http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp
So this turned out the way most probably expected. The White House probably wishes they had criticized the ads when John McCain called for it. But, does this story have legs?
Jeepers…they found that this group who hates the Johns gave money to Bush…odd indeed. Hell, I gave money to Bush (cant beleive I gave money to a millionaire).
This is not a case of contributions. Your contribution does not violate federal law (probably ;-)). The question in this case is whether the White House did violate the law by coordinating with the group.
Why not ask Karl Rove?
Actually, it’s the money going the other way that’s the problem. When they’re getting cash from Karl Rove, they can hadly be considered an independent 3rd party group.
I really couldn’t care less if they were violating campaign finance law. I had already assumed that they were in coordination with Karl Rove. It’s fairly obvious that the strategy here is to try and neutralize the Kerry/Bush military comparison, as well as the standard “if he’s running against Bush he must be a liar” strategy. The White House has already made it clear that this their way of trying to neutralize the Moveon.orgs of the world, albeit in rather sleazy fashion.
I’m more concerned that this group, and by extension, the reelection campaign, has indicated that they have absolutely no allegiance to the truth. It’s clearly all about winning, at any cost, regardless of who gets hurt and no matter what what the ethical lapse necessary. It’s moral bankruptcy at the highest level. The fact that Kerry has finally responded has prompted the Washpost and NYT to deconstruct the group’s relationships and previous statements about Kerry’s heroism, exposing its craven hypocrisy and fraud. It’s absolutely disgraceful. Another Vietnam vet who’s attacked Kerry (and was responsible for the doctored Kerry/Fonda photo) was also reponsible for calling McCain a “Manchurian Candidate.”
Unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better. They’ve proven in the past that this “slime and defend” strategy works (remember that “liar” Al Gore?), so they’ll keep trying until they find something that sticks. It’s nauseating, especially during a time when real leadership is needed.
Somewhat on topic, I saw on the Daily Show (the source for all my news) a Conservative groups that is trying to raise money and awareness for Ralph Nader because they figure if they can get him out there on as many ballots as possible, it could help split the Democrat vote. They actually call people and urge them to sign petititons to get Nader on the ticket because they are for Pres. Bush. That takes some stones.
Somebody took a poll a while back and it turns out that a surprising percentage of people 14-30 or something like that get their political news from Jon Stewart, so you’re in good company, or at least a lot of company.
I think it’s unfortunate that Nader is in the race and that the Republicans are supporting him actively, but I can’t say I have a real ethical problem with it. It’s a free country, and while it may not be the most ethical thing they could be doing, it’s not quite dishonest either. In any case, Clinton did benefit from Ross Perot’s presence at least once, so I guess turnabout is fair play.
I’m still holding out hope that Nader will drop out, but I don’t believe that he will have a deciding effect on the election, unlike last time. As it is, Kerry is leading most of the polls, and most of the polls in the battleground states.
I’m not worried about Nader having any effect on the election, nor am I too concerned about the group advocating him. However, if you can’t find enough to say about your candidate, that you have to endorse someone else just to split your opponents vote, I think that’s weak.
True enough. At least they didn’t recruit Bob Kerrey or someone with a similar name to really confuse voters, which happens more frequently than you might think.
As for Bush, I haven’t yet identified what his second term proposed agenda is. In fact, it’s not clear that he’s campaigning on anything other than John Kerry is a liar and flip-flopper. On the other hand, if I were he, I wouldn’t exactly be campaigning on the last four years either. And if voters somehow get the impression that Kerry hurt himself in Vietnam and faked his medals, then, oh well. The question is whether voters will figure it out.
The pundits seem to feel that the race is Kerry’s to lose at this point. With the undecided voters, there seems to be a feeling that at least 3/4 will go Kerry’s way because they’ve already had 4 years to figure out whether they like Bush, and obviously haven’t gotten there. The National Review wrote something about it recently, indicating that statistically, Bush is in a bad position. And without some sort of plausible positive agenda, short of Bin Laden showing up on the steps of Congress, he’s in trouble. On the other hand, even if we apprehend Bin Laden, we seem to have given Al Qaeda so much to time to regroup and multiply that I’m not sure it will make a real difference.
I really don’t see a problem. SBVFT are as partisan as MoveOn.org. So what.
To me, it’s about what do I want in a president.
-
Capitalist, not Socialist. Bush gets the nod here, but that Medicare benefit rubbed me wrong.
-
Neither religous, nor Altruist. Believer of existence of god, OK.
-
Strong on defense of America. Gotta go with Bushie on this one.
-
Doesn’t care what the F’n French or UN think. Bush here, too.
-
Wants to LOWER my taxes. See number 1.
This election is really a no-brainer for me and what I want. I voted for Gore and now I’m glad he lost. I thought Bush was a dork, but has proved me wrong time and time again. The real big asses in this campaign are not politicains at all, but media louts.
“So this turned out the way most probably expected. The White House probably wishes they had criticized the ads when John McCain called for it. But, does this story have legs?”
I can’t read your link without giving the NYT my personal info, but I’ve been following this story. Why would you assume that 250 guys are lying and Kerry is telling the truth?
Have you read “Unfit for Command”?
Jesus, Kerry claims he was in Cambodia for Xmas '68 under order from Nixon who wasn’t president until January of '69. He says it’s “seared into my brain.” Talk about your credibility gaps.
But this is about what I expected. The left will attack the messenger, and not bother discussing the facts.
“I really couldn’t care less if they were violating campaign finance law. I had already assumed that they were in coordination with Karl Rove.”
Interesting point of view. How did you feel about seeing Michael Moore at the VIP table with Jimmy Peanut during the convention?
Or is it only wrong if the other guys do it?
Meanwhile, instead of crying conspiracy, why not pick up a copy of Unfit for Command and then look for Kerry’s answers to it point by point. AFIK, Kerry hasn’t bothered to contest any of their statements. His defense is claiming Bush is behind it!!
I don’t care where the story came from, it’s either accurate of not. I assume from Kerry’s inabilaty to respond on point that it’s probably pretty accurate. I mean I know guys who have one of more purple hearts, and they’re kinda screwed up, physically. How do you get wounded three times in four months and not have any major scars gimps or limps to show for it?
“As for Bush, I haven’t yet identified what his second term proposed agenda is. In fact, it’s not clear that he’s campaigning on anything other than John Kerry is a liar and flip-flopper.”
-
- As opposed to Kerry, who is campaigning on “I’m not Bush.” Has he given a single position yet, other than that he would fight a kinder gentler war and he’s a uniter, not a divider… Gee that sounds familiar! It also starkly contrasts with Edwards “two Americas” message.
“On the other hand, if I were he, I wouldn’t exactly be campaigning on the last four years either.”
-
- Improved economy, job growth, tax cuts, no additional acts of terror on American soil… Sounds like something I’d like to see more of.
“And if voters somehow get the impression that Kerry hurt himself in Vietnam and faked his medals, then, oh well. The question is whether voters will figure it out.”
-
- The question is wheter there’s any there there. Kerry the Catholic says life begins at conception, and then says women should be able to decide whether to kill that life!! Huh? He says he’d fight a compassionate war. Huh? He says he’ll take back my tax cuts. Now I’m pissed.
Do you actually take this hit piece seriously?
Oops, I have to confess, I once went out with a girl who ultimately wound up becoming the second wife of a good friend of a highly placed Whitehouse official. Furthermore, I once lived next door to a prominent lawyer for the Florida Republican party. To make things even worse, one of my (1000) college classmates is now a paid editorial writer who often supports conservative causes.
Having said all this, since I am a major donor to the Swift Boat Vets with my $100 contribution, clearly GWB is coordinating through me with that group.
Kerry is operating independently of George Soros though.
Give me a break.
I guess I don’t see how you can say that the Swift Boat Vets don’t have regard for the truth. Their story is consistent. It is Kerry that keeps changing his story, particularly concerning Cambodia. How many turning points of your life are seared into your mind turn out to be false?
I wasn’t on the Swift Boats, so I don’t know when shots were being fired and when they weren’t. It is very obvious to me though, that Kerry has inflated his resume and been caught on it.
Kerry’s service, like those he fought with, was distinguished and honorable. He didn’t need to lie about it. It speaks for itself. Yet he did lie about it. That provides a lot of insight into the man.
“I wasn’t on the Swift Boats, so I don’t know when shots were being fired and when they weren’t.”
I haven’t read the book, because I don’t read crap like this from either side during election years, but my understanding is that none of the guys in SBVFT were on Kerry’s boat either.
"To say you don’t know what another boat was doing because you where not in the boat is pure bullshit. "
Well I’ve been on one Patrol Coastal about thirty yards from another Patrol Coastal, and that boat had a engine room fire and a guy fell and broke his arm and I didn’t have any idea what was going on. And I wasn’t even engaged in a firefight for my life, so I guess it’s not total bullshit now is it?
Swift boats don’t travel alone. They travel in groups. Saying you weren’t in the boat is like an infantry man saying you weren’t in my uniform. No, but maybe I was in the uniform next to yours, so maybe I know of what I speak.
Regardless, you ignore the undeniable. Kerry did lie about his service, at least in Cambodia. He won’t answer the charges. Instead he is sending surrogates out to destroy the reputations of fine men who served their country well. He is gathering all the testimonies so that he can ultimately fashion a response in a Clintonesque way with an answer that can withstand scrutiny. His is not the behavior of a man who is being truthful.
None of this is offered to attack Kerry’s service in Vietnam. His served his country well by all accounts that I have read. I wasn’t on a gunboat. He is way ahead of me on that score.
I guess I don’t get the point. If you had seen it, you would have taken action, spoken up and had credibility. That is what these highly decorated vets are doing. They are speaking up about what they did see. Why shouldn’t these vets be allowed to speak?
In your case, someone could have been on the deck and not known of the engine room fire or the broken arm. No mystery there.
I’m not making any argument about the validity of the SBVFT claims or Kerry’s version of events, because I wasn’t there, and I didn’t bother with their book. My beef is this. Men of honor do not smear another guy, or refute his claims, if they don’t have first hand, eye witness basis to do so. I haven’t heard any of these claims before this year, when all of the sudden it’s an election issue. Certainly Kerry has mentioned Vietnam at some other point in his many years in politics. Why didn’t they come out before? On top of that, if there is a connection to the GOP that would be illegal under FEC regulations, they’re in big trouble, and what credibility they do have goes out the window.