The New York Times still not ready to call the SBVT liars.

[Mass]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1297992

They have a long paper about Kerry defending himself where they basically imply that he is doing that for 2008.

What irritates me more than all is that they are giving the same point to O'Neil and Co than they give to Kerry. If this is what fair and balanced is, I dont want fair and balanced.

[whometense]

1. Graphics are interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/05/27/washington/20060528_KERR_GRAPHIC.html

[beachmom]

3. Yes, they were very good

I would call this a 2/3 - 1/3 story, which is an improvement. Meaning 2/3rd sympathetic to Kerry, 1/3rd sympathetic to SBVT. In 2004, it was probably 70% SBVT, 30% Kerry at times, and only 50/50 at best in some of the MSM newspaper articles. Obviously, we want to get it down to 100% Kerry, SBVT 0%.

I'm really glad that Kerry is doing this -- it's about restoring his honor. He lost so much in Vietnam, and he's not going to let "the bad guys" take away what he was left with -- his honor and integrity.

I'm more optimistic than you, Mass. Especially, the graphics pictorially showed how bunk their charges were. This was overall a good article.

[JI7]

34. he looks so cute

[ProSense]

2. My problem is

the SBVT vs. Kerry as if this is a he said, he said debate.

How about SBVT vs the actual record?

[ginnyinWI]

4. I think that if Kerry's team can prove enough of the lies to be lies,

it will discredit the Swifties once and for all. Once seen as liars with a political or personally vindictive agenda, they will be neutered.

[ProSense]

5. They have been.

Even the NYT article acknowledges (in a brief mention) that these are lies. IMO, it's the MSM that is confusing the issue. They are able to reach more people and as long as they continue to frame it in the same way as the current article, they'll perpetuate confusion.

Here is the snip I posted in the GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1297992&mesg_id=1298487

[ginnyinWI]

7. they take this approach because of fear

and, probably, a long-standing habit of using the "he-said-she-said" format. But mainly they are too afraid to just take a stand and risk pissing off some of their readers, or the "powers that be".

But I'm still willing to say that this kind of coverage is better than none. This is unfinished business and needs to be cleared up; if they have to act like it's still questionable,so be it-- they may even succeed in drawing in people from the other side who will be, at first, hoping that their side will be proved right--and will find out they've been lied to.
Of course it would have been so much better if the NYT had just outed these guys two years ago. I don't know exactly how they did handle it--but I'm guessing in much the same way as now. I was actually in Europe for more than half of Aug 2004 so I really didn't witness the way it played out in the media at the time.

[ray of light]

6. Rawstory has this.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_still_fighting_Swiftboat_Veterans_about_0527.html

[ProSense]

8. Excellent post at The Horse's Mouth blog:

JOHN KERRY'S VERY, VERY, VERY LONG WAR. The Times has just posted a piece which is simultaneously poignant and infurating. Apparently the Swift Boat Liars who destroyed John Kerry's 2004 candidacy are still alive and well, and Kerry is still at war with them. A year and a half after his loss, he's going at them more aggressively than ever.

The piece is poignant because it reveals how despondent Kerry is about the damage the group did to his reputation and how remorseful he is about not debunking their charges earlier. The piece is infuriating because...well, let's run the tape. The article says:

Snip...

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves.

Still, the charges stuck.

Emphasis added. Look, here's the thing. To the extent that the Swift Boat Liars were effective -- and that's in dispute -- it wasn't just because of their spending on ads. It was because the media amplified those charges for days and days, if not weeks, without examining them critically. When the press did get around to debunking the charges whatever damage there was had already been done. The media tried to shift blame for this to Kerry by arguing that he'd failed to respond aggressively. But here's the point: The press shouldn't have had to wait for Kerry to start hitting back before it started to report critically on what the Swift Boat Liars were saying. The simple fact that the media was amplifying the charges should alone have obligated them to take a critical look at them -- immediately.

One of the key themes of this blog will be that a big problem with political reporting today is that its practitioners simply refuse to acknowledge their own role in shaping public perceptions. Thus it is that this Times piece can blithely observe that "the charges stuck" as if this happened by magic, when in fact the real reason this happened is that the media simply failed to be skeptical and aggressive at an absolutely critical moment. That failure, of course, is one of the reasons that Kerry is still a Senator -- and is still battling the Swifties today.

--Greg Sargent

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/05/post_36.html

The MSM made the lies the story!

[Mass]

9. Thank you for posting that. This describes perfectly the issue.

[ray of light]

10. I don't get this! I would have sworn they WERE released in 04!

"Mr. Kerry has signed forms authorizing the Navy to release his record — something he resisted during the campaign — and hired a researcher ..."

[Mass]

11. Kerry posted his records on his website, but, in 2004, he did not

allow the media to ask the records directly to the Navy.

This allowed the SVBT to say he was hiding some things. When he did that last year, BG and LAT did not find anything they did not know, except for his Yale grades that they exploited for one week! :sarcasm:

[ray of light]

12. So the media lied because it's not like his website was hard to find.

Afterall....I managed to find it and in 04 I wasn't the most internet savvy person around. (Ok...don't say it...I know I'm still not!)

[Mass]

13. Not the issue. Kerry posted what he wanted and he could have

withhold some documents.

Of course, we know he did not, but the SBVT said otherwise.

I dont know why he did not give this authorization and I dont care because I think the media should have done their job and they did not, but the point is that he did not and this is what they are referring to.

[beachmom]

14. OT Ray of Light -- did you end up seeing Kerry last weekend in Ohio?

I thought you said you were going, and was just dying to hear if you went. Thanks!

[ray of light]

24. I did go. I saw him at the Strictland rally. He was great!

He spoke about the election and how Ohio was BLUE! He spoke about why he had to concede that night and how Ken Blackwell took antiquated laws and put them into action to suppress the vote. He spoke about the provisionals and how he was told there were less provisionals out there than what there really had been. (At least I think that's what he was saying.) He spoke about the lawsuits in Ohio and how they were pursuing them. He spoke about all of us FIGHTING together to get our country back and to rescue our democracy. And of course he spoke about Iraq, Vets, Jobs, Election Reform, environment, alternative fuels, and Healthcare.

He mentioned how everything he spoke about in 04 was the nightmare we're living through today. Yet his message was "FIGHT BACK NOW!" Together, ALL of us can bring the change our country needs.

He rocked the place and everyone loved him.


Arrival shots:








This little girl was born two days before the 04 election. The proud daddy is holding out a picture of JK holding the little baby in 04. It's a sweet thing. I'm just sorry that I'm so short I chopped off their heads.

[karynnj]

20. They were there and they interesting

in that they showed Kerry to be a very mature, person very very good at winning the loyalty of his subordinants. I looked at them - more out of curiosity.

Of, course the first reference to them I saw on the Kerry blog was their use to resolve the question of the color of his eyes.

No candidate EVER has put more personal records out to the public. Will we see all of McCain's records?

[whometense]

15. Did you see this comment at Raw Story?

love it!!!!!

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/2069aa/#266016

All of you can continue to moan and complain about our candidates. Don't you know it takes the people and the party to make things happen as well. Yes, his consultants probably underestimated the impact of the liars but as usual we get caught up in attacking our own instead of doing what's best for the country as a whole. There is absolutely NO OTHER DEMOCRAT at this time in a position to run this country besides Kerry. No matter what you all say, you know its true. Name one...Look at his position on all the issues that matter to Democrats as well as his experience and COMPETENCE.

Leave this man alone...whether he runs again or not...he has definitely put in his time, energy, and efforts to make this country a better place. BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER HIS PRESIDENTIAL BID. No matter how you all try to Swift Boat him again, he always rises to the top...With or without some of you so-called Democrats!
Cal | 05.27.06 - 3:40 pm | #

[Mass]

16. It is great - There was also a great LTE in the Globe this morning

Did you see it.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2006/05/27/a_second_wind_beneath_his_wings/

A second wind beneath his wings

May 27, 2006

SCOT LEHIGH IS right. John Kerry has indeed found his voice on Iraq (``John Kerry's encore," May 23) . As a presidential candidate in 2004, his sensible voice on many other issues was drowned out by a George Bush campaign based on a total disregard for the truth , and by the shameful ``swift boat" character assassins.

They took their best shot at him, and he is still standing -- stronger for the experience. As the only potential Democrat candidate who has actually learned how to run for the presidency, and as a man who has learned from his mistakes in 2004, he is the Democrat's best prospect for 2008.

Who made the rule that you only get one bite at the presidential apple? How many runs did Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon make before they were successful? Kerry has earned a second chance.

BILL KENNEY
Fall River

[whometense]

18. We don't get the Globe on Saturdays,

so thanks for posting. That is a great letter!!

I especially like this part:

Who made the rule that you only get one bite at the presidential apple?

[ProSense]

17. Whoa! Thanks!

That's friggin awesome! The detractors remind me of the argument:

No Kerry!

Why?

Because!

Boo! Go away! Hahaha!


Isues! Competence! Experience!
Energy! Effort! Dedication!
Intelligence! Honor! Principles!

I could go on...

Go JK!

[ray of light]

26. Right on!!!!

[MH1]

19. LBN thread

There is an earlier thread on Greatest with 18 votes at this time, but apparently the bashers didn't feel comfy on that one.

So then there's this - not terrible but a lot of folks need to be pointed to the Research Forum (I did some, but I have to do other stuff now):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2309826&mesg_id=2309826

[karynnj]

21. Interesting Gergen comment on Aug 19, 2004

It was from a link with idiotic Malkin comments - and great Cleland counter comments. What is clear is that even as late as August 19, it really wasn't clear that the media would let the SBVT get away with this.

Here's what Gergen, considered to be very astute said then:

"DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: It would be better to take responsibility, but I think everybody knows these are Republicans who are funding this. And John Kerry is getting the best of this argument. When he says, it‘s fronting for the Bush people, the money does come from Republicans and everybody connects the dots. The conclusion is that they are doing the dirty work. The president ought to denounce this ad and move on. It‘s a losing proposition for the president.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the people around him share that assessment politically?

GERGEN: Well, I guess they don‘t because they seem to—Dana said they‘re dancing away from it in Texas and not denouncing the ad, but they‘ve—I think the Democrats—it is interesting to me, Chris. The last couple of weeks, we thought George Bush was politically more adept and boxing in John Kerry on Iraq and he did a good job. On this issue, it defies belief that the Bush administration would like to keep the issue of John Kerry‘s war record and shrapnel in his leg and his heroism front and center in the campaign. This is Kerry‘s strong point not his weak point."

Here's the very logical Clealand's answer to Thurlow's idiotic charge that Kerry planned both to be a hero and to leave early - I seriously don't think anyone could have beat this answer:

"Third, you don‘t go to war, at least I didn‘t, and I don‘t think John Kerry did or anybody on his crew, saying, Gee, this is a great day to get blown up. This is a terrific plan for my life. I‘m going to get blown up once. Then I‘ll get blown up twice. Then I‘ll get shot three times, and I‘m going to bring that shrapnel home so I can be a war hero. And then, finally, I‘m going to risk my life for some special forces officer in the drink that I don‘t even know."

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Xze4Pd1FnmAJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/+malkin+swift+boat+self-inflicted&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&ie=UTF-8

[ProSense]

22. You know

it's time for sensible people to acknowledge that the Swift liars attack is a RW monkey wrench because they fear a JK presidency. Notice that the heat is being turned up closer to 2006.

The wingnut blogs are eating up the NYT story. None of this changes the facts, and it certainly doesn't explain why they and the MSM propped up Bush, who has more than 65% of the country now scratching their heads in disbelief!

[Mass]

23. The kos thread is a good illustration of what this story is not good.

Hopefully, it will help diffuse the issue, but I doubt it. Some people just want to be against Kerry, and they dont care if the issue is not that, but the laziness of the media.

[ProSense]

25. OK!

Will this get through?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1300211&mesg_id=1300211

[emulatorloo]

27. kicking n/t

[karendc]

28. Dick Bell

(who was the Blogmaster at the campaign) is writing a short blog piece on the history of the SBVT in the campaign--it will be up at the Democracy Cell Project in a bit. The NY Times may take a hit as well...
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/

[karendc]

29. Dick weighs in

here:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2006/05/the_right_wing.html

[ProSense]

30. Wow! That's excellent!

I knew about the spring 2004 attacks (the responses are in the Research forum here). While I noticed the laspse between the spring and August attacks, the information about 2003 adds more context to the deliberately timed actions of the MSM.

[karynnj]

38. Same here - I never heard the 2003 stuff

Great write up.

[nolies32fouettes]

31. Great minds think alike?

http://www.progressiveu.org/115408-oy-vey-mainstream-media-still-lending-soapbox-to-swift-boat-liers-kerry-begins-to-defend-himself

[k j]

32. Ron Chusid weighed in yesterday

(Ron is always at least day ahead of me on everything, LOL) great comments, also! :patriot:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3133

[ProSense]

33. Why doesn't Kerry sue?

This question keeps popping up and I came across a post on another blog attempting to answer it. The poster referenced a Court decision the doomed O'Reilly vs. Franken. I found an article by John Dean about the Court decision the poster referenced:

Scalia revealed that he felt the landmark1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan was wrong. That decision held that when a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public figure, such as a government official, the plaintiff can only prevail if he or she can show the statement was made with "actual malice" - a problematic phrase.

The requirement of "actual malice" means that the person publishing the defamatory statement must have done so with one of two states of mind: Either he knew the statement was false, or he published it with reckless disregard to whether it was true or false.

Simple negligence, then, is not enough under New York Times v. Sullivan: "Reckless disregard" requires that there had to have been a compelling reason to prompt taking some care before making the statement.

In practice, the "actual malice" standard means that the plaintiff usually loses. It's virtually impossible to prove with clear and convincing evidence (as is also required when the standard applies) that the publisher of the false statement either knew it was false, or published it despite good reason to more fully investigate the matter, thus recklessly.

Snip...

The constitutional law of defamation is a disaster. It is nearly incomprehensible. It is unfair. It is unjust. And it is long overdue for a correction. Sadly, I could randomly select dozens upon dozens of cases to make the same point the Lohrenz case makes.

Scalia is correct: Everybody should be able to protect their reputations. But not until New York Times v. Sullivan -- which literally changed the law of the land overnight -- is reversed, will that ideal be a reality.

Hopefully, Justice Scalia was giving us a hint of coming changes at the Court, when defamation cases are heard. At a minimum, the Court ought to make clear that only true public figures are deemed public figures for defamation law - for current law only encourages the victimization of private persons. Better yet, the Court should chose a more realistic standard than "actual malice" - one under which even public figure plaintiffs who are lied about, can get justice.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051202.html

[JI7]

35. i'm not sure

the problem is not that they are lying as much as those who keep claiming Kerry deserved it. most people don't believe the liars. most of those who do believe it are those who WANT to believe it since they would never support Kerry in the first place.

it doesn't help when people say things such as Kerry brought it on himself by mentioning his service or the way he responded. remember, anytime he did respond the whore media would frame it as Kerry having mental problems and not able to get past the war or that he wasn't focusing on the current issues that matter.

i'm reluctant to get a law where people, especially public figures can sue more easily since i think it can become abusive and help to quiet political criticism.

[ProSense]

36. I'm not

advocating for or against the law, simply pointing out that it's not as easy for a public figure to sue as some people seem to believe.

[JI7]

37. i agree with that

i thought you were saying we needed a law to make it easier.

it's easy for these people to ask why doesn't he just sue them. but considering how tough it is imagine what the reaction would be if he lost the case. then people who did not believe the liars would think they had something to their case even if the case would have been lost on technical grounds rather than on truthness of the issues.

[zann725]

39. The Powers-that-Be have never seemed to want JK as Prez.

He "tells the Truth to Authority" too often. And he had the audacity to investigate BCCI (incl. many Washington "insiders"), and they refer to his wife as a "loose cannon" ("can't predict what she'll say next").

Personally I find such "Truthiness" delightful, and much needed. As apparently mid-American's do too NOW. (I understand that Colbert's speech ("roasting Prez) from Press Club Dinner is #1 Podcast download.) The very same speech that the MSM (the day AFTER the speech) called it "off-tone" and "just didn't work."

With time, Truth DOES prevail...and so shall JK over the SBVFT, as well as others saying similar things, like NYT.