"The Way to Win" sounds like must-read for Dems.

[speedoo]

I've been listening to the authors a lot. Some of what they have to say is not what I'd like to hear, but any democrat who wants to win in 2008 had better read and heed this book.

Maybe useful for some campaigns this year as well, if the campaign is nimble enough.

[meegbear]

1. From the review I read, yes and no ...

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200610030008

[madfloridian]

2. I heard it is not very favorable to Democrats but loves the GOP

and admires Rove very much.

Is that the book that wants Democrats not to act like Democrats, or something like that?

[speedoo]

3. I think Democrats make a big mistake if they ignore the main points.

1. The last three national elections were dominated by republicans, and therefore, Rove.
2. Rove and republicans have done a better job running their campaigns.
3. They have done a better job because they understood how to use the "new media" to manipulate the "old media". Primarily by using propoganda outlets like Drudge.
4. Rove's counterpart on the Democratic side is Bill Clinton. He dominated national politics while he was on the scene and is still able to, which is a huge weapon for Hillary, if she choosed to run.
5. Gore and Kerry lost to an inferior candidate, even though they had issues on their side, because they allowed Rove to take control of their public images.

If anyone has a serious argument with any of these points, I'd like to hear them.

And please don't argue that the "media is on the Republican's side" as the Media Matters review seems to do. The issue is, what are you going to do about it?

[gumby]

6. It's the media.

These two bozos blaming Gore for letting Rove to control his image is just more Class Media CRAP!!!

It was the Class Media, along with the right-wing echo chamber, that waged a TWO YEAR war against Gore.

It was the Class Media that spun almost everything Gore did into some "mistake." Hell, even Gore's **clothing** was pilloried and used by the Class Media to attack Gore.

No, it is these two Bozos themselves who put George Bush in office along with KKKarl's help.

[speedoo]

8. Wrong. It was Rove manipulating the media.

Why are you unwilling to at least consider what these men have to say?

This is exactly the dismissive attitude that has cost us the last three elections.

[blm]

20. Right - it didn't START with Clinton's impeachment did it?

It was the GOP control of media that PUSHED Rove's storylines.

Jack Welch and Rupert Murdoch and Tribune Media would NEVER have pushed a Dem storyline for the last 10 years - not even one from Carville and Clinton.....or Jesus Christ, himself.

[Gabi Hayes]

47. once again, you've hit it squarely where it lives....it's ALL about

the deathdance of the GOP and M$M media, and it started before Clinton, with the monstrous Bill Simon's getting all the RW think tanks going in the mid 70s, which was the first step in controlling as much of the media as possible

it only took a few years, because they were able to destroy the Carter presidency (with much help from the likes of Tip ONeill and Scoop Jackson, and the rest of the corporate controlled dem congress).

from there it became 'obvious.' just read On Bended Knee to see just how completely the media became coopted by Deaver, etal, in the Reagan admin. from that point on, we've been completely screwed.

the icing on the cake came in 96, when Clinton/Gore sealed their own (Gore, actually) fates by backing that hideous media consolidation bill, cementing in place, perhaps forever, the control of media in just a handful of FASCISTS corporations

now look what we have

[speedoo]

50. Let's assume everything you say is correct.

What is the strategy to deal with it?

(I'm not conceding on your points, I am just interested in knowing what you think should be done about it.)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

33. It was the corporate media allowing themselves to be manipulated by Rove.

It works both ways. Every President and every party has tried to manipulate the media and it hasn't worked until now.

[ComerPerro]

7. Nothing is impressive about Rove

becasue, keep in mind, all he cares about is winning.

Please remember that part of his success is due to the fact that he doesn't have to obey laws of any kind.


And its not that they understand how to work the media or are savvy by any means. Its just that the media is on their side, because the media is run by large corporations

[speedoo]

9. That is an overly simplistic opinion.

I hate Rove as much as anyone. But his success is due more to his own hard work and insight as well as incompetent opposition, than luck, which you seem to attribute it to.

[ComerPerro]

13. outing a CIA agent? Slandering presidential candidates?

Publishing lies on national TV?

Challenging the patriotism of a former POW, and of a Purple Heart recipient?

leaking classified information to a RW reporter just to settle a score?


This is hard work an insight?


You sound pathetic.

The guy is not impressive, at all. He is just a no-talent sleaze who knows how to appeal to the worst in people.


He is a con man who doesn't have to worry about getting caught or going to prison.


And you admire him for this?

[speedoo]

14. Watch it. I never said I admire him.

Stop slandering me.

Open your eyes. I said I hate him as much as anyone. The difference between you and I is, I can look at what he has accomplished and try to learn from it. You evidently cannot.

[ComerPerro]

15. You sound like you are in awe, so watch yourself

I believe it was you who first called me simplistic.

And, I am telling you, if you try to learn from his so-called accomplishments, you will most certainly find yourself in jail. So be careful.

[speedoo]

21. I called your OPINION simplistic. Because it is, IMO.

Thanks for the advice, but I don't need it.

I know the difference between understanding politics and breaking the law.

[ComerPerro]

22. well, Rove doesn't, and you want us to follow his example

[speedoo]

25. When did I say Dems should follow his example?

I did not. What I said was Dems should learn from this book. What that means is, they must have a strategy to deal with Rove's tactics.

Gore and Kerry did not, and that is why they did not get enough votes to overcome the SCOTUS and Diebold.

Clinton's recent confrontation of Chris Wallace showed that he understands how to deal with Rove's tactics: never allow the opposition to define your image.. when they attack, counterattack, using their weakness to change their public image.

[ComerPerro]

27. we learn from him, and do what?

And, if you think about what you are saying, look at how a lot of Americans came away from that Wallace interview:

"Gee, Clinton really snapped at that reporter, just cause the reporter asked a tough question. Those Dems are angry"

[speedoo]

29. As I said, do not allow the opposition to control your public image.

If you think Clinton failed in the Wallace interview, I suggest you are wrong. I believe he was succesful, and so do Harris and Halperin.

Did Gore or Kerry ever do anything like that? They may have made some attempts, but history shows that they failed.

[ComerPerro]

30. In case you didn't know, you are describing the GOP strategy

If we are constantly countering attack ads and not letting them define our image and refuting the lies, when exactly do we get our message out?

[speedoo]

36. Listen to the Clinton/Wallace interview again.

Clinton first counterattacked by saying Wallace "did the bidding of Fox" and he also said he had tried to get Bin laden while Bush had not. I may not have the sequence exactly right, but he clearly did both.

In other words, he showed that you must counterattack and you can also your message out. But if you do not counterattack, forget about your message because no one's going to listen.

[ComerPerro]

37. But it didn't solve anything

because every other media outlet who discusses that story never really gets to mentioning that Clinton laid out the case for how he tried to get bin Laden.

all they talk about is how he "blew up"

[speedoo]

40. I don't pay much attention to the MSM anymore.

So I can't dispute your contention.

But I do see some deterioration in bushco's polls since that interview, and that may not be a coincidence.

Surely, you can see the common sense of what Clinton did, can't you?

[ComerPerro]

42. Part of the falling poll numbers could be due to the cooling off

of a bounce he received on his self-created holiday, 9/11

[speedoo]

48. I'm referring more to the polls that show more people than ever..

no longer believe Bush anymore, about anything. And that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.. stuff like that.

I do agree that the overall approval reflects some disappearance of the phony 9/11 bounce.

[ComerPerro]

51. those polls are meaningless in mid-term

notice that some Republicans aren't even calling themselves Republicans.

[speedoo]

I would not call any poll a month before an election "meaningless".

Of course if the dems fail to take advantage of these trends, it won't matter. But that would be their own fault.

[ComerPerro]

59. polls about the President are. That's my point

because, remember, he is not up for re-election. So the spin now is, "All that is bad is Bush's fault, not the fault of Congressional Republicans". And while many are using him to campaign in Bush-friendly areas, just as many are running from him.

[speedoo]

60. They are not meaningless if the dems are smart.

The strategy should be, "we need a congress to control this president, because he is wrong".

I see some dems, like Menendez in NJ using it effectively, but I wonder if enough are using it. LaMont beat Lieberman in the CT primary using that strategy, but he's trailing now, and I don't understand why he stopped.

[ComerPerro]

61. Well, now that, I must agree with

:rofl:

[blm]

23. You want simplistic - the guys you want us to listen to admire DRUDGE.

.

[speedoo]

26. Prove it.

[blm]

34. Their rundown of Drudge shows respect for his tactics. REAL reporters

would be working to expose the facts behind Drudge's attempts at tearing down Democrats with false accusations. They sure wouldn't be applauding them.

[speedoo]

38. So, because Harris and Halperin fail to tear Drudge down, you ignore them?

That's a mistake, IMO.

To win, you must understand the opposition (Drudge), not just denigrate them all the time.

[blm]

41. Ignore reporters who applaud lies and DON'T REPORT the facts? Never.

EXPOSE the m _ - effers as the fraudulent journalists they are? ABSOLUTELY!

[speedoo]

45. Come on.

Stop misrepresenting what Harris and Halperin are saying. They do not "applaud" Drudge. They correctly note his influence, and they do point out the facts as to what he does.

[blm]

52. They do it WITHOUT correcting the lies, and while applauding the tactic.

.

[speedoo]

55. Fine, whatever.

It's pointless to argue with someone who is unwilling to consider anything beyond their own opinions.

[blm]

56. Well, read Eric Boehlert's LAPDOGS. Halperin and Harris are part of THAT

story.

[speedoo]

58. I'll read it, if you will explain to me if there is any practical value.

Does the author suggest a strategy to deal with the problem he sees?

[blm]

65. There is practical value to Democrats opening their eyes to what corpmedia

has become and how they insinuate the corporate line into every campaign of the last decade.

[speedoo]

73. There is practical value ONLY if they develop a strategy to deal with it.

Otherwise, they waste their time whining and hand-wringing, just like folks have been doing in this thread. Which in turn keeps them from developing an overall strategy to deal with the opposition.

[blm]

76. No - staying on top of media bias and election fraud is NOT whining.

And IGNORING both is sheer stupidity. And the reporters in this book, and certain Democratic leaders DO ignore both and point blame exactly where it doesn't belong to distract from where it DOES belong.

The corpmedia and the UNSECURED election process.

[speedoo]

77. Okay, so what's the strategy to deal with it?

No one in this entire thread, has advanced a single effective idea to deal with it.

Harping on it (another word for whining) is ineffective. Voters could not care less.

[blm]

80. Keep working to EXPOSE both. You KNOW many of us do. And do so

in some capacity almost every day for years now.

And we are finally breaking through, but it took years of constant effort. We did it at 90% approval ratings, 80% approval ratings, 70% approval ratings, ^0% approval ratings and 50% approval ratings.

Now some ASSHOLES like Halperin, Harris and Carville want to lead us out of the fog after Bush has been polling under 40% for the past year, AND blame those who opposed Bush the most all this time?

[speedoo]

82. Are you taking credit for * lower polls now?

Does everyone at Media Matters think Halperin and Harris are evil?

And use CAPS to impress someone else, by the way. I think it's silly.

[blm]

83. I use caps for emphasis - it's oldschool use of caps.

And the point I was making is that Bush's approval numbers have been pecked at by MANY of us on the left and by a number of Dems in office over the last 5 years. Why we should listen to those who are just NOW coming out to attack Bush and his policies after years of supporting them and protecting him, well...forget it.... and please excuse those of us who have clear recollection of these years for our own critical look back at the media enablers.

[blm]

16. A Democratic con man like Karl would never get by the GOP controlled media

and would end up taking the whole party down with him.

Right when Karl is losing his ability to CON the American people who are SICK OF HIS SHIT, some Democrats want to scare the rest of us into ACTING JUST LIKE HIM?

Fock that - that is fighting the last election. That was PRE Katrina and PRE Downing Street Memos.

[ComerPerro]

18. exactly my point, thank you

[speedoo]

28. You both misunderstand the message of this book.

You want to blame the media, fine. How does that help Dems win?

[ComerPerro]

31. It doesn't, unless we can do something about it

But who do we go to? The FCC? Not hardly

[blm]

32. Would a strong Dem party infrastructure that secured the voting process

for the voters and the candidates have made a difference in 2000 and 2004?

[blm]

11. HORSESHIT - Gore and Kerry BOTH WON and both had their wins stolen by

election fraud that Bill Clinton's DNC chose to ignore and instead of building and strengthening the party infrastructure in crucial states, Clinton, through McAuliffe, allowed that infrastructure to WEAKEN and COLLAPSE so the election fraud could go UNCOUNTERED by any serious Dem effort to confront it.

Clinton ADMITS that both Gore and Kerry won when he's in front of alternative press and acknowledges election fraud - but then changes his story when he's with his corpmedia - the same CORPMEDIA who controlled whether Clinton would get impeached or not.

Clinton LET a cottage industry develop around the smearing of Democrats - he let it happen to him for 14 years.

NOW he wants to say that only OTHER Dems are effected? Clinton was IMPEACHED by inferior GOP politicians. Gore was then IMPEACHMENTED. Dan Rather was IMPEACHMENTED. And Kerry was IMPEACHMENTED.

NOW Clinton wants to act like only he knows how to fight? Pretty brave for someone who only opposes BushInc NOW that he's been at sub40% approval for almost a year now.

[ComerPerro]

17. maybe this is what we should learn from about Rove, eh?

maybe that was the implication

[madfloridian]

39. There is no argument about it. The media is in the GOP's right grasp.

The new talking points are for the benefit of Hillary and Bill.

Media Matters is dead on right about this. It is by Eric Boehlert, I believe, author of Lap Dogs.

And it really makes me furious for Bill Clinton to be quoted saying this, after he has stayed in the background hanging around with with Poppa and Momma Bush and Murdoch. Our other Democrats have been out fighting the good fight while he has made close friends with the dark side.

"While the Foley and Allen episodes burned Republicans, Clinton said in an interview earlier this year that he thinks the proliferation of media outlets, as well as the breakdown of old restraints in both media and politics, on balance has favored Republicans. Without mentioning Gore or Kerry by name, he complained that many Democrats have allowed themselves to become unnerved and even paralyzed in response.

"All of this is a head game, you know. . . . All great contests are head games," Clinton said. "Our candidates have to get to a point where they don't allow other people to define them as either people or as political leaders. Our people have got to be more psychologically prepared for it, and there has to be more distance between them and these withering attacks."

Come on, Bill. You have been hanging out with the ones who have been bashing our Democrats and you for years.

[speedoo]

43. What exactly is your problem with what Clinton said?

You seem to be condemning him for the charity stuff with Poppy Bush. I don't particularly like that either, but I am certainly not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

He is dead on correct, IMO. History proves him right.

[madfloridian]

54. This part....

"Without mentioning Gore or Kerry by name, he complained that many Democrats have allowed themselves to become unnerved and even paralyzed in response.

"All of this is a head game, you know. . . . All great contests are head games," Clinton said. "Our candidates have to get to a point where they don't allow other people to define them as either people or as political leaders. Our people have got to be more psychologically prepared for it, and there has to be more distance between them and these withering attacks."

He is saying that, while hanging out with the Bushes and the Murdochs?

I should not even have to explain that.

[speedoo]

57. Is he factually wrong?

If you believe he is, please explain. Show me how Gore or Kerry successfully counterattacked the rethug efforts to redefine them.

[blm]

66. How did Clinton SUCCESSFULLY counterattack impeachment and 9-11 blame

in a timely way?

Kerry DID counterattack the swifts in a timely way and corpmedia REFUSED to cover it.

[speedoo]

74. Stop shifting your arguments to Clinton. He got elected. Twice.

Which is more than Gore and Kerry did. Kerry failed miserably in counterattacking the swifties. Far too little, about 4 months too late.

[blm]

75. Hah - the Research Forum data proves that is demonstrably false charge.

And Clinton didn't COUNTERATTACK impeachment or the cottage industry attacking Democrats that sprouted along with it or the EIGHT BOOKS that pointed at him for 9-11 blame and which Rove milked for TWO election cycles labeling ALL Democrats as weak on terror.



April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...



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



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

The battle with the people really behind this group will never end. But there are veterans coming forth with a book of their own that will unmask the swifts for the lying GOP operatives they are.

[speedoo]

78. "Demonstrably false"? Sure.

A laundry list of ineffective actions is what you've cited. The bottom line is, they failed miserably. Lots of effort, completely reactive, unfocused and ineffective. Because they were not prepared for it. Even as the swifties were hammering away at Kerry, other dems were openly asking why he was not counterattacking. And they were calling for Cahill's resignation.

And stop blaming the media, because that does no good whatsoever. Develop strategies that deal with the situation you are in.

[blm]

79. And IGNORE that NO NEWSMEDIA showed up to cover a MAJOR SPEECH

at a Firefighters Convention where Kerry was endorsed and swifts were attacked. Yep - - I'm sure the 1992 media would have acted the same.

And I suppose Clinton got impeached because he was ineffective in dealing with the media when they acted complicitly with the GOP.

And Clinton was blamed for 9-11 for five years because he was ineffective in dealing with the media acting complicitly with the GOP.

The point is that Halperin and Harris are NOT being truthful in their assessment - there is no acknowledgement of the FACT that corporate media was working to PROMOTE the lies WILLINGLY while they downplayed or refused to cover the Dem counters.

Clinton's impeachment, Gore's loss, Rather's firing, Clinton weak on terror blame, Kerry's loss were ALL part of a media COMPLICTLY working WITH the GOP.

Many of us work daily to counter what they are doing. I supported FAIR since the early 90s and support Media Matters for the last 4.

[speedoo]

81. Your assertions of media complicity are not provable.

Not even with YOUR GENEROUS USE OF CAPS.

Your work with Media Matters, etc. is laudable. Maybe someday it will bear some fruit.

Personally I think Dems are better off listening to Halperin and Harris, instead of ignoring them as what you appear to be advocating.

[blm]

84. Boehlert PROVED media complicity in his book. You would have to be a

coincidence theorist to believe otherwise.

[flamin lib]

4. I listened to the NPR interview with the authors.

Came away with two things:

Democrats want to win by getting as many votes as possible. They will use the "third way", unite various factions and get out the vote. Republicans want to win by only one vote and will divide to conquer the opposition.

Democrats get involved in nuance and detailed information. Republicans lie and don't care about the truth if it results in a win.

[speedoo]

5. Excuse me, but if any Democrat who wants to win an election...

came away with that understanding, I believe they are sure to lose.

[flamin lib]

10. It worked for Bill. Unfortunately he is one of a kind. nt

[blm]

12. Really? So Clinton WASN'T impeached by inferior politicians?

Clinton DIDN'T allow a cottage industry grow that targeted any Democratic voice?

[flamin lib]

64. No, we're talking about getting elected--twice. nt

[blm]

67. Elected TWICE in a completely different media climate. Tell ya what -

here's the reality of the choice for you:

Would you prefer to launch a campaign for president in the 1992 media atmosphere where the Democratic senate and house have stayed on top of the GOP president you'rte running against and held him accountable through serious, constant investigations that generated 4 years worth of bad headlines?

or

A media atmosphere that has already impeached one Dem president and torn down every Democratic voice that opposed the current GOP president, all the while the last Dem president has been consistently and publically SUPPORTIVE of that GOP president and his policies that you are attacking?

Because THAT is the reality of both situations. How convenient for Bill Clinton to not acknowledge that IMMENSE difference.

[flamin lib]

71. Okay, you win. You've beaten me down.

Let us do anything to win.

Let us, as Democrats, lie both directly and through our surrogates.

Let us as a party divide the country into subsets that we can win or disenfranchise.

Let us scrub the voter rolls.

Let us intimidate voters at the polls.

Let us become Republicans.

Nope, I won't go that way. Bill won his office in exactly the same climate we have today--twice. Unless you slept through those ten years you must remember the atmosphere of the first campaign. Emails accusing him of selling cocaine in Arkansas, conspiracy theories of deaths of people close to the Clintons, scandals and affairs ten years old. Yeah, right, the climate was soooooooo benign to him.

Me, I'm in a reality based world.

Do we need to take advantage of the "new media"? Duh!

Do we need to take the fight to them? Duh!

Do we need to become Rove? Then why be liberal?

[blm]

72. I think you're responding to two of us at the same time.

The part that refers to my post -

You think there was NO DIFFERENCE in Clinton campaigning in 1992 (before the Telecommunications Act) after 4 years of John Kerry and Henry Gonzalez exposing in headlines everyday the complicity of George Bush in Iran Contra, BCCI and Iraqgate - the ENTIRE 4 years

and

John Kerry campaigning in 2004 (after the Telecommunications Act unleashed the corpmedia beast) while NO investigations were being held of Bush2, with a media promoting Bush as a hero against terrorism, and with the LAST Dem president speaking consistently in support of Bush and his policies throughout his term while you are attacking those very policies?

Sorry - but that's demonstrably false. Clinton didn't have ALL of mainstream media parroting the RW spin against him during his first campaign. The crazy talk was kept pretty much to radio. Halperin's book repeats RW talk as if it was no different than Walter Cronkite.

[karynnj]

19. Actually, I think they have very little to offer

In the excerpt of their book, they are lavish with their praise for Matt Drudge, who they label this generation's Walter Conkrite. There may be some similarity in that he has a huge audience. The difference is that Cronkite had developed a relationship with the American people as a person they could trust to tell the truth.

In detailing why Drudge is great, he used a story that I never heard. In 2002, a RNC consultant learned that Kerry had his hair cut by the exclusive hairdresser, who had cut the Clintons' hair. (Yes, the famous airport non-story). Drudge took this and FABRICATED a story, with fake quotes and details. Drudge quoted a nonexistant stylist saying that Kerry was very particular and his hair had to be colored and highlighted and layered in exactly the way he wanted and that he paid $150. (which even in NJ would be cheap for all that) The authors of the book made extensive use of words like "vain" and in their own reporting clearly bought the view Drudge was selling. They did report that the Kerry staff said Kerry simply got a $75 hair cut. This in fact was an early variant of the Cameron (Fox News) made up story.

It says more to me about Halperin and Harris that they praise this and continue the smear they are reporting on. Frankly, this is NOT what Cronkite or Murrow were about. The writing of that story actually is written as if the gist of that story were true, even while they are saying the story was made up! (They also state that the "truth" on Kerry's service is not either with Kerry or with the SBVT - which alone discredits them completely. Kerry's "story" happens to be identical to the offical record.)

[speedoo]

24. I think you may be mischaracterizing their opinion of Drudge.

From the interviews I have heard, they say that Drudge has enormous influence, largely because the old media has to always check what he is saying. But they label him clearly as a propoganda outlet for the rethugs, and they point out that he frequently posts garbage.

If they compare to Cronkite and Murrow, it's because of his influence, not because he is any kind of journalist.

[blm]

44. Drudge wouldn't HAVE that influence except reporters keep GIVING it to him

by REPEATING His lies as if they deserved the ink and the airtime and do not give equal weight to the counterefforts against the lies.

[Gabi Hayes]

49. really! why do you even bother discussing this?

for ANYbody to ever credit Drudge with being more than a creepy GOP stooge makes it impossible to take anything they say seriously

and Halperin isn't much better than Drudge, AFAIC

want a few examples to support my contention?

wait a minute.....

[Gabi Hayes]

53. bingo! a real journalists takes apart hack poseurs Halperin/Harris

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200610030008

Here's how dishonest Beltway journalism has become
by Eric Boehlert

Books about politics and the press don't come much more dishonest, or depressing, than the new tome hitting stores this week, The Way to Win (Random House). Written by corporate media bigwigs Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and founder of its political newsletter The Note, and John F. Harris, national political editor of The Washington Post, the new digest -- it's their take on how to win the White House -- is already being toasted by celebrity journalists inside the Beltway, which in today's environment means the book politely re-enforces preferred conventional wisdom and graciously avoids asking tough questions about Republicans. The press corps also skates by in the eyes of Halperin and Harris, who continuously rewrite recent history in order to ensure that journalists shoulder little or no blame for D.C. pressroom disgraces such as Whitewater, the blatantly dishonest coverage heaped upon Al Gore's presidential campaign, and for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hoax that ensnared Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential run.

I say The Way to Win is dishonest because Halperin and Harris are obviously smart professionals who understand how politics and the press now (unfortunately) work in this country. Indeed, the two are celebrated as among Beltway journalism's best and brightest and are paid handsomely for reaching the pinnacle of their profession. Unfortunately, political journalism isn't what it used to be, and unfortunately, the duo opts to conform to the artificial guidelines that dictate public debate inside the Beltway today.

That's precisely why CBS' Bob Schieffer has already flacked the book on Face the Nation, why Charlie Rose has invited the two for an intimate chat, and why the Way To Win D.C. book party was awash with boldface guests, as elites from the press and politics flocked to toast the latest re-writing of the conventional wisdom. It's because Halperin and Harris tell a reassuring story that Beltway players, particularly in the press, love to hear. And for anybody who still thinks there's an ounce of friction between the true media elites and the Beltway's mostly Republican ruling class, read The Way to Win and think again. The Beltway really has become a tension-free world where journalists and politicos bond effortlessly.

Among the most important of Halperin and Harris's take-away tips -- their so-called "Trade Secret" -- is for candidates seeking the White House in 2008 to basically not act like Democrats. Specifically, Halperin and Harris stress that recent campaigns by Gore and Kerry failed because they lost control of their public image via the press, in sharp contrast to Bush's campaigns, which, thanks to the hard work of Karl Rove, were able to control their public image. What Halperin and Harris absolutely refuse to acknowledge is the willing role the press played in those key Democratic setbacks and the media's shrieking double standard that's been on display for the last decade.

For instance, Halperin and Harris's simplistic analysis of the Swift Boat fiasco, as it is for every Democratic public relations loss detailed in the book, is that the Kerry camp should have just convinced the press to stop writing damaging stories. Halperin and Harris's purposefully naïve construct is that Kerry and his aides had the power to fix negative press coverage -- just like Gore and Clinton did before him -- but for some bewildering reason they failed to do it. Apparently, all Democrats had to do was ask nicely and Beltway reporters would have stopped reporting made-up stuff about Whitewater, stopped reporting false claims about Gore inventing the Internet, etc., and stopped reporting fabrications about how Kerry's war service was riddled with mysteries.

Halperin and Harris refuse to consider the option that it's been a conscious choice the press has made to dog Democrats while going easy on Bush, repeatedly holding him to an absurdly low standard of professional and personal conduct.

............

<<<<<<>>>>>>>me saying this:

I can't recommend Boehlert's book, Lap Dogs any more highly. his chapter on the influential, yet transparently pro-junta ABC's The Note is a highlight

I've read a whole lot of books on the media, and this is right up there in the top two or three.

[karynnj]

62. I agree on the latter

The problem was that in the except, which dealt with Kerry, they propigated the themes Drudge made up. Kerry is nicely groomed, as was Hillary, Bill, John Edwards, etc. He is certainly no more interested in his appearance then the others. His hair very gradually went from black to silver from pictures. The problem I pointed out was that they accepted the RW talking points even as they said the story was fact.

If you have the book (or a segment of it), try this*.

Step 1) Write the name of each person as mentioned,
Step 2) next to their name write every non-neutral word.
Step 3) Then go back and look at the picture created for each person.
Step4) Consider where the objective elements in the story warrant the tone.

What you will see is that they are immensely impressed by the Bush people and buy every RW characterization on Kerry. Also, why is Kerry vain with a $75 hair cut, while Hillary was reputed (by I'm sure an equally reliabls source as Drudge) of spending $1500 to get a special custom hair style, yet she is powerful. More seriously there is a major problem with saying Bush stopped any stories on his VN record, while Kerry didn't. The facts are the exact opposite.



*(This is not original: A Highschool teacher had us do this to about 4 pages of a 1960 vintage American History book. The words for the different groups of colonists, English, Indians, and Prussians. Hearing I had an English penpal, he asked me to get her to copy the pages (all 2 of them) on the American Revolution from her text book as well. We did the same thing with that. This teacher lasted one year in the school system.)

[karynnj]

63. Here's a post that explains what I was trying to say better than I did

"One of the running gripes on this blog has been that many members of the traditional media are unwilling -- or incapable -- of acknowledging the role of their own news orgs in shaping public perceptions of politicians. Case in point: Today in the Washington Post, there's a long piece by John Harris about the changing media landscape, in which he discusses the episode where Matt Drudge broke the "story" of John Kerry's expensive haircut in the runup to the 2004 election...

...See, what happened here is that Drudge put out a story about the haircut, and then Grove added more detail, and then the Post started describing Kerry as having a "reputation" for being, well, a phony dilettante and a rich fop. The Post didn't just follow Drudge's haircut story, it actively promoted it.

This is admittedly a small episode, but it makes a larger point: To whatever extent Kerry was seen as an elitist by the electorate, big news orgs like the Post were every bit as instrumental in shaping that image in the minds of voters as Drudge was, and probably more so. As for the debatable point made by Mehlman, which is that the big news orgs "have to" follow Drudge, in the case of Kerry "old media" didn't just simply follow Drudge, they all too often actively pushed the same storylines."

--Greg Sargent
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/10/post_396.html#013869

[sarahlee]

35. Slightly OT

Has anyone see or read this:

The Virtual Activist 2.0 A Training Course
http://www.netaction.org/training/


I found it yesterday and have bookmarked but not yet read.

[blm]

46. Can you help me? I'm searching for the articles Halperin and Harris wrote

that gave coverage of the counter efforts made against the Swifts - like their coverage of Kerry's attack on the swifts at his speech to the Firefighters Convention in Aug 2004 - you know, the Firefighters who ENDORSED Kerry but were ignored when they did so.

[Marnieworld]

68. dupe

[Marnieworld]

69. I think Fooled Again by Mark Crispin Miller would be better

I reject the premise that Gore or Kerry actually "lost" their elections so therefore what needs to be adjusted is not how campaigns are run but how votes are counted.

[blm]

70. BINGO! Read Fooled Again and Lapdogs. Corp Media and election fraud.

.

[madfloridian]

85. These authors are supportive of Drudge's reporting...link.

From Eric Boehlert at Huff post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/oops-i-thought-matt-drud_b_31098.html

"I'm laughing even harder than everyone else because I just got done reading The Way to Win, the brand new conventional wisdom Beltway blueprint to electoral riches by ABC's Mark Halperin and the Washington Post's John Harris. Wildly impressed by Drudge's acumen and--readers are assured--his nearly limitless media power, Halperin and Harris devote an entire chapter to Drudge, toasting his "visionary" "insights" and anointing him "the Walter Cronkite of his era." (ABC News repeated the claim in a report this week, simply cribbing off Halperin's book. How's that for synergy?)

I wonder, given Drudge's car-wreck week, when he had no effect on the news cycle other than to provide comic relief, whether Halperin and Harris would like to have their kinds words back. Then again, Drudge did plug their book....

Read my full take on "The Way to Win" at Media Matters.

UPDATE: Harris in today's Washington Post continues to sing Drudge's praise, while conveniently ignoring the fact the online hitman's made a fool of himself this week. Go read the very odd, page-one piece, which cobbles together portions of The Way to Win with random thoughts on the Foley story. Apparently ABC News and the Post have no reservations about turning over their news operations in order to help market books. I'm sure Halperin and Harris' colleagues have taken note.

UPDATE II: Halperin is also sticking close to Drudge. On NPR today, discussing the Foley scandal, Halperin announced "Matt Drudge is driving this story." "