If you enjoyed reading about "DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
August 6, 2004, 02:27 PM
Funny, I guess now they'll have to add the 1st Amendoment to the things they are against.
August 6, 2004, 02:29 PM
I just wonder what the Dems would have said if "W" sent his lawyers to silence Mickey Moore?
August 6, 2004, 02:38 PM
I'm just so happy to know that the stations are responsible for reporting the truth.
August 6, 2004, 03:00 PM
OTOH, Bush is on record through his spokesman as saying the ad should be banned. Not just that they disavow the ad or disagree with it. Since no one has seen fit to respond to my thread, I'll repeat it here:
In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of "unregulated soft money activity."
The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate the discourse." Now, what were y'all saying about the 1st Amendment?
Kerry is freaking out over this, and he should too. If they can't discredit these guys it's all over for the war criminal.
Kerry has setup his Vietnam service as the cornerstone (just about the only stone, actually) of his bid and now it is under heavy attack. Bush can't attack Kerry on this angle, because Bush wasn't in country at all, even though Kerry was only there for 4 months. So it's a loser for Bush to bring it up. These guys have standing to make this angle. If they can knock the pedastal of Vietnam out from under Kerry, he'll have only his senate record left, and there's nothing there.
I love the semantic hide-and-seek both sides are playing with the 'served on the boat' bit. The swift boat vets don't actually say they served on his boat, but it is implied, and the Kerry campaign makes heavy use of the fact that the guys in the ad weren't actually on the boat, even though many of them were in very close proximity to Kerry for extended periods of time in boats right alongside his or in other positions that give them standing to make their individual criticisms.
Alot of major league political maneuvering going on. Shades of the truth and innuendo. Lies by ommision. If nothing else, a very informative example of serious political hardball.
August 6, 2004, 03:12 PM
I actually agree with Malone on that one... I couldn't believe it when McClellan started in with the 'unregulated soft money' horsedung. Invoking McCain-Feingold! That was digging deep. Bush said previously (right before he signed it :barf: ) that he thought it was unconstitutional. To invoke it now is a little on the hard-to-swallow side.
Although I would bet that the tactical decision was probably made that he needed to stay as far above the war-record criticism as humanly possible, and that need overrulled the distaste of calling for a ban - which places the pres on as high a rung above this as he can realistically get.
August 6, 2004, 03:21 PM
Well, George Soros has been spending MILLIONS trashing George Bush through moveon.org and Err America, now the DemocRATS are worried about a short little political ad?
Hypocrisy, thy name is DEMOCRAT. :rolleyes:
August 6, 2004, 03:34 PM
You can get one chapter e-mailed to you by submitting a request here:
So is this guy recanting that he didnt say that Kerry was'nt a great guy, or that he said that Kerry was OK when he meant he was'nt, or was'nt qualified to say that Kerry was qualified, but not?
This kind of feces is exactly why nobody who would make a good President wants the job.
August 6, 2004, 07:50 PM
Malone, despite the fact that your first post was a duplicate of one in another thread, and that I seldom agree with your positions on presidential politics, I have to agree this time with you. But maybe not for reasons you might think.
The Swift Boat Veterans ads are going to hurt Bush. There's hardly a minute that goes by on TV when you don't see an image of Kerry in Viet Nam. Kerry doesn't have the foreign policy/military credentials (almost no candidates ever do, until they're elected), so he has to shore up the foreign policy/military question with his Viet Nam experience. It's a stretch, but it's all he has on the issue.
By running these ads, the Swift Boat Veterans are just reiterating that Kerry was in Viet Nam. They might as well be running ads for him.
The 10% or so undecided voters won't be won or lost by Kerry's service. If that were an issue, then Dole would have beaten Clinton in '96, Bush 41 would have beaten Clinton in '92, and Carter would have beaten Reagan in '80.
Service in Viet Nam isn't the strong selling point that the Dem's think they have. Nevertheless, you don't go after your opponent by attacking a position where he holds the firm ground. It only plays to your opponent.
Kerry has decades of votes and statements that can be used against him. If I were Carl Rove, I'd tell the Swift Boat Veterans to shut up.
Or perhaps he already has, but they won't.
August 6, 2004, 08:33 PM
Seems we have a recanting of the recanting, or rather the claim that the story about recanting is in error. Since the story was written by someone who wrote a biography of Kerry and is being paid by the Kerry campaign to write the Kerry/Edwards campaign biography the bias seems evident. Essentially we have a pro Kerry story written by a unofficial Kerry publicist employed fulltime by the Boston paper. The paper doesn't see something wrong with this?:banghead:
August 6, 2004, 10:21 PM
Kerry has setup his Vietnam service as the cornerstone (just about the only stone, actually) of his bid...
Well, half a leg, anyway.
August 6, 2004, 10:44 PM
I wonder where all of the people that were screaming censorship when Disney decided not to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 are at. The sole reason to silence the Swift Boat vets is to prevent their message from being heard by the American public, aka censorship. If their statements are not true, then the DNC should sue them for liable.
August 6, 2004, 11:54 PM
You guys think this issue is going to amount to beans by Nov. 2 ?
Bush better start thinking of ways to enhance his image and worry less about Kerry's war record!
This makes for good discussion but will amount to a non- issue in the voting booth much like Clinton's unethical behavior.
August 7, 2004, 12:51 AM
Heard in an interview this AM about Kerry in Paris. He went there and tried to negotiate a peace plan or peace terms with the Viet Cong on his own accord. Not as a official rep of the govt or anything. This was after the war as part of the Fonda group vets for peace or whatever it was called. He should have been prosecuted for that but never was?
August 7, 2004, 01:15 AM
Serving in the same squadron is "serving with". Serving in the same boat is "serving under".
It is similar for aircraft.
Malone, that's not exactly damning and is nowhere near the level of the letter.
August 7, 2004, 01:53 AM
You guys think this issue is going to amount to beans by Nov. 2 ?
It will to vets, which the democratic party has a bunch. Those that got their medals the hard way have a strong dislike for those that didn't. While they may not vote for Bush, they just might not vote at all.
August 7, 2004, 03:19 AM
Yes, this is a long-term issue to veterans and their families and veterans groups. It's a permanent and unrecoverable loss for the Two Johns. It makes it much more likely that Kerry will be unable to even make a good showing in November, let alone win.
As for putting Kerry's image and 'nam together all over the TV, that forgets one thing: It also puts "war criminal" there at the same time. Those three things, short, simplistic and "visual" do stick with people and are effective. Personally I don't really care, being concerned entirely with Kerry's voting record, but if it gets the job done then more power to 'em.
August 7, 2004, 02:23 PM
I like the part where they get all outraged that one of the men said Kerry "lied to the Senate."
Kerry ADMITS that he lied to the Senate about war crimes. Why would that be controversial? If they'd said "I agree with Senator Kerry that he lied to the Senate" would that have been acceptable?
August 7, 2004, 04:12 PM
As some of you know already the Boston Globe lied about the officer recanting his story. The officer had to sign another affidavid explaining it.
So the dems are scared. They have kerry's equals and the doctor who put on the bandaid explaining how unfit for service he is.
Everyone understand now? The guy is unfit to be Commander in Chief. He has a 77% absentee rate in the Senate. He isn't working as the Senator that Massachusetts hired him to be. He did come back to vote for anti-gun legislation.
Kerry is unfit to be a senator because he's to the left of kennedy. If he's a failure as a senator, why give him the job promotion?
August 7, 2004, 08:18 PM
Where did you find the 77% absent rate for Kerry? What period of time does that cover? Thanks.
August 7, 2004, 11:26 PM
Meanwhile, at least one anti-Kerry vet is recanting...