Kerry needs to let this swift vets story go

[Arles]

Man, this guy is giving this story more legs than anyone thought possible. Now that things are starting to die out, Kerry goes and does this:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/422708|top|08-25-2004::02:14|reuters.html

"Democrat John Kerry will dispatch two fellow Vietnam veterans to President Bush's secluded Texas ranch on Wednesday to press him to condemn television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service."

Sheesh, all this does it keep the story more in the news. Bush has already condemned all 527s (including the swift vets), yet Kerry has yet to say a cross word about what the lefty 527s did to Bush back in the beginning of the year nor has he even removed the part on his website insinuating that Bush went AWOL as part of the guard.

Kerry needs to be careful here and the longer this story stays active, the more investigations will occur. Not to mention the higher chance that the press will stop giving him a free ride on the Moore/moveon.org ads and his attacks against Bush's service on his own website here.

[miked]

Speaking of letting things go...

[sachmo71]

He tried to let it go, and everyone said he should defend himself. I believe, given the choice, he would love to see this thing die.

I still think there are bigger issues in this election, but that's just me.

[Butter]

If someone ran ads on TV to talk about how I lied about how big a wound I got in Vietnam, I'd be fucking pissed and pretty hard-pressed to let it go.

That said, I'm kinda tired of it too.

[NoMyths]

If it weren't for Kerry finally speaking up against the swift boat guys (after all, the story ran for weeks before he really responded), Bush would never have spoken out against the 527's. Nor would it have come to light that, despite the Bush campaign's repeated denials, at least two members of his campaign were working with the SBVfT group; in fact, a legal advisor to the group just resigned after it came to light that he just happened to be the national counsel to the Bush campaign.

Link: Vets' Lawyer Quits Bush Campaign

[Leonidas]

This is only starting. I saw on the news this morning that a documentary on the Vietnam war is coming out in a couple weeks and a major part of it will be discussion on how the North Vietnamese used Kerry's speech to Congress as a tool while interogating POWs. This is going to get bloody.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

in fact, a legal advisor to the group just resigned after it came to light that he just happened to be the national counsel to the Bush campaign.

So you feel like this guy should resign too?

"Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once."
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D84MBCFG0.html

[Whar]

I am wondering why he should let it go? Kerry can make two arguements for his campaign. First that he is a decorated war veteran and deserved the medals. Second the Bush campaign will stoop to anything to win.

Kerry is not stupid. He has made the 'I'm a war veteran' case in every campaign he has run. Further he has defeated every attack on his war record. In this case he has the documentation and the eye witnesses to back up his story. A fact that seems to grow everyday ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/

The Bush camp is back pedalling away from the story rather quickly. First Bush sorta condemns the Swift Boat ads but his campaign clarified Bush meant all 527 ads not that particular one. They have let go the veteran that appeared in the ad that just happened to work for the Bush campaign. And this morning AP released a story that a Bush lawyer advised the Swift Boat group. Not illegal but he quitted the campaign immediately. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818431/)

And now we have Sept 2 looming. After that date the Swift Boat group goes under a kind of muzzle. They will be unable to mention Kerry in their ads. Since they are a personal attack group that does not leave them much to talk about. Kerry on the other hand can fill the airwaves with the personal endorsements of the men that served with him that coorborate his story. These ads will run unanswered by the Bush campaign.

Also Kerry can use the perception Bush was behind the swift boat ads to smear him. Already Dem talking points stress the Republican attacks on McCain (In South Carolina they 'accused' him of fathering a black child and collaborating with the enemy in Vietnam.) and now the point to these swift boat adds. These charges do not have to be true of course, this is politics, only plausible.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So you feel like this guy should resign too?

"Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once."
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D84MBCFG0.html

I'm not comfortable with Sandler's role either. That said, he hasn't lied about his association. On the other hand, the Bush campaign has been lying when they've said they aren't involved with the SBVfT group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Whar

These ads will run unanswered by the Bush campaign.

Which, since you mentioned it, is why I can't figure out for the life of me why the Bush campaign has decided to even give the appearance of trying to slow this angle down. (whether that's real/fake, none of us really know, so I'll just say "appearance)

Since his time in service is such a forefront issue for Kerry's own campaign, it confounds me to see the Bush campaign not pick it apart brick by brick. It's may very well prove to be a major tactical error IMO.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I'm not comfortable with Sandler's role either. That said, he hasn't lied about his association. On the other hand, the Bush campaign has been lying when they've said they aren't involved with the SBVfT group.

Who lied? What proof of a lie exists? What specific statement was a lie?

I think these lying accusations are being thrown around much too casually on both sides of the campaign and it really bothers me. If someone called me a liar they better be ready to either prove it or put up their dukes.

[Arles]

Let me refine my statement. I don't think Bush should let this die as it is an attack on Kerry's central theme in his campaign - "I'm a war hero and therefore you should ignore my work in the senate and focus only on my hero status in Vietnam when deciding on me as commander in chief".

But, for Kerry's standpoint, the longer this stays in the news, the more doubt will creep in from people on Kerry's legitimate "Ware Hero" status. I don't think most people doubt that he served well, but I think many see that he got three purple medals in a few months on minor injuries and took the ticket out of dodge. And, I don't think most people think that's how a war hero would behave.

All this filler on some attorney working with both the Bush campaign and the vets, or some rich guy in Texas that gave a few hundred K to the vets is not going to matter all that much because they are one-day stories with little meat in them once checked out. But, in the end, everyone is going to know exactly how Kerry got all three of his medals and decide if that qualifies him as the war hero he was touted as in the democratic convention.

And, for the record, there is absolutely no proven tie between Bush and the Swift Boat vets. Just because the used the same attorney for something means nothing as that attorney has hundreds of clients. In order to prove anything to the SEC, you need a direct call/contact from a Bush campaign rep to the swift boat vets. And, even the dems admit that hasn't happened. In fact, you could actually argue that Kerry's call on sunday to the Swift boat vet guy to have them stop is actually a legit violation. But, I doubt it would be done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, in the end, everyone is going to know exactly how Kerry got all three of his medals ...

Do you really think so?

I'm leaning strongly in the other direction on that point -- that we'll never know the truth of that particular situation. (Not that I particularly care really, it's his actions since then that are infinitely more interesting & relevant.)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do you really think so?

I'm leaning strongly in the other direction on that point -- that we'll never know the truth of that particular situation. (Not that I particularly care really, it's his actions since then that are infinitely more interesting & relevant.)

OK, again, let me rephrase as it's been a bad day for semantics on my end. In the end, everyone will know that Kerry went to Vietnam and got three purple hearts within a few months with no hospital time, then took the first ship home and out of Vietnam. I would expect many current vets to ask "if he wasn't a privledged guy with political ties, would he have been stuck there like I was for multiple years?"

I think even the 50,000 foot view of this story doesn't help Kerry's war hero stance. When most people think of a war hero, they think of someone like John McCain, not someone that used three superficial injuries in a span of weeks to get the first flight out of Vietnam.

And, again, had Kerry not used this image of a war hero as one to wrap his entire campaign around, I don't know if this would really be all that much of an issue.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Arles

OK, again, let me rephrase as it's been a bad day for semantics on my end. In the end, everyone will know that Kerry went to Vietnam and got three purple hearts within a few months with no hospital time, then took the first ship home and out of Vietnam. I would expect many current vets to ask "if he wasn't a privledged guy with political ties, would he have been stuck there like I was for multiple year?"

And, again, I think even the 50,000 foot view of this story doesn't help Kerry's war hero stance. When most people think of a war hero, they think of someone like John McCain, not someone that used three superficial injuries in a span of weeks to get the first flight out of Vietnam.

What difference does any of it make. Kerry went and came back. The other side got a boatload of deferrments. Who gives a rats ass now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What difference does any of it make. Kerry went and came back. The other side got a boatload of deferrments. Who gives a rats ass now.

Again, this is the point. If I am the cynical US voter after seeing all this. I think one side used their daddy to stay out of the war and the other side used his political connections to get the hell out of dodge once he saw he might be in an area where fighting would occur.

While I will probably give Kerry more credit for Vietnam since he actually went , neither are going to qualify as a war hero in my eyes (ie, the normal US voter). And, that takes a big bite out of Kerry's claims in the DNC and minimizes the effect of his war hero claims.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let me refine my statement. I don't think Bush should let this die as it is an attack on Kerry's central theme in his campaign - "I'm a war hero and therefore you should ignore my work in the senate and focus only on my hero status in Vietnam when deciding on me as commander in chief".

Err. Not quite. It's more:

"The other guys have tried for 3 years now to convince you that you can't change leaders midway through a war and that we're in a perpetual war on terror and a war in Iraq.

The other guys did everything they could to ensure they wouldn't have to fight during Vietnam and Korea.

I fought in Vietnam and was highly decorated.

Who do you want running your war on terror?"

That's what the war hero stuff is about. The President and his advisors have tried this spin since 2001. The Democrats finally gained a spine and realized that they actually have as many veterans and war heroes as do the Republicans. They don't want National Defense to be a conservative-owned issue.

If either side wanted to debate the issues, they would. It's plainly obvious neither side does. Nor, in the history of his political career, has President Bush *ever* gotten into a legitimate debate on the issues. He's not an issues candidate. He's a personality candidate.

Kerry, right now, is neither a personality candidate nor an issues candidate. He's a "there's at least 45% of the country who wants the current guy out, maybe I can sway some undecideds" candidate.

[CamEdwards]

just a point of clarification: none of these 527 ads (including the SBVfT ads) have to go away after September 2nd. They can run these things up to election day.

[GabeRivers]

"So far, John Kerry has been the direct beneficiary of an estimated $60 million worth of 'independent' TV ads, many of which viciously attack President Bush. ... Democrat 527 organizations, so-named for the IRS section that governs them, have been saturating the airwaves and cable channels, supplementing Mr. Kerry's own bulging campaign coffers. Democrat 527s have overwhelmed their Republican counterparts, effectively permitting Mr. Kerry to monopolize this McCain-Feingold soft-money loophole. The relatively tiny effort by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth proves the point, which The New York Times completely missed in its Page 1 story on Friday. Instead, the NYT was upset over the fact that the veterans received $225,000 of its initial $500,000 stake from two Texans. The amounts were $200,000 from real estate executive Bob Perry, whom the NYT identified as 'the top donor to Republicans in the state,' and $25,000 from Harlan Crow, 'the seventh-largest donor to Republicans' in Texas. By the standards established by Democrat 527 donors, Mr. Perry would be a piker, while Mr. Crow's contribution would not even qualify as a rounding error. In fact, based on data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, 21 of the 22 individuals who have contributed at least $500,000 to 527s have donated a cumulative $56.7 million to Democrat-oriented groups. These include Peter Lewis ($14 million), George Soros ($12.6 million) and Steven Bing ($8.1 million). The sole exception among the 22 is Carl Lindner, who has donated $1.02 million to Republican-oriented 527s. ... If Mr. Kerry is really looking for a smoking gun, he ought to examine the Media Fund (total receipts: $27.2 million), which is run by former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and America Coming Together (total receipts: $26.9 million). The chief spokesman for both of these Democrat 527s is Jim Jordan, who happens to be Mr. Kerry's former campaign manager. Not surprising, a separate article appearing in Friday's New York Times regarding Federal Elections regulation of 527s mentioned Mr. Jordan in his capacity as spokesman for the Media Fund and ACT, but neglected to mention his Kerry connection." --The Washington Times

[Whar]

McCain-Feingold has a 60 freeze out for expressed advocacy. The 527 may gather soft money in spite of McCain Feingold but I believe they are still bound by the 60 day freeze out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I went looking, because I really didn't know one way or the other.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5747838/
"Under federal law, the 527 groups cannot coordinate their ads with the presidential campaigns. But if they use individual donations, rather than labor union or corporate donations, they can run ads praising or attacking a candidate right up until Election Day."

[Arles]

Wow, I knew there was a descrepency but this is more than I ever imagined. Also, to the New York Times snubbing the story, you think they would have buried this had you replaced Kerry with Bush? I can't imagine the number of front page stories that would be on the Times if a major republican donor mimicing Soros put in $12 million into the swift boat vets.

Yet, nary a word on this when it involves Kerry. Heck, the New York Times ought to be classified as a 527 for Kerry at this rate.

Originally Posted by GabeRivers

"So far, John Kerry has been the direct beneficiary of an estimated $60 million worth of 'independent' TV ads, many of which viciously attack President Bush. ... Democrat 527 organizations, so-named for the IRS section that governs them, have been saturating the airwaves and cable channels, supplementing Mr. Kerry's own bulging campaign coffers. Democrat 527s have overwhelmed their Republican counterparts, effectively permitting Mr. Kerry to monopolize this McCain-Feingold soft-money loophole. The relatively tiny effort by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth proves the point, which The New York Times completely missed in its Page 1 story on Friday. Instead, the NYT was upset over the fact that the veterans received $225,000 of its initial $500,000 stake from two Texans. The amounts were $200,000 from real estate executive Bob Perry, whom the NYT identified as 'the top donor to Republicans in the state,' and $25,000 from Harlan Crow, 'the seventh-largest donor to Republicans' in Texas. By the standards established by Democrat 527 donors, Mr. Perry would be a piker, while Mr. Crow's contribution would not even qualify as a rounding error. In fact, based on data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, 21 of the 22 individuals who have contributed at least $500,000 to 527s have donated a cumulative $56.7 million to Democrat-oriented groups. These include Peter Lewis ($14 million), George Soros ($12.6 million) and Steven Bing ($8.1 million). The sole exception among the 22 is Carl Lindner, who has donated $1.02 million to Republican-oriented 527s. ... If Mr. Kerry is really looking for a smoking gun, he ought to examine the Media Fund (total receipts: $27.2 million), which is run by former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and America Coming Together (total receipts: $26.9 million). The chief spokesman for both of these Democrat 527s is Jim Jordan, who happens to be Mr. Kerry's former campaign manager. Not surprising, a separate article appearing in Friday's New York Times regarding Federal Elections regulation of 527s mentioned Mr. Jordan in his capacity as spokesman for the Media Fund and ACT, but neglected to mention his Kerry connection." --The Washington Times

[oliegirl]

If someone ran ads on TV to talk about how I lied about how big a wound I got in Vietnam, I'd be fucking pissed and pretty hard-pressed to let it go.

Kerry is accusing them of lying, but he won't release his medical records to prove his accusations. Why won't he release them? If he was really injured as seriously as he has claimed, then all releasing them would do is to shut the Bush people up and give Kerry a huge boost in the polls. But he is refusing, claiming "privacy", which to me says he doens't want us to know the truth, which is probably somewhere in the middle of the 2 claims.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Kerry is accusing them of lying, but he won't release his medical records to prove his accusations. Why won't he release them? If he was really injured as seriously as he has claimed, then all releasing them would do is to shut the Bush people up and give Kerry a huge boost in the polls. But he is refusing, claiming "privacy", which to me says he doens't want us to know the truth, which is probably somewhere in the middle of the 2 claims.

maybe he lost a nut. you can't risk being called "one nut".

[oliegirl]

maybe he lost a nut. you can't risk being called "one nut".

OMG! What if you are right??? I think we should start an internet rumor that John Kerry lost a nut in Vietnam which is why he won't release his war records, and see what happens!!!!!

[Bee]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Kerry is accusing them of lying, but he won't release his medical records to prove his accusations. Why won't he release them? If he was really injured as seriously as he has claimed, then all releasing them would do is to shut the Bush people up and give Kerry a huge boost in the polls. But he is refusing, claiming "privacy", which to me says he doens't want us to know the truth, which is probably somewhere in the middle of the 2 claims.

They're posted on his website.

[sachmo71]

Privacy = dishonesty?

These are strange days we are living in, folks.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Privacy = dishonesty?

These are strange days we are living in, folks.

It is if it is on the other side.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by Arles

...When most people think of a war hero, they think of someone like John McCain, not someone that used three superficial injuries in a span of weeks to get the first flight out of Vietnam...

Wow! I don't know about that. To know that anyone served in war is considered a hero. To me it doesn't matter what the severity of the injury was. Regardless of whether he exaggerated a story is a totally different issue, but it shouldn't ever minimize his service especially since he was a person who volunteered to get into harm's way. The current president's most severe injury may have been a hangnail, but this doesn't disqualify him as a war-time president (or should it?).

And I am glad you mentioned John McCain. If he would have been the Republican candidate in the last election, I would have seriously considered voting for him. Not because of his war record, but because I actually have quite a bit of respect for him and felt that we would of had a more no BS president.

[sooner333]

I just want to know how being a war hero somehow makes John Kerry more qualified to be president. At all.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I just want to know how being a war hero somehow makes John Kerry more qualified to be president. At all.

It doesn't. That's why this whole thing give me tired head.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

It doesn't. That's why this whole thing give me tired head.

I thought tired head was what you got when you just wake up a prostitute.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

I thought tired head was what you got when you just wake up a prostitute.

Ugh!

[SunDevil]

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...IFT_GRAPH.html

[Buccaneer]

And now the federal govt should not only tell you what you can or cannot say, it should tell you who you can or cannot work for? That's sad.

[oliegirl]

They're posted on his website.

I found the timeline of his career, including the dates of his medals, but not his actual war medical records which give detail about his injuries. He has been asked a number of times to clarify what happened and exactly what his injuries were and has never given a straight answer.

Serving your country does make you a hero, but a large part of his campaign seems to be based on and centered around the fact that he is a decorated vet. If he is going to continue to mention the fact that he is decorated, he needs to be prepared to answer questions when asked specifically about his injuries, not shy away from it and claim privacy. You lose certain privacies when you run for office, just like when you become a celebrity. No, it's not necessarily right or how it should be, but it is how it is. With as much media as we have, anyone declaring themselves a candidate needs to be prepared to answer any question and also be prepared that refusing to answer those questions will raise doubt in some voters minds.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...IFT_GRAPH.html

When do we get to see one of those pretty pictures for all the ties from Kerry to Moveon.org and the other lefty 527s?

I have a feeling their connections will be much stronger than a similar attorney.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Arles

When do we get to see one of those pretty pictures for all the ties from Kerry to Moveon.org and the other lefty 527s?

I have a feeling their connections will be much stronger than a similar attorney.

Exactly. It's funny how muc this story has gained legs.

I remember when moveon.org aired the 4 ads that compared Bush to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. Kerry was asked to denounce them by the Republicans and all of the Kerry supporter ripped the Bush people.

"they don't have anything to do with them" "kerry isn't saying it, it's Moveon.org"

Then when they found out the moveon.org leader was managing the Kerry internet compaign, they still helf firm. It doesn't matter. . .

Bull. Have some consistency. Either Kerry denounces, right now, the Nazi/brownshirt comments by moveon.org and fires his lawyer and internet campaign manager because of an unethical connection or he shuts the *&(& about George Bush and any connection he may have to the swift boat ads. Bush finally just gave up asking Kerry to back down from the ads and created one himself firing back. (and of course the Kerry campaign cried about that too)

[CamEdwards]

Bee,

Just to set the record straight, Kerry has not released his medical records. The Boston Globe had a story on this back in February (?) where the Kerry team let reporters look at his records for half an hour while they were on a conference call with Kerry's doctor, but the Kerry campaign also did not allow the Associated Press's medical reporter (who I would hope would know more than the average political reporter about medical stuff) to take part in the conference call or to examine the records.