - they didn't WANT voters to get to know Kerry, at all. Which is exactly why Bill's book came out in June 2004 when Dems should have been getting to know their nominee better.

[MH1]

2. Wayback Machine

http://www.archive.org/index.php

Paste your link in and you will get a page linking to various versions of the desired page.

I don't know if this link will work at DU but here is direct link:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.johnkerry.com/oldtricks

(looks like you have to cut and paste the url cuz DU can't handle that * in the middle)

It is past my bedtime so I will have to leave it at that, for your perusal. :)

[karynnj]

5. Thank you, Beachmom

This is incredible. It also shows that for 2008, we need to worry about the impact of the smear machine beyond our own group. I was mentally where all the posters, except the one with the Ohio dad, were. I was positive that it would backfire and backfire badly - I mean come on, Ginsberg was a Bush/Cheney lawyer as well as a SBVT lawyer and the smears were grossly contradicted by the record and even Nixon hadn't gone there.

I also know Bush voters who said that they knew the attacks were lies. They disputed my contention that Bush was not clean on this and that his campaign was involved. I wonder if the "didn't fight back" meme started when he lost by people trying to explain a loss they didn't see coming. The internet lets people be with people who all agree with each other - so, we saw posted the editorials for Kerry and the polls that were best for Kerry. That theme was then pushed by the Clintons, with John Edwards piling on later, claiming he had wanted to fight back. Their vested interests were obvious. (Clinton pushed the meme that Kerry spoke of Vietnam too much- when all Kerry said was "that he served his country as a young man in Vietnam, then returned" (to protest). )