Losing 101: If you have information that benefits you, hold it

[BurtWorm]

until nine months after the election. :think:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/06/07/kerry2/index.html

When the Swift Boat Veterans began slandering him for his service in Vietnam, Kerry put some of his Navy records up on his campaign Web site. But he didn't sign Standard Form 180, the document that would have allowed the Navy to release his entire military file to the press. In a "Meet the Press" appearance in January -- two months after the election was over -- Kerry vowed that he'd sign the form. When he didn't, the Republicans continued to hound him for it -- and, given his pledge to sign the form, not entirely without justification.

Well, Kerry finally signed Standard Form 180 on May 20, and the Boston Globe has now reviewed the documents the Navy produced as a result. The Globe's conclusion: An "earlier release" of the documents "might have helped" Kerry's campaign because they contain a "number of reports lauding his service" -- including commendations from some of the veterans who attacked him during the campaign -- and because releasing them could have put to rest suspicions that Kerry was hiding something.

That's not the way a losing presidential candidate thinks, however. In a written response to questions from the Globe, Kerry said he didn't release the records during the campaign precisely because the Swift Boat Veterans were making such a stink about them. "The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media," Kerry said. "Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

Hindsight may be 20-20 and all that, but when you've got the ammunition to shoot down your opponents' claims, maybe -- just maybe -- it's a good idea to use it before the election is over.

[leftofthedial]

1. his "loss" was scripted and he was playing a part

[Raster]

6. all I'm gonna say is something does not pass the smell test. Kerry caved

far too easily. And now we see that his navy file contained information that could have thoroughly discredited some of the people attacking him?

"Hindsight is 20-20." You know I never liked that cliche, 'cause too often it means that someone didn't consider all the options going into the game, either ignorance, stupidity or intention.

[libertypirate]

12. It sure seemed that way but for whom and what ends...

I can't believe that he or anyother Dem worth their salt would have given it to cuckoobananas and crew.

[leftofthedial]

15. "worth their salt"

operative words

[Richard Steele]

23. I certainly wonder if that is true...

It sounds CRAZY, certainly.

But not nearly so CRAZY as "John Kerry lost to George Bush."

[BurtWorm]

24. Then why bother releasing the records ever?

:wtf:

[Richard Steele]

25. To maintain the pretense of opposition? Reasons I don't understand?

C: None of the above?

I honestly don't know, BurtWorm.
Knowing that one 'tall tale' is complete BULLSHIT doesn't automatically give me insight into the TRUE story.


"In ten years or so,
we'll LEAK the truth.
But by then,
it's only so much PAPER." (Dead Kennedys; 'I am the Owl')

[leftofthedial]

26. because now the script reads:

"Kerry will pretend to lead opposition to the oligarchy's sham administration in order to distract those who might effectively oppose the oligarchy itself."

By releasing the records now:

1. They rehabilitate his reputation with any who might have been persuaded by the disinformation campaign waged against him during the campaign

2. They overcome his "loser" image following his premature 2004 concession by setting him up as the innocent victim of unfair attacks by the oligarchy's sham administration, making him a more popular choice as ersatz "leader."

[Toots]

30. I think you may be way closer to the truth than many realize.

Why wouldn't he just have signed the release forms in the very first place. I don't believe there is anything there to be ashamed of and a lot to be proud of. Logic escapes me.

[RBHam]

40. ding

ding

[crispini]

2. Gaaah!

"including commendations from some of the veterans who attacked him during the campaign"

:wtf:

Now I really might join you and put on my :tinfoilhat: and begin to think he threw it. I mean, really, this is STUPID.

[BurtWorm]

5. There might be an even more incredible explanation.

Kerry might have thought he was showing manly character not giving in to the Swiftboaters' egging him on.

:eyes:

[Malikshah]

10. Nah

He caved. As have the MOTS brigade.

Now they're carrying water for their masters.

:)

[leftofthedial]

41. so he's a macho idiot

instead of one of THOSE macho idiots?

[trotsky]

3. I don't get it either.

That's all they had to hold on to, and regardless of the weight the Kerry campaign gave them, they had HUGE amounts of media attention and PLENTY of support on the web.

With the simple act of releasing all this last summer, it would have all been defused.

We keep trying to take the high road, to play by "the rules," and we keep getting our asses kicked.

[BurtWorm]

9. Wasn't there anybody in the campaign who threatened to slit their own

throat if he didn't sign the freakin' form? Didn't they want to win?

:wtf:

[leftofthedial]

42. "Didn't they want to win?"

I think we have a winner.

[Zenlitened]

4. We need a new smiley for *head exploding*

Until then, I'll have to go with sobbing: :cry:

[LuPeRcALiO]

7. it made political sense IMHO

I only heard about the 180 Form in January, so it wasn't exactly the nail in Kerry's coffin, and in any case it would have given the SBVT more nits to pick at a point when Kerry had a lot more important things to do than haggle over 40-year old records.

[Rex]

8. Kerry knew the fix was in.

IMHO.

[BurtWorm]

11. Nice. So we installed a fatalist at the head of the ticket.

Losing 102. ;)

[GumboYaYa]

13. But he was the most electable.....that's what the Iowans said.

Geez, to think people actually want this guy to run again in 2008. He blew it big time. Sorry, but you only get one chance at the big prize and he got his and lost.

[aeolian]

29. And Iowa gets to decide these things...why, again?

[Rex]

14. Yeah we seem to do that a lot now.

:eyes:

[jobycom]

16. Oh, Fucking bullshit. Here's why it was the only strategy Kerry could use

The media lied about Kerry. They lied continuously. The Swiftboats Traitors (Who else would like to kick the shit out of their treasonous asses?) had nothing--let me repeat that in capital letters--NOTHING to support one fact they raised. There were reams of information to refute everything they said. Those reams of information were public, were constantly emailed to the MSM, and were constantly ignored by the MSM. Since the MSM didn't report it, the majority of idiots in America didn't know about it.

When someone released evidence in 2000 of Bush's DUI, every branch of the MSM led off, not with "Bush caught lying," but with "Is Gore's camp really crooked and dishonest to release this information now even though there is no evidence Gore's camp had anything to do with it."

ANYTHING Kerry released to defend his record would have either been overlooked by the media, or used somehow to strengthen Republican attacks on him. As we've seen with the grade reports.

Kerry did what any SMART, SEASONED veteran of elections would have done: he tried not to fan the flames of a fire he knew he couldn't win. He could have released a memo from God herself claiming he was a war hero, a genius, a nice guy, and God's choice, and the MSM would either have ignored it or spun it against him "Commie God supports Kerry! When did God become a traitor?"

Kerry's only chance to win that election was to play his game, not his opponent's. Kerry did a brilliant job. He had to beat the MSM, the Republicans, the churches, and one of the most agressive slander mills over built, all without having a chance in hell of getting his message out, and the Republicans still had to cheat to beat him. No one could have done better, except maybe Gore, because he had been through it before.

I've watched countless amateur politicians locally and statewide kill their campaigns by trying to answer every allegation made against them. You can't win that kind of battle. It's a tennis match, and only the one serving can win a tennis match. You walk away, and start a different game, or you lose. If a candidate answers a charge, the media blows the whole battle into something larger than it should be, and before you know it you have no more message, you are on the defensive, and all of your advertising dollars have been wasted. It's a losing battle, it's exactly what a losing candidate does, and any political advisor will tell you not to do it.

Kerry was smart to try to turn the agenda somewhere else, rather than playing Bush's game. He didn't "lose" because of a bad campaign. He lost because Bush owns the media, and the media cheated for him. I don't know why Democrats have to eat their children after every election. We should instead focus on how to beat the bastards next time.

[BurtWorm]

21. What harm would it have done to have the Navy release these documents?

That's the part I don't get. What exactly was the downside to that?

[jobycom]

35. It would have a been a response the media could use to prolong

debate on the issue, and the media was clearly going to slant the issue in Bush's favor. Therefore, it would only have brought the Swiftboat story more into the limelight, and dignified it by making it a bigger part of the debate.

[BurtWorm]

38. *More* into the limelight?

Was that even possible?! That was all the jerks talked about all summer long!

[jobycom]

39. Yes, it was possible, and no, I don't remember that being ALL

the MSM talked about all summer long. I don't remember it coming up in the debates, and a I remember a lot of discussion of other topics.

[BurtWorm]

43. They must have done a better job reporting on the election than I recall.

;)

[Toots]

31. I like what you say but have some questions

You say "I've watched countless amateur politicians locally and statewide kill their campaigns by trying to answer every allegation made against them. You can't win that kind of battle."
In Clinton's first run for office his team set up what they called their "Rapid Response Team" to do just what you said could not be done. Answer every charge immediately as soon as it came up and they credit that strategy with their winning the Whitehorse. I say it probably helped but Perot helped even more. I think Kerry did a terrific job also. It is very hard to combat the current Media Trend but he should have responded to the Swift Vet LIARS. In fact he still should respond with a Law Suit demanding a public apology, no money just tell America they LIED and apologize.

[jobycom]

36. Clinton

First, Perot didn't help Clinton. At best, he was neutral, at worst, he drained votes, as Anderson did for Carter, or Nader did for Gore. He offered a moderate alternative for people who didn't like Bush.

Second, the media was not as flagrant in their campaigning in 92 as they were in 2000 or 04. While they clearly slanted their reports against Clinton, they were not yet bold enough to outright campaign against him, as they began to do in 2000.

Third, Clinton didn't answer every charge in 92, he only seemed to answer them. Mostly what he did was turn the attention away from Bush's slanders towards whatever Clinton wanted them to focus on. Clinton was accused of rape, murder, and influence peddling, and rarely touched those subjects. When he did respond to charges, he turned the subject to his favor. If Bush attacked his record in Arkansas, Clinton defended it and attacked Bush's record on the same issues in the White House.

At one point the attacks on Clinton became so extreme that Clinton abandoned the media altogether. Every press conference was full of accusations of adultery, rape, draft dodgings, and whatever else Bush could make up. Clinton quit doing press conferences, quit answering the media's questions, and started going on venues where the media couldn't ask questions. He went on Donahue, and on Arsenio, for instance, and on MTV, and did one-on-one interviews. He was slammed by the MSM for doing it, but he also got his message out unfiltered, and without the diversionary questions about his personal life. At that time, Clinton was trailing Bush and Perot in the polls, and the media was writing the obit for the Democratic Party. Because of his approach, he began to surge in the polls, leading up to the conventions, and Perot fell out, then quit. Clinton had taken the lead by the time Perot quit, and he did it by not allowing the media to set his agenda.

Even as president, he quit calling press conferences because the media only focused on his personal life. Watch the conference where he introduced Ruth Bader Ginsberg as his nominee for SCOTUS. It was the first press conference he had called in a while, and the media was salivating at their chance to smear him some more. The first question they asked was something like "Did you choose a woman because you hoped she would receive less scrutiny than a man?" Clinton's answer was something like "After hearing all of her accomplishments, you would stoop to such a low question as that?" And he walked out, and refused to answer any more questions.

It's a myth that Clinton defended every allegation made of him. He made it seem that way by turning discussion to the issues he wanted to talk about. Kerry used the same strategy, but the media was more corrupt by then.

[LuPeRcALiO]

17. It's hard to say what the benefit would have been.

Since the SBVT claims weren't based on truth anyway, it's not inevitable that the truth would have any effect other than to give talking heads another chance to say "Kerry is making this about Vietnam"

[BurtWorm]

18. Wasn't it worth a try?

Didn't they learn anything from the Clinton campaign? When someone attacks, you hit back harder. The Kerry campaign was all about not falling over. It should have been about knocking Bush over.

[moof]

19. There was no " ELECTION " WAKE UP & SMELL the COUPHEE

[BurtWorm]

22. I'm with cally on this.

Regardless of whether or not the election was rigged, not having exculpatory (and never mind he was never guiilty in most people's eyes anyway) records released immediately rather than letting the Swift Boat Lying Motherfuckers own that story all summer long.

[cally]

20. My head is exploding

Kerry lost this election by not responding fast enough to the swift boat lies. He was thinking he could fight a noble fight and win. He couldn't. I just can't believe he was so hardheaded that he didn't release his records. Didn't he want to win????

Forget all the posts telling me that Kerry already won. Forget it. He's not sitting in the Oval Office. He could have won this thing with such a huge margin that the Repubs couldn't steal it. The Swift Boat lies killed his campaign.


:banghead:

For the record: This is my first anti-Kerry campaign post. This is unbelievable and so damn stupid. :banghead:

[KittyWampus]

32. He Lost Because Of Electronic Voting Equipment. And If You Think The

swift boat liars really did that much harm ... you are mistaken.

The only people who bought that crap wouldn't have been voting Kerry anyway.

And what possible difference would it have made?

Do you REALLY think the Mediawhores would suddenly say "Gee, we made a mistake giving the Liar unlimited airtime... Kerry is really a great candidate who served honorably in Viet Nam?"

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?{/b}

The Swift Boat Liars were LYING with zero facts to back them up. Despite changing their stories and positions... they were given time on the air to spread their lies unchallenged.

What makes anyone think they and their accomplice Mediawhores couldn't
just twist Kerry's records into ANOTHER negative?

[cally]

34. By letting the lies go unchallenged,

the media had their script. "Kerry's service was questionable." "Questions exist about Kerry's service." "Kerry is not a war hero." When noone from our side was on the air waves immediately debunking this, then the script was set. Kerry was on vacation and the lies just sat there. By the time the Dems responded, the false accusations were part of the story. If Kerry had immediately responded and immediately requested his Navy records, then the media lies would not have resonated. Instead, Kerry's true war record would be out there.

The lies were UNCHALLENGED because the Dems did not challenge them. The Kerry team thought the story would die and to respond would give it credence.


Yes, I do believe that many did not vote for Kerry because of this. I heard people tell me that Kerry was a flip flopper and his military record was questionable. Many did not trust Kerry because of these lies. I think it made a huge difference in the election.

[Al-CIAda]

27. Amazing, and not the first such curious divetaking by the cousin& bonesman

n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Kerry sat on tons of information

From BCCI to the SBV's, Kerry had tons of amunition to throw at Bu$h, but he held back. Makes you wonder if he really wanted to win or not? Especially since both campaigns used the same PR company for the 2004 election.

[KittyWampus]

33. The Boston Fucking Globe ? You're Taking THEIR Interpretation As Gospel?

they hate Kerry and did everything they could to sink him.

What the HELL makes you trust THEIR or Salon's version of the info in Kerry's records?

Did YOU read the records?

[BurtWorm]

37. You mean he wasn't as well-decorated as the Globe or salon.com say he was?

:wtf:

[Mairead]

44. Funny how the Kerry fantasists come rushing out to defend the indefensible

Who would be motivated to say, in effect, 'shut up shut up there's nothing to see here, it was inevitable, there was nothing more or different that Kerry could have done, he was just overwhelmed, it's not his fault so shut up and stand by our man'?

Who would have that motivation? The Greens? Socialists? Commies? Angry FDR Dems? Some other group?

What group would want people to believe that Kerry did everything he could, but was 'stabbed in the back'?