Proof positive- Media was COMPLICIT with WH and Swiftliars

[blm]

For those of you who keep repeating the media PERCEPTION (R-Lies) that Kerry never launched a defense against the swifts, then put up your proof or stop acting like media lapdogs. Don't you think we have enough of them?


DU does have a Research Forum where you can access the TRUTH about the Swiftliars - fact by fact, day by day. If truth has any interest for you.


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

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. knr and thanks blm! ....n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

2. The media has been complicit with BushCo from day 1 of Dimson's

presidential campaign.
Every negative aspect of his life was hidden from the public by the media. This was done while even the smallest item about an opponent(including Repuke primary opponents), whether true or false, that could be negatively spun, was done so with the complicity of the media.
The media has been part of the BushCo campaign.
Those who did not cooperate either met with unfortunate "accidents", were "suicided", or met with public humiliation and lost their jobs.

[blm]

15. They've been doing it since 1999 and were completely coopted after 9-11.

Why some people refuse to factor that point in is what I find amazing.

[Joe Fields]

36. Let's not forget the fact that Kerry didn't help himself any, by

waiting almost two weeks before issuing a strong rebuttal. He could have, and should have learned from Bill Clinton that a rapid response team is vital in a presidential campaign.

I voted for Kerry, but cringed at how long it took Kerry to forcefully address the issue. By the time he did, the whole mess had grown legs and wings and took off, beyond any reasoned control.

[blm]

43. Others disagree with you. We KNOW the facts and that media DELIBERATELY

downplayed any effort made.

Clinton had a completely different media climate in 92. They weren't even the same beast. And Clinton also had an advantage of Kerry's IranContra and BCCI investigations generating bad headlines for Bush1, while Kerry had 4 years of Bush2 being made into a heroic figure post 9-11 by a 24/7 media machine. And it didn't help to have Clinton on so many shows like Larry King supporting Bush on just about everything.

[Joe Fields]

70. Disagree all you want. As I told you, I voted for Kerry, but

I was watching and reading everything I could get my hands on, and the FACT is that Kerry's team wasn't responsive to the Swiftliars attack. It cost him dearly.

Concerning those type of tactics, if you don't hit back hard, immediately and turn the tables, it will bury you. Kerry didn't and he couldn't recover from it.

It's that simple.

[joemurphy]

3. Our big name journalists today forget about reporting

facts and ignore the concept of ferreting out truth. Instead, they just report what people say. The Navy says Kerry is a hero. The "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" say Kerry is a liar. End of story. Where's the truth?
What are the facts?

Who cares. That's too much work.

[blm]

6. Media gave HOURS of AIRTIME to lies and scant seconds to Navy records or

firsthand accounts. And THAT is how they chose to be complicit.

And it is hOW they choose to be complicit WHENEVER any Democrat is matched against Bush. How many times did we hear Murtha's ACTUAL Iraq plan compared to the WH version of "cut and run" that they supplied to the media?

[Supersedeas]

26. pretty faces

[blm]

28. faces with mortgages - they do what their GOP bosses tell them to do. News

business is no longer a business of high ethical standards. They burned the last pages of their Code of Ethics in 1996.

[emulatorloo]

4. Kicking n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

5. you go, BLM! I'm reading LapDogs right now

it's one long rant against the M$M. very satisfying repository of the lengths to which they've gone

too bad it can't be digitized, as I envision it as one gigantic DU thread of citable instances of what the media has become since the end of the Nixon regime, cause it really started under Carter

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1021-20.htm

sound familiar?

Among other things, Reagan's victory over Carter was a media triumph of style in the service of far-right agendas. When their only debate occurred on Oct. 28, 1980, a week before the election, Carter looked rigid and defensive while Reagan seemed at ease, making impact with zingers like "There you go again." More than ever, one-liners dazzled the press corps.

For the next eight years, a "Teflon presidency" had the news media making excuses for the nation's chief executive, who often got his facts wrong while substituting folksy exclamations for documented assertions. The Democratic Party's majorities on Capitol Hill rarely challenged Reagan, and the Washington press corps used the passivity of the Democrats to justify its own. As Walter Karp wrote in Harper's magazine a few months after Reagan left office, "the private story behind every major non-story during the Reagan administration was the Democrats' tacit alliance with Reagan."

That tacit alliance included going easy on Reagan and his vice-president-turned-successor, George H.W. Bush -- despite the Iran-Contra scandal that exposed their roles in the illegal funneling of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, a CIA-backed army that intentionally killed civilians in Nicaragua while trying to implement Washington's goal of overthrowing the Sandinista government.

"For eight years," Karp wrote in mid-1989, "the Democratic opposition had shielded from the public a feckless, lawless president with an appalling appetite for private power. That was the story of the Reagan years, and Washington journalists evidently knew it. Yet they never turned the collusive politics of the Democratic Party into news."

[sandnsea]

50. The Senate was Republican

People always say Democrats had the majority of both houses during the 80's, but it isn't true. I don't know how that keeps getting repeated. They weren't as limited in their power as they are now, but they were limited. Also, there's the matter of the assassination attempt and the Senate building being bombed which had to influence the view of Dems. I managed to get news of the Contras and the killings in Nicaragua, so I don't quite know why they would say the public was shielded, I wasn't. And I didn't even pay that close of attention.

[Canuckistanian]

7. This is all well and good, but...

If Kerry wanted to counter the Short Bus Liars, he not only needed to present evidence that backed him up - he forgot one important item - Repetition.

You think the RW talking points are only uttered once then spread spontaneously like wildfire? Of course not. Radio and TV hosts will do the job for you.

First a complicated story is simplified. Then a few catchy phrases are added - something you'll remember.
Then the blitz starts. OK, the Democrats have no friendly Radio or TV venues, but TV ads, Full-page adverts, interviews, literature can get the message out. And keep trying. Include it with the stump speech.

A single LTTE to the Telluride Daily Planet is not going to do it. Did they really think the majors would have picked up that story and run with it?

You've got to make your own news.

It's expensive, sure, and time consuming but look at the alternative.

[blm]

8. Kerry did - I asked if you ever went to DU Research Forum to get the facts

If you had you would have read about Kerry's OWN actions - on Aug 19, 2004, he attacked the swiftliars and their connection to the WH in an hour speech he gave to the Firefighters Convention - firefighters who also had ENDORSED Kerry. The media chose to ignore this, even while they were claiming that Kerry was not defending himself against the charges. WHAT THE HELL would a presidential candidate have to do to get the media to show up for a major speech, especially in front of the Firefighters Conventions who had also endorsed him? Post 9-11, firefighters were not significant all of a sudden?

You think the media ignoring it was NOT deliberate?

Would they have covered the event if it had been George Bush?

The whole point is that MEDIA WAS COMPLICIT and they actively covered up the actions Kerry took by not discussing them, reporting them and not even giving them regular news coverage.

[Canuckistanian]

9. True, there's not much you can do

When the media absolutely refuses to cover major speeches. And I know that Kerry did refute them several times.

I guess it doesn't matter how aggressive you get if the lapdog press decides to sit on its hands.

[blm]

16. That's exactly my point - and that is why making noise about what happened

to Kerry matters - and the point by point refutation he is prepared to make using archival evidence both print and photographic documentation will matter for Kerry and the NEXT GUY and the one after that. He didn't do this exhaustive research for nothing and we will all gain as a party to stick up against the swifts - it effects all of us and certainly whoever the next candidate is.

The media and the tactic need exposing.

[Canuckistanian]

23. Yes, I agree

I hope there's a documentary made about this, but I'd settle for 60 Minutes.

[girl gone mad]

13. Kerry had 3 debates.

A few brief words during any of these televised debates would have done wonders. He could have simply called Bush on his cowardice in sending others out to fight his battles for him and lying about it, just like Bush did during Vietnam.

I I honestly don't believe that the Kerry campaign took the swiftboat liars seriously until it was too late. I remember frequently e-mailing and phoning the campaign, and their attitude seemed non-chalant.

In my mind, there is little sense in re-treading this issue at this point in time. At this moment, Kerry would be better served by ignoring the scumbags and pushing forward with an agenda to help the Dems retake congress.

[blm]

14. He is doing that and also has a group set up to DEFEND VETS who are coming

under attack like he was just for having the nerve to run for office as a Democrat.

And by Kerry making an airtight case against the swifts and EVERY LIE THEY TOLD - he can better go to court and discourage them from doing this type of crap to the next guy.

You should be GLAD that it was Kerry attacked. He was a prosecutor who knows how to build an airtight case. Unfortunately, that type of case needs time and attention that he didn't have in the fall of 2004. And he certainly never guessed that the media was working WITH the swifts and working to downplay every defense he made against them.

Amazing that some of you would prefer he move on, what will the next Dem do when the tactic is used against him and the media does the exact same thing? It would have been nice if a group of Dems made it their business during the campaign to help counter the swifts - Carville and crew sure made no attempt - Bush never had to lift a finger to defend his lousy record, while everyone wants to blame Kerry because he had no team or Dem machine that could tell the truth with the same effectiveness that the RW machine could lie for Bush.

[blm]

24. They go hand in hand - Kerry's Patriot Project is set to defend Dem vets

who dare to seek office.

They have already rushed to defend Murtha. Their integrity is CRUCIAL to the 06 elections.

[depakid]

42. You're missing the point

Of course the media was complicit- but it was up to Kerry to hit back- and hit hard.

Instead, he spent most of the time in a virtual media blackout- and refused to run his own counter ads.

Instead, he mimicked Dukakis and "took the high road" (something that during the primaries he promised that he wouldn't do).

That- along with his wimped out response to Bush re: the war probably cost him (and us) the election.

[blm]

44. You didn't READ the DU research forum thread did you?

Others who thought like you said they were "ASTOUNDED" how much Kerry did that the media refused to report.

It was Clinton's job to control the media before he was impeached, and he couldn't - and he was PRESIDENT, fer chrissakes.

[depakid]

47. I F...ing lived through it!

and watched PAINFULLY and did the analysis while it was happening- as did MANY OTHERS here on DU and elsewhere.

Many of us couldn't believe our eyes.... and plenty of us were hopping mad about it- and plenty of us contacted the Kerry campaign.

(as if Mary Beth Cahill et al. were going listen and/or to do anything- wasn't their style).

Even Edwards is on record as being....errr... pissed off about it.

[blm]

53. You lived through what the EFFING MEDIA showed you. Most of you had no

clue that Kerry even attacked the swifts at a speech to the Firefighters Convention - who do you think you're trying to snow? Many of us here at DU also complained EVERY DAY about the media not covering Kerry's important speeches and events, or have you forgotten THAT?

You really refuse to READ the actual facts in the Research Forum because YOUR memory is so much better than the documented facts?

Other DUers can say they are astounded by how much was actually done that they never heard in the media, but not you - you will CLING To RW media perception because it fits YOUR argument.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. He repeated it

what use is in repeating it when it is not carried, so you think he never did

[WiseButAngrySara]

19. "LTTE to the Telluride Daily Planet" ? Who wrote the LLTE and why

was the Telluride Daily Planet chosen? I must have missed something!

[Raksha]

32. I'm pretty sure the Telluride Daily Planet

was the vet's local paper. Check out the earlier posts on this thread.

[Kansas Wyatt]

11. The MSM claimed that it didn't want to report any Bush scandals

Because they didn't want to affect a Presidential Election. Yet, they were just giddy about parroting lies about Kerry over and over again.

[Disturbed]

12. The Corp Media and Osama bin Laden..

greatly helped in getting Busholini re-selected.

[snot]

17. Yes, so . . . what has Kerry done

. . . to bring about rollback of media ownership consolidation and reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine? (I honestly don't know what he has or hasn't done.)

[blm]

18. Why do you think the corporate media was so hard on him and tried to sink

his candidacy during the primary? Remember all those media reports that Kerry's campaign was dead on arrival? It was ramped up after this senate res. he submitted in June 2003.

From the Office of Senator Kerry


KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCC’S “WRONGHEADED VOTE”

COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

Monday, June 2, 2003


WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a “Resolution of Disapproval” as a means to overturn today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America’s small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC’s decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today’s media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC’s decision, Kerry said:

“Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today’s wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

“Today’s vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public’s access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today’s vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.”

-- 30 --

[ProSense]

34. On a related note Kerry and Lautenberg co-authored

the TRUTH IN BROADCASTING ACT OF 2005

05/12/2005

John Kerry: It's Time to Reign in the Spin

The Truth in Broadcasting Act, authored by Senators John Kerry and Frank Lautenberg, will require all prepackaged news stories produced by a federal agency to clearly identify the United States government as the source of the story.

Below is a statement by Senator Kerry on his legislation:
“The American people have a right to know they’re not only watching the administration’s spin on their local newscasts, they might be paying for it too. It’s one thing to watch Jon Stewart on television, but it’s another to imitate him with Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. We should stop this abuse of the public trust and waste of taxpayer money.

“It’s hard to believe that in the greatest democracy in the world, we need legislation to prevent the government from writing and paying for the news. It runs counter to everything we believe as Americans. I hope Congress will stop the legal hairsplitting and end this dishonest practice.”

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=237541

Senate Report 109-210 - TRUTH IN BROADCASTING ACT OF 2005

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS
S. 967, the Prepackaged News Story Announcement Act, amends the Communications Act to require prepackaged news stories produced or funded by, or on behalf of, the Federal Government to contain a clear disclosure of such stories' government origins. The bill, as amended, further provides that the circumstances under which such disclosure may be removed are to be determined by the Federal Communications Commission. As explained in the definitions section, the legislation applies only to a prepackaged news story, not to other individual segments contained in a video news release. The bill further provides that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to apply to any lawful and authorized intelligence activity of the United States Government.

[snot]

69. Thanks for your posts -- very glad for the info! nt

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. Evening kick! ....n/t

[Kenergy]

21. Good post blm! n/t

[sweetheart]

22. good post.

They are complicit in everything, i already know this, you do too,
we wait for proof to roll out of the secrecy machine... all the while
truth is blaring in every life, in every house, in every heart, none
the same.

[Cha]

25. I know they had

to be complicit the way we kept hearing from the swiftboatliars on all the channels and not much in Defense of Kerry and oh, btw, THE TRUTH!.

Look what it got them..they fucking deserve the Hague with the cheneygang.

[blm]

27. Now THAT deserves an AMEN!!! It DOES make them war criminals, right

alongside BushInc - they are part of the exact same war machine looking to pay their mortgages through the money making defense industry.

[Kurovski]

29. So when do the lawsuits begin? (foul language alert)

The only way to stop this shit is to sue the fuck out of every single lying mother fucker that comes 'round the bend.

Sue the shitheap in the WH if he had a part in it.

Enough of waiting for the fucking worthless press to report. Sue the shitwads responsible. It's exactly the way we protect our rights in this fucking dying nation, and yet politicians go all wet-diaper over it.

FUCKING SUE FOR LIBEl or whatever, for god's sake. Enough. Enough of the shit.

Until Kerry takes them on in court, I don't give a flying soggy fuck what his or anyone else's plans are regarding this "Swiftshits" matter.

So. is he suing? Did I miss that part? I'm asking seriously because I speed-read the article. Enough, already. Can the world file a class-action suit in Kerry's stead if he can't manage to find the fucking time to stand up for himself? because I'm telling you that the goddam personal damages in this case are fucking astronomical.

[blm]

35. I can only surmise - Evidently Kerry and a team collected every lie and

charge told by the swifts and gathered every scrap of archival evidence they could to refute EVERY ONE with as much detail as possible. They found every recorded document, order, letter and went through every photograph and even made stills of movie film to nail every charge.

They must have done so for a reason. When Kerry was a prosecutor, he was known for making airtight cases.

[Kurovski]

37. Excellent.

And here is where I exhale...:-)

[blm]

38. They also started Patriot Project to defend Democratic vets running for

office in 06. It's a quick response team who will know and protect the vets' records so no vet will have to endure swiftboating ever again.

[Kurovski]

39. Yes, That I do know of, and am happy for. At least the local media

is more likely to distribute any information, any facts that will counter any slanderous attacks on candidates.

I also strongly feel that all legal means should also be pursued wherever applicable.

[Ksec]

30. the swiftboat drunks are treasonous liars

I hope they all suffer with horrible disfiguring diseases for the rest of their little dishonorable lives.

[Just Me]

31. Where are the laws controlling these abuses, frauds, intentional,...

,...manipulation of the masses?

If we don't have laws against such abuses, we can NOT call ourselves either a democracy or a democratic republic. We are just a "friendly" form of dictatorship.

Seriously.

[blm]

45. I'm with you. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this issue and we will LOSE OUR

COUNTRY if we continue to allow the manipulation.

Some people here won't even admit the media's complicity because they prefer to attack Democratic targets as if they are the problem, and acknowledging the media's role in manipulating even what we Dems think ruins their argument.

[ladym55]

48. The Swifties are STILL raising money

The one thing that hasn't been covered here in this discussion--the Swiftboat folk are STILL actively raising money to spread lies about Kerry. They are still busily sending mailers out to STOP the evil Kerry.

Not only does any Dem have to face the trashing and slashing of the MSM, they are on the receiving end of vicious and apparently effective(!!) direct mail campaigns.

:grr:

[MH1]

64. Not just Kerry - Murtha too, and any Dem Vet they can. nt

[Just Me]

67. Thing is, there are laws about "responsible" speech,....

,...prohibiting "hate" speech; but these puckers abuse, seriously abuse the 1st Amendment which was NEVER intended to promote deceitful, lying, manipulative, let alone, persecutory speech.

These people twist 1st Amendment rights into evil-doings rather than truth, reason, values related speech.

Look, every right and liberty and freedom granted by the Constitution can be abused, WHICH is why certain laws and decisions have been made to prevent such abuses. I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and wholly believe people should be able to share their views, WITHIN LIMITS,...yes, LIMITS AGAINST ABUSE.

First, speaking freely (and with some sense of comfort and security) about ideas and perspectives is what the 1st Amendment was all about. What's happened is, and we are (and I AM) guilty, too,...free speech has become an avenue to destroy people rather than express ideas or beliefs. It's one thing to express your perspective about abortion or gays or taxation or national/economic/foreign policy; it's quite another to shove signs in the faces of females treated at birth control clinics stating: "Murderers", "Baby Killers", "Monsters": and it's quite another thing to scream at soldiers' funerals: "GOD HATES GAYS", "SOLDIERS DESERVE TO DIE", "DEATH TO THOSE WHO PROTECT A GAY NATION".

1st Amendment rights were NEVER intended to be abused for purposes of persecution but rather to guarantee the right of people to express ideas and perspectives.

Those who use the 1st Amendment for purposes of persecution (and I usually avoid religious/spiritual overtones) are doing the "devil's" work by abusing a right intended to be utilized to PREVENT persecution. It's the craziest shit I am watching in my life. But, there it is.

[ProfessorPlum]

33. Kicked and recommended

I just got done reading this chapter in Boehlert's book. F-ing media. Just when you think you understand the depths of their perfidy, they go lower.

[Octafish]

40. Same volk who own media own Bush and BFEE.

The Little Turd
from Crawford

[Octafish]

41. Oops. Forgot to add that's Neil Bush with Rev. Sun Myung Moon

Neil Bush Meets the Messiah

By John Gorenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on December 5, 2005, Printed on May 29, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/29054/

"Those who stray from the heavenly way," the owner of the flagship Republican newspaper the Washington Times admonished an audience in Taipei on Friday, "will be punished."

This "heavenly way," the Rev. Sun Myung Moon explained, demands a 51-mile underwater highway spanning Alaska and Russia. Sitting in the front row: Neil Bush, the brother of the president of the United States.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the South Korean giant of the religious right who owns the Washington Times, is on a 100-city speaking tour to promote his $200 billion "Peace King Tunnel" dream. As he describes it, the tunnel would be both a monument to his magnificence, and a totem to his prophecy of a unified Planet Earth. In this vision, the United Nations would be reinvented as an instrument of God's plan, and democracy and sexual freedom would crumble in the face of this faith-based glory.

The name Peace King Tunnel would allude to the title of authority to which Moon, 86, lays claim, and to which U.S. congressmen paid respect on Capitol Hill in last year's controversial "Crown of Peace" coronation ritual.

Moon's lobbying campaign is "ambitious and diffuse," as the D.C. newspaper The Hill reported last year, and the sheer range of guests revealed just how many Pacific Rim political leaders the Times owner has won over, including Filipino and Taiwanese politicians. And the head of the Arizona GOP attended a recent stop in San Francisco. But perhaps the most surprising VIP to tag along is Neil Bush, George H.W. Bush's youngest and most wayward son, who made both the Philippines and Taiwan legs of the journey, according to reports in newspapers from those countries and statements from Moon's Family Federation.

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/story/29054/

[agincourt]

46. Bin Laden appearing live in video

Should have sank Bush before the election. 200 billion and the terrorist leader is still alive? The Beslan school attack should have hurt Bush because any simpleton should know the war on terrorism is international. Putin and Bush didn't stop that one. Either Americans are very stupid or the repigs are stealing millions of votes. The Swiftpigs are floating turds but I don't think you can explain the 2004 election just with them.

[Kurovski]

49. Yes, there's also Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia.

Corporations designed specifically to steal elections.

[JNelson6563]

51. *sigh*

Yes, we konw. Kerry only waited three weeks to respond and, of course it was lame. the Kerry advocates fanned out across the country and did little gatherings, I know, I had to organize one involving a Kerry shipmate. It was very ineffectual.

Yes, there is no doubt the press worked against the Dem cause every step of the way, as we knew they would. So we ran the most consultant heavy, pol-driven campaign in the history of mankind.

It was horrible and there is no amount of ranting on the internet will change that. Niether will going after teh swift-boat liars tooth and nail years (literally!) later.

Kerry should've spent some of that money that was left over on some TV ads to counter lickety split. Too bad consultants and polls do not allow for such swift action. The only thing I saw done quickly in the Kerry campaign was his concession.

Julie

[blm]

52. You completely ignore the actual steps taken. It wasn't just little meets

those were in ADDITION to the other steps taken for national coverage, but the media REFUSED To cover them. Go ahead and let media off the hook for their complicity, and see how that helps the next candidate.

And you think Kerry not going after every lie of the swifts is the right course? Tell that to all the vets running as Dem Candidates who WANT Kerry's Patriot Project team working for them when they are targeted. They are prepared.

[JNelson6563]

57. There's a little somethin' in politics

We like to call it "media buys". Too bad milque-toast Mary Beth didn't know about this sort of thing so your hero wouldn't have been so emasculated.

The whole campaign was run very poorly and not nearly as aggressively as it should have been. Concede this point if you will, or not. Doesn't change a thing.

Julie

[blm]

62. Swing states GOT the media buys. You STILL let media off the hook for

downright LYING.

Did you compare the numbers on how they handled it? That has nothing to do with ads - and everything to do with corporate media's DECISION to help the swiftvets to promote their lies and keep a hood on any actions taken to counter the lies.

Did you blame Dean for the media perception of the scream or were you pissed that media refused to discuss the proof that the scream was enhanced in a way to make the scream their story for the next few months?

[ProSense]

54. You certainly don't know much about the timeline

The Swift Liars appeared in spring and Kerry immediately denounced them. They relatively disappeared until August, when the media latched on to the story. And there were TV ads in August.

All of these facts are posted in the Research forum.

[JNelson6563]

58. That's how it played out here in the heartland

All that happened here was a belated visit from a shipmate. In very early September. Of course the Kerry campaign completely surrendered large swaths of MI that the R's were more than happy to come in and swoop up.

Don't even get me started on the idiocy of it all.

* came to my region (the hub of the northern half of my state) and they bussed in thousands from downstate and of course the kool-aid drinkers from around here turned out in force. Tens of thousands went to see the chimp. We turned out over 1500 protestors which is really something. We were raking in the dough, going through swag like nobodies business and then, finally, I get a call from the Kerry campaign. They're coming to town. Hooray!! Fianlly the thousands clamouring for action on our part will ahve something to cheer about!

Oh wait. We're sending Elizabeth Edwards, it's to be a forum on helathcare and you can invite 40 people. The event went perfectly (we know what we're doing) and for three days we fielded thousands of calls from people begging to come. Imagine all the "no" answers we had to give out. Imagine the hard feelings.

Few weeks later guess who else comes to town and has a large event, if you guessed Cheney you'd be right.

Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.

Julie

[blm]

60. So you STILL lat the national media off the hook for being COMPLICIT in

a lie that had no business even being out there on the national scene. They PURPOSELY kept Kerry's defense from being heard nationally and you still want to get your attacks in on Kerry.

Stick to the subject. You can dump on campaign machines all you want - the Dem infrastructure and the Dem strategists have been weak for the last 10 years - but even they had nothing to do with the media's DELIBERATE MOVE to block the public from hearing the truth about the swifts and Kerry's counter attack on them.

[JNelson6563]

66. Of course they were complicit

From start to finish the corporate media played a big role in the whole debacle.

That aside, we all KNEW of this media bias, I mean, it was so OBVIOUS by the time the swift boat liars went on air. Did the campaign actually buy some fucking time and run ass kicking ads? What immediate action was taken???

Surely we did more than hope and pray for any morsel of fairness from the media whores??

Julie

[wiggs]

55. Guess what: media is generally complicit with GOP and neocons

on just about every issue...education, medicare, wmd, dsm, election reform, environment, Iraq invasion, economy, energy crisis, Fitzgerald investigation, Katrina (after first month), and more. This is not news. It is a good excuse for dems, including Kerry, for not getting message out but it is still just an excuse. That's what the game is right now and in 2004...dems have to get done what is needed even in the face of Blitzer and Russert and Mathews. Yes it is harder for dems and yes it's not fair.

It can be overcome, but I don't see the creativity, persistence, repitition, emphasis on framing, unity, and will to do it yet (with some isolated exceptions). I see politics as usual from dems...a losing approach.

And another word about Kerry, whom I admire. Those who have concerns about how he handled SBLT in 2004 aren't just pointing at this single SBLT issue. He showed similar confusing restraint/caution in talking about/qualifying his positions in many issues: war vote, election reform, environment, his voting record, and more.

I wish we (dems) could be talking right now about Dubai ports, DSM, Haditha, Abramoff, Delay, Ney, deficits, election reform and Diebold disasters, etc....

[ProSense]

56. That's nonsense.

First of all the Democrats have made know and continue to push their agenda. This is news because the liars are suing Kerry and the truth must be told.

Also, Kerry was extremely clear on the environment, war and other issues. I understood his position on all the issue. He also made his case to the 59 million people who voted for him. I doubt they would say they were confused!

Kerry Says Bush Undercuts Environment
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: April 21, 2004

BAL HARBOUR, Fla., April 20 — Senator John Kerry accused the Bush administration Tuesday of "playing dirty" in what he described as its undoing of 30 years of environmental regulation, and declared that ocean pollution was jeopardizing Florida's vital tourism industry.

As Mr. Kerry opened a three-day push on the environment timed to the observance of Earth Day, this Thursday, his campaign also worked to play down two new polls that showed President Bush's standing with voters improving relative to the senator's, even after a month of damaging news for the White House.

Across the state from here, with dolphins surfacing in the waters of Tampa Bay behind him and a seagull shrieking overhead, Mr. Kerry gave a spirited defense of environmental advocacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/politics/campaign/21KERR.html?ex=1397966400&en=fe7d4b2e6d615d2b&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Frank Luntz Republican Playbook -- Searchable Text-Version:
PART IX "AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE 2lst CENTURY"
By Tom Ball
03/06/05

1) Make it about Energy Self-Sufficiency and Independence. The energy debate is ripe for partisan picking and the Democrats were smart to use it during their convention. Americans want to hear about solutions to foreign energy dependency and are desperate for big ideas and bold solutions. Energy policy is now a public priority and Democrats put themselves on the side of the future. Americans loathe the idea of being reliant on the Middle East for our energy needs and they were waiting for someone to tell them so. This was John Kerry’s single best line at the convention, and it continues to resonate even today:

PAGE 133 ---

DEMOCRAT WORDS THAT WORK

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Americans are evenly and bitterly divided about an assortment of political issues, but nearly all of them agree that our nation s’ current energy policy is behind-the-times and needs a new, 21st Century approach. Right now, the Democrats are exhibiting perfect pitch when it comes to their energy message. They understand that if you play on American fears towards OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, while also appealing to American ideals of invention and innovation, they will have a compelling message. But fortunately for Republicans, the Democratic message does not match their policy. If the GOP wants to gain the advantage you need to match the optimism of the Democrats message -- and that begins with a clear statement that the status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001207.php#1207

07/31/2004
Crowd hot for Kerry, disillusioned with Bush
BY CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY / STAFF WRITER

It was a day for diehards.

Whether they were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, determined protesters or curiosity seekers who simply wanted to witness history, the estimated 17,000 people who turned out to see presidential nominee John Kerry in Scranton on Friday all shared one common trait.
Stamina.

Brutal humidity, a savage sun and scarce water ended the day early for some. Those who managed to stick around until the end, however, said it was worth every sweaty, sticky second.

The crowd was thick with veterans, a sign of the rich history of military service in the region and the strong connection Mr. Kerry has established with veterans. Many had high praise for the candidate's service in Vietnam. Most offered harsh criticism of President Bush, who faces lingering questions about his National Guard service.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12558035&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

Kerry Hits Nail on Head

By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 04 October 2004

Snip...

John Kerry cut to the heart of the matter when he said during Thursday’s debate with George W. Bush that, "a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn’t have long-term designs on it." Kerry cited the U.S. construction of 14 military bases in Iraq that are said to have "a rather permanent concept to them."

Building these bases belies Bush’s protestations that he has "no ambitions of empire."

Snip...

Yes, as Kerry said, Bush made "a colossal error of judgment" when he invaded Iraq. "I will make a flat statement," Kerry declared during the debate. "The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq." With that promise, John Kerry turned the policy of Team Bush on its head. Kerry was also right on when, responding to Bush’s debate mantra that Kerry sends mixed messages, the Senator said: "You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, ‘You can’t have nuclear weapons,’ but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

more...

http://www.uncle-scam.com/Breaking/oct-04/to-10-4.pdf#search=

Here is an exact quote from the debate:

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml

Kerry in fact did connect to voters and even the polls after the debates online and offline indicated that Kerry’s message resonated with many. He did get a record 59 million votes!

[JNelson6563]

59. Amazing isn't it?

The media went easiest on Kerry in the primaries while hammering away (or ignoring) the others. The right gets the Dem candidate they really wanted and look at how the Kerry-ites are shocked, shocked I say, at the fact that the media wasn't very nice to Kerry. Did they think he was being set up for victory?

:rofl:

I guess I will never cease to be amazed at it all.

Julie

[ProSense]

63. So the media complicity extended to Kerry?

:tinfoilhat:





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[blm]

65. HAHAH - what a sick JOKE. Media declared Kerry's candidacy dead for months

and it all started after his Senate res. condemning the FCC's move that relaxed corporate media ownership.

The media steadfastly OVER-Reported Dean's support on the ground in Iowa while they UNDER-reported Kerry's strength there.

The effect of media saying Kerry's campaign was dead for months helped dry up his national fundraising. I guess you forgot that Kerry had to put up his own money in the closing month.

So WHY did the media pull that crap? And why are you revising what happened then?


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003
WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[blm]

61. That's more media PERCEPTION - He did all those things CLEARLY -

but only the New Yorker seemed to be listening. The rest of the media LIED THEIR ASSES OFF and acted obtuse. So, you believed their version. congrats to you. I heard a sound, clear campaign. You heard Joe Klein and Howard Fineman.

[upi402]

68. I just had to explain this to someone, not in this detail

He thought he was better informed than us libs and didn't even know the issue of "Swiftboat".
He's close to turning. Wish I had all this memorized. Kerry was a true hero. IS!



Thanks!
k/r:patriot: