NYT: Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss

[FreeStateDemocrat]

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: May 28, 2006

He moves on to the photographs: his boat leaving the base at Ha Tien, Vietnam; the harbor; the mountains fading frame by frame as the boat heads north; the special operations team the boat was ferrying across the border; the men reading maps and setting off flares.

(skip)

But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

The Swift boat group continues to spend money on Washington consultants, according to public records, and last fall it gave $100,000 to a group that promptly sued Mr. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, for allegedly interfering with the release of a film that was critical of him.
Some of the principals behind the Swift boat group continue to press their claims. John O'Neill, the co-author of the group's best-selling manifesto, "Unfit for Command," criticizes Mr. Kerry on television talk shows and solicits money for conservative causes and candidates. In a South Carolina newspaper, William Schachte recently reprised his allegation that he was aboard the small skimmer where Mr. Kerry received the injury that led to his first Purple Heart, and that Mr. Kerry actually wounded himself.
Swift boat message boards and anti-Kerry Web sites still boil with accusations that Mr. Kerry fabricated the military reports that led to his military decorations.
Mr. Kerry, accused even by Democrats of failing to respond to the charges during the campaign, is now fighting back hard. (continued)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?hp&ex=1148788800&en=774bb79bdf3f1d35&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[xxqqqzme]

1. '...is now fighting back hard.'...

well now, isn't that special?

Theses swift boater dickheads are out of control.

[Warpy]

40. I said from the beginning he needed to SUE THOSE FUCKERS

for libel the day that book came out, those slimeballs and their slimeball publisher, Regnery, purveyor of smear books against any and all prominent Democrats. The only way to get rid of bully boys is to STAND UP AGAINST THEM with everything you got.

No, the point wasn't winning the suit.

The point was tying up their resources. The point was gaining subpoena power. The point was following all their dirty money, all the way back to Nixon. The point was publicity about who and what those evil men were then and are now. The point was tying this evil to the RNC. The point was stopping them dead in their tracks, permanently.

Kerry was a damned fool to listen to Mary Beth Cahill and her "Bullies pick on you because they LIKE you, sweetie, ignore them and they'll go away" lies parents tell to grammar school kids.

He's a damned fool every day he doesn't SUE.

[creeksneakers2]

66. I wish all those lying wingers would be sued n/t

I agree. Suing would work.

[calimary]

90. Seconded!

He IS a damned food every moment that he doesn't sue these bastards. No wonder people doubted whether he could stand up to bin Laden or be "tough on terrorism." No wonder. If he won't even fight back against these assholes with anything stronger than a feather-duster, it is NO WONDER people didn't take him seriously enough. And he's sending a clear message to these schmucks that he's a carcass still worth picking at - as long as he DOESN'T sue. You have to go after these bastards with everything you've got, AND MORE, in order to put them away.

Truly, he listened to that idiot mary beth cahill who undoubtedly advised him to just sit back for a few days and it'll blow over - that people would know the truth and he shouldn't even dignify their shit with a response. Well, how did that work out for ya, John? By the time he realized he should be hitting back on this, it was too late. The message had been sent, and unchallenged, had been allowed to sink in, and the seeds to be effectively planted - so they'd take root. Which they did. And by then, enough time had elapsed that it further cemented doubts in people's minds: "well, he isn't saying anything, so it must be true." You HAVE TO HIT BACK, HIT BACK HARD, AND HIT BACK IMMEDIATELY. Whatthefuck was he saving it for?

I'll never understand. I'll always be hesitant about John Kerry because of shit like this - that he didn't jump in and fight this IMMEDIATELY. He could have put it to bed in a couple of days if he'd gone thermonuclear on this and filed suit and made THEM blink. Instead, he laid there like a carcass to be picked clean by the hyenas and vultures and other opportunistic infections.

Besides, we wouldn't even NEED to see these stories, Kerry wouldn't even NEED to be wasting any more time on this, or on the swifties, if he'd put 'em away IMMEDIATELY, back then when they first started, and nipped this in the bud. This problem wouldn't even exist at this late date.

[tn-guy]

105. One giant problem with a lawsuit

Warpy says, "I said from the beginning he needed to SUE...."

The big problem with a lawsuit is not that it would give Kerry subpoena power into the Swifties but that it would also give the Swifties subpoena power for certain Kerry documents, including the diary he kept during his Vietnam service. If one is willing to look at all the claims, counterclaims, press stories, Brinkley's book, etc. it is easy to see why release of the diary could be worse than the claims by the swift boat group.

One must logically assume that if Kerry wants "the truth" to prevail he would release any contemporaneous diary entries supporting his case. That being so, a failure to release the diary entries begs the question of what is in them (or what is lacking).

Frankly, I'm sure the Republicans are gleeful over this. It is yet one more instance of Democrats focusing on the past to the detriment of the future.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

108. ....not if it helps make clear how voters were manipulated by liars

[tn-guy]

117. But that's the problem with a lawsuit.

Full discovery may show that they weren't liars after all.

I don't know and I doubt that anyone here knows the full truth regarding all the claims and counter claims. I only know that if Kerry's diary bolstered his case, it would be logical to release the pertinent parts to the public. Since he hasn't I can only assume that : a) he is monumentally stupid, or b) his diary actually harms his case.

[raysr]

107. He needs to make

that pig-fucker O'Neill "go-away". That guy's been hounding him since '72? The IRS or somebody in the gov ought to be able to find some dirt on the POS.

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. I hope he runs again. He should be President. n/t

[demdiva]

116. He should be President

I'm glad Kerry is doing this. I hope this means he's seriously planning on running again and would like to put the Swift Boat lies behind him.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

53. THIS shows that Clark would have been a great VP candidate.

He was a bona-fide war hero (had to learn to walk again), and he could have ripped them a new one while Kerry didn't have to say anything. Turn their use of Cheney back on them.

[karynnj]

93. Kerry was also a bona fide war hero

The silver star and bronze star actions made him one. Had he have done this and gone through his second term without a scratch, he would have been a war hero. You aren't a war hero dependent on how injured you are. Clark also is a war hero because of actions he did, not the injuries.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

115. But see what they did regarding Kerry?

They were able to make it look like he wasn't REALLY a hero since he didn't get hurt - even had a doctor (who didn't treat him, how the hell did they not nail THAT guy) say it was no big deal.

Band-aids and all that bullshit wouldn't have worked with Clark.

[_dynamicdems]

109. Yup. They are and they need to be stopped before the November

elections.

We have a lot of Democratic veterans running against Republicans this year. It is pretty damn special that someone has THEIR back.

[Robbien]

2. The damage has been done

No matter what he does now, the damage precedes it.

Just the same as the poll on the American people not being concerned about NSA spying. The poll was out there for days, not refuted. When subsequent polls came out showing the first one to be wrong, few paid attention.

Reaction has to be immediate for it to be effective.

[hlthe2b]

8. Sadly... I agree. No matter what he comes up with now...

Even if he went to court and won a slander/libel suit... the press would consider it "old news"

[_dynamicdems]

110. Because it is old news is the only reason they are even mentioning it in

the press. However, this isn't just to settle an old score on Kerry's part. Since the election these bastards and their ilk have targeted Social Security, a progressive Dem in Maine(don't remember his name), attacked Murtha, attacked several United States Generals and this is all just a prelude to the assault they plan to launch against Democratic veterans going up against Repugs in the elections this fall.

Kerry's not running now and he can devote more time and energy to their demise. Personally, I hope he succeeds. A law suit won't work. It just gives them more publicity and they are WELL FUNDED. I asked a lawyer friend about this and he said that isn't the way to proceed.

The key actually lies in the service that these men themselves did in Vietnam. I'd be willing to bet that O'Neill doth protest too much despite being a paid shill. I'd like to see his service records among others. Secrets there, I daresay. Time will tell. Always does.

[jmd]

100. Damage has been done? Maybe....Maybe not

My first post here....but I totally disagree. For a few different reasons. Sure damage has been done..for that election anyway. what will the republicans do for an encore to attack John Kerry's character?

1) in the past losers of an election would not run again and this leads to *electablity* (spelling?)issues. by not running the same candidate again, each losing party must restate the platform they stand on. and take a chance on new skeletons coming out of the closet. a re-run by a candidate might lend itself to cohesiveness. in kerry's case, he could say *we tried things the bush way and they didn't work out, so lets try another approach.*

2) in the case of John Kerry, the damage that was done by the swiftboat shit, could easily be refuted now without looking like he is pandering to any attack. he could easily say this time around, *look we've been thru this 4 years ago and the public now knows the attacks are not true so lets move on to the business at hand.* his most vulnerable spot is old news now. americans vote on emotional reaction of the moment not on logical ideologies developed over time.

3) at this stage of the game, and with polls for theshrub sinking like a destroyed battleship (the banner *mission accomplished* is the only thing still afloat) the voters who bought the trashed stories attacking John Kerry's character might be feeling a bit guilty not for voting for him, when deep inside he really does reflect that voters principles. remember Malcolm X's line *ya been had, ya been took, ya been hoodwinked, bamboozled led astray run amok*. this opportunity gives voters a chance to make things right.

[corbett]

3. Swifties Know That He Actually Won And Will Do So Again In 2008

Thanks a bunch for posting that NYT piece!

The Swifties are hard-up for cash and very worried that he'll run again. Not only could he win alone but if he chooses Senator Clinton for his running mate, he'll be so unstoppable that not even a reincarnated Ronald Reagan could mount a truly viable opposition.

[rfranklin]

7. Ronald Reagan is a piece of dog shit with Alzheimer's...

He smells bad but he can't remember why.

[corbett]

15. Nevertheless, His Political Base Would Be Huge

Remember who the repuke sycophants gushed over him at the Capitol during his official funeral?

[Spinoza]

32. My mother died of Alzheimer's. (complicated by MS)

Your remarks are highly offensive.

[rfranklin]

41. Your mother wasn't Ronald Reagan was she?

Get off your high horse, there's Alzheimer's in my family too.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Now? Almost 2 years AFTER the election, when it doesn't matter any more?

:shrug:

[MH1]

22. He fought back then - but he faced the SAME MEDIA we face in 2006/2008

So, we'd better pay attention. The idea that Kerry "didn't respond" is just another lie, a smokescreen to keep us from seeing the true picture. Although, he has agreed that he should have spent more money on the response, that is a different thing than the idea that "the campaign didn't respond" - an idea being shopped around not only by the rightwing.

Research Forum has the info on what the Swifties did when and what K/E04 did when:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555


This sums it up nicely:

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

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?

[wellst0nev0ter]

73. Also, Since Kerry Took Public Money And Was Hampered

By the campaign finance laws that went along with it, there was only so much he could do to counteract the Swifties independently.

[rfranklin]

5. As a matter of principle, O'Neill must be finally and completely...

destroyed, discgraced, beaten to a (figurative) pulp and be left out back by the dumpster.

And any others involved that can be found.

[ewagner]

16. I agree with that

while we're speaking figuratively, O'Neil should be (politically) beheaded and his head placed on a (political) pike to serve as an example to those who would try the same thing.

[Mr_Spock]

21. I agree as well

There are few people on this planet as hateful and vile as that disgraced ass hole. He was torn a new ass hole on TV and still he sprews his vile lies and hatred. He is without honor.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

56. I agree, but only because it might detrer others

Kerry blew it in a big way. I'm done with him.

[hlthe2b]

6. For the life of me...

I will never understand why it has taken this long to respond... I can't imagine Theresa's $$ would not have been gladly offered to fight back hard against the $30 million these butt holes spent.

I just don't undertand.

[rfranklin]

10. Hamlet syndrome...to be or not to be...that is the question....

and then it turned to tragedy.

[Robbien]

12. His DNC campaign consultants told him it was just

rumors being spread by bloggers and rightwing talk shows and to just ignore it. It kept spreading and the consultants said wait, "it will blow over".

The DNC is still using the same consultants.

[sendero]

55. If you take the advice of fools..

... what does that make you?

And if you refute the charges and nobody runs your refutation, what do you do next? Quit?

There are ways of getting on TV. Especially if you have millions of dollars.

[Biernuts]

74. I'm not defending him in this

Because he did run a piss-poor campaign. But on the money issue, he's not sitting on fortune he can use politically. The big money belongs to Teresa and significant amounts are tied up in trusts. If she were a candidate, she could self-finance and spend unlimited amounts. When he runs, oweverher contributions are limited by the same law that appies to the rest of us.

[karynnj]

95. I think it will be interesting to see if the watch dogs

watch McCain and his heiress wife as closely as they did the Kerrys on this. No one mentions that McCain dumped his wife (who was injured in a car accident) who had waited for him while he was in VN raising their kids as a single mom. A few months later he married a 24 year old heiress that he was already involved with.

[MH1]

25. Please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2309826&mesg_id=2309891

[hlthe2b]

35. Thanks, MH1... I have Boehlert's book on the list...

I don't know what is more demoralizing... to think that Kerry did not fight back, or that he did and our lapdog media blocked him at every turn. Both leave me totally depressed...

[MH1]

38. He did say that he should have spent more money.

Neither he nor I would say that he did everything he could (he has made public statements that he knows he should have done some things differently and spent more money on the rebuttals). I just get tired of people acting like he laid down, when that isn't true at all.

[hlthe2b]

43. It is the paradox that is so compelling.

That he could have come back from Vietnam and put it all on the line to be the courageous spokesman against the war and dealt with all the personal attacks that came from that--and then not instinctively fought with all he had to counter these lies? :shrug: If this doesn't strongly underscore the need for our candidates to trust their instincts first and their "brainy campaign advisors" far less, I don't know what does. As spunky as Theresa strikes me as being, I'm just surprised that--in their private time together--she would not have convinced him otherwise.

Again, the paradox....:shrug: I think we need for Natalie Maines-type advisors and far far less of the Shrums and all the other incomnpetents who are afraid to really fight.

[karynnj]

94. Teresa was limited to the same $2,000 as anyone by law

The 527s couldn't defend Kerry. Now, they have a committee that is under some other law that can defend all veterans whose war service is challanged for political reasons. But in 2004, Teresa could do nothing without breaking the law.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Very glad to have read this article. I hope he'll pursue it through to the

end. It's truly better late than never, and bringing the evidence forth now would clear the air, and point out how dirty these Republican hate mongers really are. From the second page:

Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.

"The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' " Mr. Hayes said this month. "It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth."

Mr. Hayes broke with the group, ending a 35-year friendship with Mr. Franke, and voted for Mr. Kerry. He has provided a long interview to Mr. Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Mr. Kerry received the Bronze Star.
(snip/...)

Looking forward to hearing more about this.

[karynnj]

96. Interesting that Kerry chose this as part of what to put out

Kerry obviously picked and chose what to tell the NYT. Sounds like he's signally he turned at least some people who know what happened inside. (Kerry was a proscecutor)

[nevergiveup]

11. It is mind boggling that Kerry

would let his character be destroyed like this without an initial vehement defense. John Kerry is a good and descent man but I will never understand why he ignored these jerks as they transformed him from a war hero into a traitor.

[Kenergy]

20. I don't either n/t

[MH1]

23. Read this post please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2309826&mesg_id=2309891

[rodeodance]

54. good, glad this is happening.

[pretzel4gore]

33. especially when all our hopes rested with him....

ok, the public is bushit, not worth the spit used on it, but...kerry fought hard to win the nomination, then bent over, to all intents and purposes, when up against the busheviks. Why? he's been moving in them circles for 30 years, and he knows how the rightwing boors do it, yet he, in effect, played softball with goonies.
he proves his opinion of what the majority of the people think is not high, and indeed complements bush's contempt for us....now he wants to restore his reputation...good idea, but why not before the election?

[politicasista]

44. Didn't someone else run against Bush too?

Why hold one to a higher standard than other politicians?:shrug:

[Harper_is_Bush]

103. I think the article explains what you can't understand.

maybe give it a read.

[smokey nj]

120. Could part of his response have been disbelief

that anyone would buy it? On it's face their premise is absolutely ridiculous. Kerry got himself wounded, on purpose, and then awarded himself medals, all in anticipation of a future run for the Presidency. And his accusers never felt the need to speak out before his Presidential run. That the MSM even gave these idiots a platform to spew their nonsense was as more of an outrage than the response of the Kerry/Edwards campaing to the accusations.

[NoodleyAppendage]

13. Kerry - A Day Late and a Dime Short. Snooze...zzzzz.

I think he needs to come to the realization that he is never going to become President. Repukes hate him and (most) Democrats are lukewarm about his prospects. He lacks any sort of "common people" charisma, which is now needed in our elections. Maybe in 1890s, his speech and tone would have worked, but now he comes off as a marginally interesting college professor type.

J

[MH1]

24. None of that is true.

He packs the house at events - you should have seen Faneuil Hall in Boston on 4/22/06. There are still a lot of people who really like Kerry. (wander into the Kerry Forum on DU some time and you may get a small idea.)

As for "the campaign didn't respond to the Swift Liars" please see this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2309826&mesg_id=2309891

[NoodleyAppendage]

30. He packs houses in Boston. But, what about the rest of the country.

I would expect him to do well in the Northeast, but what about the remainder of the US?

J

[MH1]

34. Yes, he is doing well across the country

He has stumped for many candidates in 2005 and 2006. He always draws an enthusiastic crowd. If you lurk around the Kerry forum you will often see posts with pictures of the events. I'd post some links but I need to go do some other stuff now.

Another source for Kerry news, if you are really interested, is http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/ . There is also plenty of news about other Democrats and issues too. They just happen to be friendly to Kerry over there and they post all the press releases and news stories, and pictures of events that people send them.

[Epiphany4z]

82. he sure did

get awful close to winning his campaign couldn't have been that bad. I will agree he is not the most charismatic man but I think country lost the chance for a really great president.

As to the swift bloat dumb asses. They need to be taken down hard there name needs to be mud...Although I am not sure how you win this one there cult followers out there that still believe Bush has more balls for staying home than Kerry had for going. I Knew it was hopeless when people got into the degree of Kerry's wounds. Like being in a place where bullets fly and not getting hurt is any less ourageous? Who cares how bad he was hurt the point was he was there and Boosh was at home warm and safe all cuddled up in his widdle blanky sucking his thumb...please daddy ..don't let them make me go..waaa waaa

[globalvillage]

28. Not true.

Where do you get that? I see support for Sen Kerry at every event he speaks at.
All of his commencement speeches were very well received. Most people I talk to think he's great.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I see something completely different.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Apparently, you didn't have your eyes open during 2004 election.

I'm sure he does well with Northeast liberals, but what about the remainder of the US? He has zero pull down in the South and mid-West. The plains states are soft on him, and aside from California and Oregon, I don't see much support on the West Coast.

J

[MH1]

36. Some links to back up your claims?

I have to go now but I will check back later for your credible references supporting your assertions.

[NoodleyAppendage]

46. 2004 results are proxy of regional popularity

All the proof you need that Kerry has little pull in the South and Mid-West.

J

[MH1]

68. So, I guess you don't think the 2004 election was stolen?

I suppose you think that everyone who wanted to vote was given an equal opportunity to vote and have that vote counted.

Several midwest states like NM and CO were in play. Kerry probably won NM if Richardson et al would have allowed a recount.

Also, in 2000 Gore didn't do much differently - and he is FROM the south.

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. I think the 2004 election was helped along, but not stolen completely.

At some point, we Dems are going to need to stop excusing our losses on election fraud. Yes, it happens, but what makes you think it wasn't tried in 1996 and 1992??? If our guy/girl is popular enough and has a comfortable margin, then only wholesale fraud and not what we are currently exposed to will tip the balance.

J

[ginnyinWI]

91. your map is incorrect.

Wisconsin went Blue for Kerry/Edwards.

[globalvillage]

45. I think you're wrong.

These are from Ohio last week

"Everyone was kind of stunned," she says. "They were excited … It was almost like a kickoff to a campaign.">

http://connect2.owu.edu/ourtown/182.php

Kerry, who visited the Courthouse Square in Newark in September 2004 during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, answered the question on everybody’s mind, “Are you running for president?” with a question of his own.

“Do you think I ought to do it again?”

The crowd shouted back in the affirmative.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3070


And this is from Iowa a couple weeks ago

“He’s got a big constituency here,” Haviland said. “I think it’s going to be a Democratic year.”

Melvin Bobo, a mental-health therapist who drove from Des Moines to hear the speech, said Kerry is “the right man at the right time.”

“The thing is, right now this country is sliding so far down hill. We really need him to stop the sliding,” Bobo said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060506/NEWS09/60506006/1001/rss01


I travel a lot. I know people all over the country, and I have heard no negative reaction to Sen Kerry's appearances. Just large crowds and reaction similar to what I posted.

My eyes were open in '04. Still are. I think you're making shit up.

Go ahead. Post something, with a link, to refute my observations. You won't find anything.

Ramen.

[NoodleyAppendage]

47. Funny, I seem remember Kerry losing Ohio and Iowa.

The crowds may have been plentiful in those states, but they do not reflect the voting public's desires when it came time to go to the ballot box. And, yes, there may have been some voter fraud, but not enough to tip the election and not as close as the Bush/Gore race. The facts are, harsh as they may be, that Kerry isn't as popular as his devotees would like to think.

J

[globalvillage]

48. So, the fear mongering

The orange alerts, the media, the swiftboating had nothing to do with it? They just didn't like him?
So, who did they like?

[NoodleyAppendage]

50. Look. The same bullsh*t happened to Dean. Personality must rise above.

We know that the dirty tricks are going to happen for any candidate we select. The key is to find a candidate, like Clinton, who's personality and presence are strong enough to rise above the bullshit. Sadly, our current crop of choices doesn't seem to fit the bill...maybe Edwards, but no one else that I've seen so far.

J

[globalvillage]

52. Edwards won two primaries in '04

People must like him better.

[NoodleyAppendage]

60. I agree. Sad as it may be, the elections are all about popularity.

Rove knew this along time ago and worked hard to make every election about "likability," not intelligence or experience. Now, I'm afraid, the US public is used to the prospect of electing someone they like and not necessarily who's the best for the job. I think the best we can hope for is someone who has both characteristics, like Bill C.

J

[MH1]

71. Heh. Like everyone was allowed to vote.

I guess you weren't exactly following on election night and noticing the long lines in Ohio. And how they obviously reflected, um, a certain demographic.

Did you forget about the thrown out registrations because they weren't on the right card stock?

Did you forget about the much higher ballot "spoilage" rate in Dem precincts?

Did you forget about the massive republican challenges to dem voters, and the way precincts were organized so that provisionals were cast in the "wrong" precinct, and Blackwell's edict that provisionals cast in the wrong precint would not be tallied for ANY race?

and so much more.

Yep, it looks like you did forget all that.

[Doremus]

89. Not enough fraud to tip it? How much do you think it takes?

Kerry lost by only 119k votes in Ohio. We have 11,360 precincts. Do the math. A little tweak here, a minor adjustment there, and voila, we have a new winner.

I've no doubt that Kerry won Ohio. If you still doubt it, take the time to read about the numerous oddities, irregularities and foibles that occurred. Everything from a 'bomb threat' that no one seems to have a record of but which succeeded in locking the press out during counting; to shortages of voting machines that caused untold thousands of people statewide to stand in hours-long lines IF they decided to stick around; to machine tally tapes being found in trash cans; to Diebold workers swapping out hard drives on central tabulators and schooling poll workers how to fake a recount, etc., etc., etc.

BTW, it's vote fraud, not voter fraud. Voters aren't trying to defraud anyone. They just wish for once their vote actually counted.

[Iowa]

57. I saw him when he was trailing badly...

...in Iowa. He was speaking to small groups of 20 people or so in small-town cafes. He impressed many here and came from behind to win here.

When we saw him after he had the nomination pretty well locked, he was a different man. The "real" Kerry could have swept the mid-west. But very few ever got to see the real Kerry.

[CONN]

72. Yep, now he's going to fight. Guess he plans to run again...

This is fighting?

from the NT Times story:

"They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"

[_dynamicdems]

111. Maybe this is cruel, but judging from your post, I'd say that your

screen name is appropriate.

You obviously don't know anything about Senator Kerry but that doesn't stop you from mouthing off. May I make a suggestion? You use the same talking points at the Free Republic and they will love you.

[stepnw1f]

14. good (nt)

[seaglass]

17. I admire this about his character, that he still believes that

the truth matters and he still has an optimistic view of his fellow human beings.

We need more people like John Kerry and fewer people than the type who think that it is ever too late to defend one's character.

[Guaranteed]

27. BINGO. nt

[MH1]

39. Me too. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. The two campaign scandals: Swiftboats and TANG

This is the book someone should write. Both situations were about the Viet Nam era actions of the 2 contenders. Both suffered scandals with differing results. Both results were due to the media play on each topics. Neither result apparently had ANYTHING to do with truth, justice or competent reporting. Both had EVERYTHING to do with the effectiveness and co-ordination of the campaign response to the charges as well as media bias that supported Bush.

I clearly remember that Chris Mathews was all swiftboats all the time, although every fifth show he managed to squeeze in one devoted to gay marriage.

[NeoConsSuck]

49. Thank you Phoebe!

You picked up what few others noticed. That this could never have happened without the help of MSM.

And just because MSM has 'turned' on bush, it doesn't mean they've turned on the puke party. IMHO, they will help to sabotage our next candidate in 2008.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. All Kerry has to do is kick O'Neill's ass.

O'Neill will then disappear.

O'Neill is challenging Kerry's manhood.

If Kerry calls for a cage match, we'll never hear this bullshit again.

A duel.

Yes. A duel.

[globalvillage]

29. That would be sweet

but it wouldn't solve anything. Weeds must be pulled by the roots, and you can't just pull one. You have to get them all.

A duel would be awesome, though.

[Guaranteed]

26. I like this. This is good. nt

[ovidsen]

37. Close the barn door. The horses have escaped! n/t

[noel adamson]

42. Just being on those boats was an act of utmost bravery and indication of.

a very strong sense of duty. They were small loud boats cruising up and down rivers through densely forested areas and easy targets for anyone along the shore who took a notion to fire on them. They were used as bait. The utter shame of seeking to discredit his bravery when he ran against chicken hawk Gee Dub is the height of hypocrisy.

It is good that he is fighting back, even at this late date. I would also like to see someone make a bigger fuss about Gee Dub's "service" both his Air National Guard service when he went AWOL and as Commander in Chief where he is still failing to defend America in deference to quiting his post to pillage and plunder. etc., etc., etc.

In fact, as Commander in Chief, I think he is subject to the UCMJ right now and have long advocated a military tribunal rather than impeachment which has been thoroughly cheapened by it's frivolous use to smear Clinton.

Uniform Code of Military Justice
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy;...

...shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.

I'd say he has succeeded in intentionally violating all three of these in a massive way and that premeditation is apparent.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[globalvillage]

63. I agree that the Senator

has good looks and personal appeal, and that he's extremely intelligent.

Otherwise, your post is possibly the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever read on this board.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

70. ROFLMAO

You should probably just use the little "A" link at the lower left of the post...but anyway I got a good laugh.

I think you called it.

:toast:

[msmcghee]

59. What many don't understand . .

. . is that when you accept big money from people, as Kerry did (including his wife's money) is that it always comes with strings attached. In this case those strings were certainly assurances that particular advisors would be there to help manage the campaign strategy and spending - and probably an additional assurance that their advice would be followed.

It very well could be that Kerry's instincts were to counter-attack massively and quickly - but he was councelled against that by his advisors. We will never know because Kerry is not the type to blame others. He has taken responsibility for this decision. However, the decision he faced could well have been to either follow their advice, as he did, or to burn his advisors off and violate promises he made.

When millions of other people's dollars are on the line - and when you've made promises in order to get that money - that's usually the kind of decision you eventually must face when things start to go sideways.

Now, that he's kept his promise . . it seems he is out to set the record straight on his own and with the help of a few friends who know what really happened.

[applegrove]

61. Good for Kerry. Every loud move he makes will show McCain as a little

twerp at this juncture in his life.

[moobu2]

62. Check the graphic from the article out

[eleny]

64. Trying to remind us of the tactic before the midterm election, perhaps?

I think so. With Dem veterans running for Congress, I think he's trying to help them in advance by reminding the public of what the other side did to discredit his own military service.

[MH1]

69. Excellent point...

I hadn't thought of that but that would be like Kerry.

He has expressed many times the importance of winning in 2006 and is doing alot of fundraising and campaigning for '06 candidates.

I am sure part of the timing here was to hone their case carefully, but it is quite possible that Kerry thought of the timing in relation to '06 also.

[ProSense]

65. Swift liars 101

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

[kskiska]

75. The Swifties are hurting individually

At least one, in SC, lost his job because of his activities and most likely still hasn't recovered monetarily.

O'Neill is frequently shilling for money over at FR, trying to fight the lawsuits.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496873/posts

[MH1]

84. Please consider your sources.

Read what Media Matters has to say about Gardner's claim of victimization:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010008


And for some backup on this guy:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C599034%2C00.html


Now, all that aside, could it be the guy lost his job because he didn't make the cut when a layoff was needed? Or maybe he was as dishonest to his employer as he has been about Kerry?

His claim to have been laid off because of his politics holds as much water as someone claiming they were let go because of their race. It may be true - but you need more than the employee's say so to prove it.

[kskiska]

102. Thanks for the info on Gardner. Interesting.

Sort of like how Paula Jones claimed she was passed over for promotion and didn't get flowers on Secretary's Day.

[truthisfreedom]

77. pictures showing evidence (from NYT originally)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/27/183054/806

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

79. The picture is right above you

Did you not click any links before you posted such tripe? That's the new evidence, pictures that rebut garbage like what you posted because telling you the truth was never good enough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2309826#2310336

[rasputin1952]

85. IT is not the severity of the wound that is the requisite for the PH...

it is the nature in which it was received: under and caused by enemy fire, or as a POW.

Kerry was wounded by enemy fire, he did not cut himself opening a can of Ham and Lima Beans; the award is justified.

For what it is worth, Reagan authorized 5 PH's for soldiers wounded in a Disco in Berlin...:wtf:

[MH1]

86. Wow, are you lost?

For anyone tempted to believe the above insinuations:

1) Kerry didn't put himself in for a medal

http://web.archive.org/web/20041012125340/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html

2) Getting any wound under fire isn't trivial - see the criteria for Purple Heart award in the military regulations.

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/PH1.html
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html#ph1


3) The Dept of Navy has certified that ALL of Kerry's awards were issued properly. Think about this (A**HOLES) - you call one award for one person into question, you call them ALL into question that were ever awarded - you are saying the process is bullshit, so who knows who really deserved them. Well, to all who make this specious claim, F*CK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON. Don't you DARE question what my father, my cousins, my friends did UNDER FIRE to earn the awards they wear. Or myself or my mother, who were never under fire but F*CKING SERVED, you rightwingnutjob cowards. There is a process for the awards, there is a process for questioning the awards, and both processes were followed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041012125340/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html


Want more? Media Matters has 132 items about the Swift Lies campaign:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth

Edited to correct factual error in composition - my mother wasn't under fire either, that I know of. Didn't want to give a false impression.

[fedupinBushcountry]

92. Have you ever served?

I cannot believe I am hearing this shit on DU. I think you need to look up what warrants a purple heart in time of war. You know its bad enough we have to put up with a bunch of fucking liars on the right but when the left jumps in it really boggles my mind.

Oh by the way you do not need to bleed to get a purple even falling off a bunk and hitting your head which upon you get concussion, during an attack, earns you a purple heart.

God this really irks me, you are no better than those on the right, would you question everyone's award ? Shame, shame on you. :argh: :mad:

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beachmom]

97. You're citing "Counterpunch" -- the one that pops up with all

the RW sack of shit sites when I type in "john Kerry vietnam"? As far as I'm concerned, Counterpunch is so far left it meets the right and is one in the same. How dare you post on "democraticunderground.com" when you're no Democrat at all, if you can type such vile things about our 2004 candidate?

You oughta be ashamed of yourself.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

83. Why? Boston Globe and LA Times both received releases and did

major pieces on what they found (almost nothing that wasn't previously released except Kerry's Yale grades).

Who knows, they may have posted copies of the releases at the time, although I don't know what would be the point.

An SF 180 releases material to a specific party. I don't know why TWO major news outlets would misrepresent that they received it.

So, let me be blunt - why are you asking a question that is more at home at Freeperville, where actual facts are meaningless?

Also, just curious - were you in the military? Why don't you go ahead and sign an SF-180 releasing your records to me?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MH1]

88. Huh? Why not ask the Globe or the Times? + You didn't answer my questions.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe.

Section III.2 is "where to send." It was stated before, this was to the Globe and the LA Times. This is not a point in dispute.

So, what is your point?

And, why not answer my simple question as well? Did you serve, and will you release your own records to me?

[Tarc]

99. A lot of "name removed" tags

Looks like a troll was dealt with appropriately, too bad I missed all the fun.

The Swifties were a pack of racist, mentally unstable liars. One has to only scratch the surface of Jerome Corsi, Ted Sampley, and other associates to see the despicable truth. While it is a shame that Se. Kerry did not forcefully smack down these clowns early and often in 2004, if he has any thought about mounting a campaign in 2008 he better get on top of their BS right now.

[jasmeel]

98. This whole SBLiars shit enrages me!! Most people would never

have the gall to attack a well decorated war veteran when they're backing a coward like *. It's surreal and every time I find myself reading about Kerry and the Swift boat bitches I just want to scream. But we have to talk about it because the press decides what we talk about! If he doesn't respond he looks guilty-if he does respond he gives the argument credibility because he's talking about it. It's the perfect attack. I HATE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!! :nuke: Sorry for the rant.

[cassiepriam]

101. Duh, elections are over Kerry, you are a bit late :( nt

[Harper_is_Bush]

104. The article references that point

maybe give it a read.

[emulatorloo]

106. They are continuing to try to destroy Kerry . . . if it was happening

to you, you would fight it too.

[cassiepriam]

112. I hear you, but he should have done this during the election.

Then he could have saved the country. Now he is just saving his own skin.

Sorry to be bitter, but his failure to fight when he should have is costing America a great deal.

[Harper_is_Bush]

113. The article references that point

maybe give it a read.

[blm]

118. HOW? When the EFFING MEDIA won't even show up at your Speeches where

you attack the swifts and their connection to the WH in front of a convention of FIREFIGHTERS who are endorsing you, fer chrissakes?

Did you EVER go to the DU Research Forum and get the FACTS or are you completely satisfied with spreading RW media perception (R-Lies) just to attack Kerry?

[wisteria]

114. Good news! This is good for Senator Kerry!! Smack those Swifties! n/t

[mvd]

119. I want them to get justice, even if..

it should have been earlier. Go Kerry!

[wordpix2]

121. Repukes will do ANYTHING TO DISTRACT FROM THEIR DISASTROUS WARS in

IRAQ & Afghanistan.

Let's not get distracted from this war at home and abroad. We must rid ourselves of these evil BushCo bastards and bring the troops home.

[mbee]

122. I think the head of Fox 45 in Baltimore had something to do with

the Swiftboat Liars! I never watch that propaganda channel! Can't understand this level of evil!

[wisteria]

123. IMO, Kerry is doing this to correct the lies. He is a truth seeker and

it must bother him terribly knowing these scum get any recognition or respect at all. He knows the truth and he wants to make sure as many people as possible know it too.

He fought off these jerks a couple of times during the elections, it was the funds raised by Texas Republicans on behalf of Bush and Rove that helped to fund and keep the lies going. Then the president's network, Fox carried the ball from there, playing the lies over and over again until what wasn't news became news and the other networks had to cover it.
IMO, Kerry is out first to set the record straight and disprove these a**holes once and for all and if it does happen to benefit him if he does decide to run-so what. It's a free country, he can run again if he wants. I would vote for him all over again.

[demo dutch]

124. What the hell was he waiting for... not impressed!