Kerry: "I’m prepared to kick [the Swiftboaters'] ass ..."

[Ian_rd]

Meet the Next President: Kerry's Second Shot

KEENE, N.H. - Moments before Sen. John Kerry shows up to campaign for a local politician at a backyard rally here, voter Sue Borden wrinkles her nose at the mention of the man who lost to President Bush.

<snip>

Kerry says the only reason he didn’t compete in more states in 2004 was that he ran out of money. He says this was also the reason he did not adequately respond to a series of devastating TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, a group that questioned Kerry’s service in Vietnam and criticized his later opposition to the war.

“They had money behind the lies, and we did not have sufficient money behind the truth,” Kerry laments.

Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

http://www.examiner.com/a-284761~Meet_the_Next_President__Kerry_s_Second_Shot.html">Full Story

[Avalux]

1. Sigh. Wish he had done it the first time.

I like Kerry, I really do - but reading this makes me sad and a little bit pissed off.

[dave420]

3. Democracy?

It should make you realise that there is no democracy in the US. There is only buying the presidency, as Kerry admitted.

The second it costs more than an average person can put up to run for office, democracy is dead. It's been dead in the US for decades, only no-one seems to realise or care.

[AndyA]

5. Me too. I still feel like he gave up too quickly in 2004.

Please, no flames. I'm not putting Kerry down. I just feel like the 2004 election was too important to walk away from so quickly. We must not allow that to ever happen again.

[Sherman A1]

35. Agreed

It's a tad late now....

[Jo March]

115. So, he should do - what then? Give up?

Kerry is methodical. He never jumps at something unless he's got evidence and a plan, unlike * and many other of our lovely leaders.

I'd rather see him get in the fight now than not at all.

[Sherman A1]

132. Methodical?

And the Senator didn't know his own record enough to respond with a full court press at the time he was being Swift-boated? I liked Kerry (wasn't my first choice, but I liked him alright), but I believe this is just far too late to make any difference, we cannot roll the clock back and un-install Mr. Bush and have a re-do of the last 2 years. Kerry can and will do whatever he wants, I just think this boat has long ago sailed. So please feel free to flame away.

[Jo March]

140. Why would I flame you?

We have a difference of opinion.

Look, have you been in the military? I have and if the Swift Boaters came after me, I'd have a hard time locating half of the people I served with, most of the documents that proved that I served, etc. Heck, my DD214 says that I served over 10 years in the Army when I was only in for 3. Can you imagine if I tried to defend my record against the smear machine that was out for Kerry and financed by the right?

I am not cutting Kerry 100% slack here but I know that if he had gotten bogged down in the Swift Boat shit, then it would have been all over for him. He would have been trashed 9 ways to Sunday on ALL of the news channels.

I'm sure that he knows his record but refuting those bastards would not have been easy in the ending days of the campaign.

FWIW, I believe that he won 2004. Too much hanky-panky in many states with the voting machines to believe otherwise.

Peace to you,

Arnie

[fedupinBushcountry]

157. Link?

To your statement. You can talk shit all you want but please where is your proof?

And the Senator didn't know his own record enough to respond with a full court press at the time he was being Swift-boated?

[blm]

37. Because Dems expect one man to do the job of thousands. Did Bush handle

every task and every controversy or did the RNC and RW media machine do it for him?

[CarlVK]

171. All I wanted Mr. Kerry to do was fight to beat George Bush.

And sadly, he let me down.

I put no more faith in Mr. Kerry as a serious front to GOP demagoguery. I appreciate his support efforts but outside of that, he's really not that valuable for the current fight.

[blm]

201. HAHAH - saying we need a withdrawal plan and being able to CRAFT a

DOABLE withdrawal plan - you would say saying it is more valuable than the actual submission of a detailed plan.

BTW - Kerry WON - probably by 5Million votes. He countered Bush. How did the DNC do countering the RNC? How did the left media do countering the RW machine?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

93. Did you read the part about running out of money?

Are you angry he ran out of money to counter the smear campaign?

[CarlVK]

180. But apparently he didn't run out of money.

I realize that he was not allowed by law to spend it at the time, but there is a problem...

"Kerry's campaign fund still holds some unspent money that he raised in running for the 2004 Democratic nomination, because he was not allowed to spend it in the general election. In mid-October, 2004, this sum was about $45 million. He donated most of that to the Democratic National Committee and to state Democratic parties, but he has at least $15 million left, which could be used directly for another presidential campaign, or indirectly to build his stature within the party by helping other Democratic candidates. Some criticism was leveled at Kerry for not using the remaining funds for Democratic campaigns in 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

[tomreedtoon]

186. No, he's going to kick their asses...in 2004!

He has just realized that he was devastated in the 2004 election, and last week he figured out that it was the Swiftboaters that did a lot of it. Now he wants to fight them.

Well, guess what. There's other attack forms to knock him down in 2008. When is he going to recognize and fight them? In 2012?

[Branjor]

2. Huh?

I thought Kerry had a lot of money left over in his campaign fund at the time he conceded.

[karynnj]

19. You can't spend primary money in the general election

It's against the law.

[rusty_parts2001]

20. He had 5 Million in Reserve!

[Jo March]

113. Rusty, read post #19

(right above yours) before berating Kerry.

[CarlVK]

181. Try 15 MILLION in spendable funds to help other Democrats

That he oddly hangs onto.

No explanation.

[fedupinBushcountry]

210. Read up on election laws

The Dem convention was over that meant Kerry had to use FEDERAL funds because he was now the OFFICIAL candidate. With 5 weeks of BIG Bush money still available he in no way had the money to do this, you see Bush did not yet have his nominating convention yet. Bush and his cohorts still had millions to spend.

You have no idea what you are talking about, two different pots and 2 official times to use them. Why don't you ask the DNC why they decided to have such an early convention, and also Kerry was thinking of not accepting the nomination at the convention because he saw the advantage that the Repubs had, but the Dem establishment didn't want him to do that. Funny how people keep on blaming Kerry for it all, why ? I see the Dem establishment as bearers of some of that blame. Kerry was for taking chances, but the DNC was weak, and guess what they could have put in much more to counter the attacks with the money Kerry gave them. Please tell me where were they?

[SoCalDem]

110. Huh? ..here too.. The time to "kick their ass"

was when they smeared him... and it was not "costly" to call MSNBC/CNN/etc or a newspaper or and say they were goddamned LIARS..

[Jo March]

112. He did but he could not use it to fight his legal battles

from what I understand. Something about campaign finance laws and that dictated how he could spend the money.

I can't remember exactly. Hope another DUer remembers.

[Warpy]

4. I'll believe that the day he files a libel suit

and not before.

[wellst0nev0ter]

151. Stop. Blaming. The. Victim.

Come on, if you read Eric Boehlert's book Lapdogs the press was especially and knowingly complicit in spreading the Swiftboat lies, even after Kerry did more than enough to counter their arguments. Compare to how the press came down on Rather's otherwise accurate National Guard story where he aired some memos that he couldn't verify.

[bobbolink]

160. Victims are poor people *without* money, who have no support

and NO WAY to fight back.

Kerry is NOT a victim.

Heinz==$$$, etc.

Plenty of money floated in, especially for the expected fraud.

Yes, you like Kerry. That's fine. I have no problem with that.

But, let's look at who are victims in this country, and who are swayed by political expediency.

[karynnj]

163. You don't get to make up your own defintion

You can be wealthy and be a victim. (Take it to the extreme, was JFK a victim of Oswald?) John Kerry's wealth, and that of Teresa, did not help him here.

Looking at John Kerry's life, he wasn't all that motivated by money. After law school, he far preferred public service to making a fortune as a trial lawyer which he was very very successful at for a few years. His goal, which he put his heart behind was to serve this country as President. He has said that in losing he felt bad, not as much for himself, as for the people he couldn't help.

Look at the pictures of Kerry at funerals or hear him speak, saying it is "immoral for old men to send young men to war when the policy is wrong", Kerry wanted the Presidency for the best of reasons and he fought for it as hard as he could. The numbers at the end weren't there. He was a victim of the SBVT, who at the least stole valuable time; a biased media; weak local party structures; and a corrupt state government in Ohio.

Yet, he is still fighting for his country, because he cares. Sure, he and Teresa could retire - both have amazing accomplishments that they could look back at with pride, but they care enough that they may go through another two years of the grueling work needed to win the Presidency. They will be doing this knowing that every part of their lives will be considered fair gain by people of far lower character than theirs.

So, yes he was a victim and so were everyone (even the Bush voters) in the US and in the world.

[wellst0nev0ter]

178. Welp, I Can't Add Anything

maybe a sidenote that since Kerry accepted public money he was bound under more rules than Team Boosh, and was hamstrung from dealing effectively with the Swift Boat Liars, but otherwise well said :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

203. Right

:eyes:

[datasuspect]

231. you can't libel a public figure

[rodeodance]

6. Kerry learns from his mistakes (not like the WH)

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. The * admin has made very few mistakes...

If by mistake we mean setbacks on their march to a complete takeover of the three branches of government by corporatists. The * admin has been very successful in their coup. Kerry was no more than a squrrel in the path of the * tank.

[kurth]

7. Thought he had $14 million left over

from his 2004 campaign...

[lonestarnot]

82. yeah me too... whatsup wit dat?

[liberalpragmatist]

129. PRIMARY Campaign Money

Which he was barred from using in the general election.

The outrage from some sectors of the party was that he didn't donate that money to other campaigns in the closing days.

[sadiesworld]

200. Apparently he had 45 total and 15 of that was NOT primary $.

[peace13]

8. That's funny

I distinctly remember that Kerry had money in his treasury at the end of the race. Money that he did not spend. Money that he said he would use for a recount and did not. Please don't flame me unless you live in Ohio and were out on the Statehouse lawn on those cold December days 2004! Let's move forward here and not reinvent history!

[kurth]

14. Sen. Kerry ponders uses of his $14 million:

Sen. Kerry ponders uses of his $14 million
By Alexander Bolton

Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) is willing to use nearly $14 million left over from his 2004 presidential bid to narrow the fundraising lead of his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Kerry has $8.2 million in his John Kerry for President account and $5.4 million in his Kerry-Edwards 2004 Inc. General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance (GELAC) Fund. The sums were almost entirely raised after it became clear that Kerry would be the 2004 Democratic nominee against President Bush.

If Kerry were to use that money in the primary, he, Clinton and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) would probably be the best-funded Democratic candidates to enter the race. His 2004 nest egg has given Kerry the luxury of focusing his efforts on raising money for Democratic candidates rather than worrying about money for his own 2008 Senate reelection race or about courting donors for another presidential run.

But using 2004 funds in a Democratic primary is certain to spark criticism from Democrats still angry that Kerry didn’t spend all of his available resources to defeat Bush. “The money is available. It’s a loaded gun, whether he runs for president or Senate reelection,” a Kerry aide said. “But Kerry’s focus in 2006 is delivering for the party and getting Democrats elected, as evidenced by his aggressive fundraising for critical House and Senate seats and local races across the country.”...

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/071906/kerry.html

[peace13]

25. He should spend the money now

for the good of the party, the country and the world. I don't disagree with that. But as for the fall (no pun intended)of 2004 he chose not to fight with the funds he had. Had he grown balls and fought the swift boat he would have generated yet more contributions! Too sad!

[karynnj]

36. and he would have BROKEN THE LAW

He accepted the federal funds - so he could neither use or raise money. Nor could Bush - had Kerry opted out of federal funds, Bush would too - it's not clear this would have worked.

I actually disagree to some degree with Kerry on whether more ads to fight the SBVT could have worked - I think the problem was that the cable news gave the SBVT credibility they didn't deserve. An ad challanging them would have been perceived as "paid for", cable news was "paid for" in a different way, but that wasn't obvious.

[leftchick]

15. like 14 million bucks!

I thought I was told he quite lying? sigh, I know someone will parse this into "what he really meant to say".

:eyes:

[karynnj]

21. He could not use that money in the general election

It was from the primaries. Once you accept federal money for the general election, you agree that that is ALL you use.

[peace13]

28. He raised funds specifically for fighting the vote count

and did not do that. Sorry. He had funds left over that he did not use to fight the swift boaters in during the campaign. Makes no sense.

[rockymountaindem]

30. Which funds are you referring to?

[karynnj]

34. You're confusing two issues

1) He could not in August use primary money. It was against the law. His choice was to use a significant part of the $75 million he and Bush would have after their conventions. Kerry had 5 more weeks to spend the money than Bush - a major disadvantage.

2) Vote count money - not raised in August and it would have been both illegal to use against the SBVT and morally wrong because it was given for another reason.

[FogerRox]

170. As of August 2004 Kerry had about 3.5 million in a legal

contingency fund. This money was to used after the election to fight back....

That little tid bit helped get me a job in the campaign.

[FogerRox]

169. Fed funds were used after the Convention.... not Primaries

The swift boat attacks came well before that anyway.

[blm]

46. Do people NOT UNDERSTAND ELECTION LAW? Kerry couldn't use the

money raised BEFORE the general campaign the moment he accepted the nomination because federal law says he cam't.

Anything that came in the week before that day was not ALLOWED to be used.

I am shocked that so many DUers are still unfamiliar with this part of the law even though it's been posted so many times, by now.

[Radical Activist]

73. The money should have been spent before the convention.

The fact that it was never spent is a sign of a poorly managed campaign. It could have been put to good use legally. I remember swing states waiting around for months wondering when the campaign was finally going to come in and do something. Money was left over because the campaign didn't move fast enough late in the primary.

[blm]

84. The week of the convention when NEW money was coming in could NOT be

used by the time it was processed. By the time it was processed only federal money could be used.

[Radical Activist]

98. processed?

How long does it take to get a check and put it in the bank? There were millions left over and it didn't all come during the last week of the convention. It could have been used before the convention to set up offices, hire staff, buy advertising. There's no reason to make excuses for a critical mistake.

[blm]

107. Go look up how much money came in the last week. And you're talking

about Dem PARTY work, RA. Infrastructure. You think Kerry camp was in charge of four years of infrastructure work. Sorry, but his problem was trusting that the DNC was telling him the truth.

[ProSense]

97. Spent on what? n/t

[Radical Activist]

99. Opening offices in swing states

That's a major expense that could have been taken care of before the convention. They could have bought TV advertising, started hiring staff, office supplies, signs and buttons, or many other things that campaigns can do early.

[ProSense]

108. You assume Kerry wasn't campaigning

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

[CarlVK]

172. But he COULD have gone after the Ohio vote fraud issue

Which he....strangely...left until now.

[ProSense]

179. He did! You must have missed it!

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

[CarlVK]

182. Almost 2 years too late!!

What the hell kinda sense does THAT make?

[ProSense]

188. Because 2004 is 2006? Are you just saying stuff to be saying it? n/t

[Botany]

9. Bull shit

Kerry says the only reason he didn’t compete in more states in 2004 was that he ran out of money.

he had millions left over.

[jsamuel]

26. true

[jsamuel]

117. ok, maybe not so true

[beachmom]

56. See BLM's post above -- that was money he could NOT use. n/t

[Mass]

88. THAT HE COULD NOT USE. But of course, why bothering knowing the truth!!!

[Jo March]

141. One is entitled to his/her opinion but NOT his/her own facts.

The facts are what they are. He could not use the money.

But, again, why let those facts get in the way of a good Dem, circular firing squad, right?

Ugh.

:hug: to you, Mass!

[City Lights]

10. Oh please.

:eyes:

Don't strain yourself, John.

[Jo March]

118. That's right. Better he should do NOTHING AT ALL, EVER

:eyes:

[HardWorkingDem]

11. Ho-hum.....a little too late, eh?

Not to be a downer or anything, but it's a little too late....

[flordehinojos]

12. kerry said he had an army of lawyers to contest the election and

count the votes if needed...and two seconds after bush was declared Resident of the oval office kerry signed on to diebold machines and gave bush his green card/ or citizenship papers to the oval office.

[blm]

38. Kerry repeated to us what the Dem party told HIM.

You certainly didn't think that Kerry was the one who weakened and collapsed since 1997 the Dem party infrastructure in charge of things like secure voting?

[CarlVK]

144. Looks like passing the buck to me.

I thought only the President Bunnypants did that?

[blm]

149. Really? Then why is it Dean who is working to rebuild and strengthen

the Dem party infrastructure and working to counter election fraud tactics?

Because it's his JOB as head of the Dem party!

You would rather believe that it's the job of the next nominee and we should wait until we know who it is in spring of 2008?

[CarlVK]

173. Dean wouldn't have let Ohio voter fraud in 2004 pass, blm.

I guess it takes a Mr. Kerry to do that.

Sorry, your boy blew it big time and it looks like I'm not the only DUer, by far, who is willing to say that.

[blm]

198. Dean DID let voter fraud pass in 2004 - he didn't speak out about it and

never discussed the machine fraud with Kerry BEFORE the election, so I guess he wasn't convinced of it before the voting, or else SURELY he would have spoken out and warned the Dem party about the potential machine fraud.

Wouldn't he? I believe he WOULD HAVE if he was convinced at the time.

And Dean would have had the SAME team of Dem party election lawyers that Gore and Kerry had. They told Gore he had a legal case to continue - they told Kerry they had no legal evidence to continue in court.

What would Dean have done differently in your view?

[CarlVK]

226. Dean wasnt the nom, Kerry was.

And facts are that Mr. Kerry let a lot of things slip that he shouldn't have. Dean made some mistakes, that's for sure, but over all he is much more of a fighter and doesn't equivocate over principles he is passionate about. I feel he is an ideal candidate to make a presidential go against these neocon fascists who have been in the cat chair far too long.

What we need now is fight. Mr. Dean is fight personified.

[karynnj]

52. Kerry is one of the strongest votes on voting machines in the Senate

Kerry said this in the Senate:

"We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it. "

Doesn't sound pro-Diebold to me.

So, where is your link that Kerry ever signed onto Diebold machines?

[Gold Metal Flake]

13. You don't talk about it. You do it.

Sigh.

[daninthemoon]

16. Way too little, way too late. That election was Kerry's to lose, and

if he still thinks money was his only problem, then he still doesn't get it. Unwavering opposition to rightwing crap like the swiftboaters was needed, not stunts like dressing up like a hunter or windsurfer. If he had spoken out clearly and directly, even the msm would have aired it for free. More important is taking some real stands against the actual evil these neocons are perpetrating. If he had taken a real stand on the real issues: Iraq, healthcare, corporate welfare, Haliburton, administration lies (pick any number), homeland security, BinLaden, voter fraud..., we the people might be getting out from under this rw nightmare. I sure hope he's not gearing up for another run.

[CrispyQ]

22. He damn near lost my vote when he made the comment

that he'd do it again knowing what he now knows. :wtf: I had an especially hard time convincing my husband, who hadn't voted in decades & up to that point was inspired to go back to the polls, to vote for him after he said that.

I want someone new. No Kerry, Clinton or Gore.

[karynnj]

29. He spoke as clearly and as directly against Bush as anyone

and people in the primaries saw that. Just because another candidate LOOKED more angry, doesn't mean he was. Kerry DID take a stand on EVERY one of those issues.

Who said - that Bush outsourced the capture of OBL to Afghan warlords allied with the Taliban the week before. Most of the party actually critisized him for saying this - even in Oct 2004, Bob Kerrey said Kerry was wrong. Dean did not speak out on this when Kerry did in 2002!

Kerry spoke about healthcare every day AND against the Bush Medicare drug plan that he said was a give away to the HMOs and the drug companies. (Hey Heath care and coorporate welfare in one blow!)

I challange you - you pick anyone from 2004 (or Hillary or Warner who didn't run) You give me the strongest thing he/she said in 2003/2004 - and I will give you Kerry's.

He won because in the primary debates and speeches, Kerry attacked Bush!

Stop the revisionist garbage.

[daninthemoon]

39. True enough. I liked Kerry, and in the beginning he had a great

chance by sticking to his convictions, like he did in the primaries. Nonetheless, the impression I am left with is those last few days of the general election, when he was trying so hard to fit a "middle-ground" mold and not sound too left leaning, or anti Iraq war, and the visual memory I am left with is those stupid windsurfing and hunting photo ops. He also didn't do enough to fight the poll irregularities that popped up. The important thing is how our candidates handle these things in the future. Hit em hard with the truth, and let's have some real debates all the way through to the end, past the primaries. I fought for Kerry, but we need someone else next time. Before you ask, no, I don't know who.

[karynnj]

65. The images you have, the media gave you

Kerry had multiple rallies every day for the last 2 months - they were only shown in any detail on CSPAN. The news showed the Bush rallies, then showed their reporter with Kerry in the background, they never showed the crowds. Kerry broke all Clinton and Gore records for crowd size. CSPAN archives still have them - they were great. Reread the G. E. debates - Kerry was very very hard on Bush. Kerry's strong voice, Presidential demeanor and the fact that he becomes more focused when angry - rather than incoherent, let him really really hit Bush.

[blm]

43. KERRY WON - probably by FIVE MILLION VOTES. He did his job and the DNC

who was in charge of the Dem party infrastructure in every state was too weak and collapsed to counter the RW machine who worked for four years to suppress Dem votes , purge voter rolls and gain control of the voting machines.

Kerry won his matchups with Bush. How did the DNC do?

[karynnj]

17. Very interesting article

It is interesting that it mentions many of the RW smears, disposes some of them - such as being aloof, but re-inforces others by repeating them. Note that O'Neil lies even in his tiny quote (Kerry was in the service for nearly 4 years.) The question is why as O'Neil was PROVEN to have been both paid by the RW and a liar, why he is given a platform.

[Marr]

23. Uh-huh, I'm sure he'd "fight for me".

Maybe he would fight back, given a second chance. Thankfully, we'll never know.

[muesa]

24. Some Background on the Swifties' Founder - O'Neill

Some background on Swifties founder John O'Neill

1. ,

and try Googling "Point Welcome" - these guys are filth.

[Bandit]

27. He had the money he just didn't use it wisely

His very first priority should have been in addressing the Swift Boat Liars, but he assumed it would blow over and he wouldn't need to spend money on attacking them. He was wrong and America is suffering "Big time" I like Kerry a great deal but if he ever were to want my vote he needs to fight them even now. If he allows this to stand he doesn't deserve any of our votes. If he won't fight for himself how can we expect him to fight for our Democratic Ideals? This is not over...

[ProfessorGAC]

31. We Have A Winner!

That is precisely the point. They didn't spend the money to counter the lies, and connect the dots for the public between Silverspoon and the liars.

The damage was then done. And, had he done so, we would not have seen the "purple heart band-aids" at Republicon 2004, because the issue would have been radioactive.

Kerry outsmarted himself.
The Professor

[karynnj]

45. Did you stop to think that it wasn't long ago,

that the media would have reacted with outrage to those Purple Heart Bandaids?

The media gave the SBVT coverage and credibility. The media condoned the bandaids. Don't YOU get it? This is not what a free press is suppose to do. Then look at the fact that 5 people were fired because documents were not properly authenticated though the content of them was verified on Bush's TANG records.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Boring

Same old saw. No proof. No evidence. Just conjecture. And then you lecture me.

You know very well how the political process works. The credibility would have been shattered by a counterattack, that the media would have HAD to cover. The money has to be spent to get the message out. There are no options. Once the ad campaign is in place, the coverage follows. Don't YOU get it? It's been that way for 50 years. Or haven't you been paying attention?

The media is lazy, but you have only your opinion as proof they're willfully complicit.
The Professor

On Edit: And another thing. How old are you? I'd bet i'm older, and i don't remember any time where the media would have acted with "outrage" over the bandaids. That's not their job either.

[karynnj]

69. He did counterattack

speaking before a Firefighter's convention. The media opted NOT to cover it other than sporaticly. It hasn't bben that way for 50 years.

As to complict:
- The NAVY documents backed Kerry - and when at the demand of a RW group the Navy re-evaluated them, the NAVY said Kerry's medals were correct. (Kerry had 100 plus pages of records on his web site- including exemplary fitness reports that spanned the entire time he was in the service.
- Admiral Zumwold himself praised Kerry's service in 1996.
- Republican Senator John Warner said on a cable show that as the Secretary of the Navy he saw and later checked Kerry's Silver Star - and that he deserved it
- President Nixon's people are on tape saying that Kerry really was a war hero and clean - their reaction - was they ordered people to destroyhim.
- It was well known that Colson, when he was born again, appologized to Kerry for the dirty tricks he was behind when Kerry ran in 1972. Colson and all accused Kerry of everything from being a druggie to having had a personal relationship with jane Fonda. Colson created a situation so toxic that Kerry had rocks thrown through his window - one landing near his baby's bassinet. If there was real dirt on Kerry from VN, it, rather than lies, would have been used.

There was NO doubt that the SBVT were lying AND no doubt that they were funded by Republican allies of Bush.

[TayTay]

41. That is false

The SBVT ad campaign came out in early August, after the Democratic National Convention. When Kerry accepted the nomination, he began using the Federal Elections Commission matching funds and only those funds. The rest of the money collected before this could not be used. (Kerry, btw, made the largest donations in Democratic Party history to the DNC and to other candidates.)

There was talk of Kerry not formally accepting the nomination until nearly Sept so that his campaign and the Repub campaign would be on an equal footing in the matching funds. (Dems had a twelve week campaign in which to spend exactly the same amount of money as the Repubs, who had an 8 week campaign.) The campaign 'went dark' in August in order to save money for the After LAbor Day period, when it was thought it would be most useful.

The campaign did spend money fighting the SBVT and polls show that most people did not believe that Liars (who were not inclined to believe it before a single ad was broadcast) and that the conflict was not a factor in the vote. The largest factor in the loss was the superior organizing effort made by the Republican National Committee to mobilize their vote. They did so themselves, whereas Democrats outsourced a lot of GOTV through 3rd party groups like America Coming Together ("ACT.") ACT was bared by law from mentioning Kerry's name in GOTV, which hampered the effort. (There is a reason for the 50 state strategy here. We cannot outsource the GOTV to 3rd parties anymore.)

I can deal with the fact that people dislike Kerry. I think it's the outright lying from others on this post that really offend me. Especially when one of our talking points this year is to show how much the Republicans lie and twist the truth. It's sad to see our side doing it as well. Kerry had $14 million left over after the election. In early 2005, one of the first things he did to great Howard Dean as new Chairman of the Democratic Party was to give $1million to the DNC and he used his 3,000,000 e-mail list to ask his contributors and supporters to send more, generating another $250,000 for the the DNC. No one else has done anything close. No one.

[blm]

54. I hope the detractors start dealing with the facts and stop spreading LIES

that they have been spoonfed by those who don't even know simple election law.

[CarlVK]

174. Disagreement with your views on Mr. Kerry is not LIES, blm.

Please know where to draw the distinction. Honorable people can hoborably disagree. It's the Democratic way.

[ProSense]

177. Disagreement are not lies, but lies are lies n/t

[CarlVK]

183. OK and this has what to do with pork bellie futures?

[blm]

199. Distinguish that election law is election law - You and I can't CHANGE it

to fit a view. When one pretends that law doesn't exist so one can spread a preferred storyline, that person is spreading a lie and NOT a point of view.

[CarlVK]

227. I don't see how election law is the issue. Opinions are not lies, blm.

And to say that they are is reminiscent of the the kind of talk you hear from....well, let's not go there. You're not one of them.

[blm]

234. The issue was what money Kerry could spend and why there was money

remaining after the campaign - Kerry could NOT spend a dime of money that had come in right before he accepted the nomination, because the moment he accepted, only FEDERAL FUNDS could be used.

That is not up to interpretation or opinion - it's an unchangeable FACT of election law and the reason why EVERY candidate has money left over.

The Dem party could just tell people to stop sending money the week before the acceptance of the nomination, but what generally happens is that after the election the candidate distributes extra money to various Dem needs, like the DNC or congressional and senate campaign funds, or like Kerry gave a big chunk to Gregoire's recount effort.

The money gets used for Dems, contrary to what some want to believe.

[rockymountaindem]

55. Well said n.t.

[Bandit]

67. Besides the fact you are calling me a LIAR

Do you insist that Kerry handled the Swift Boat LIARS in the proper manner. If so then you are derelict IMO. I am sure I am not alone in my feelings of being completely let down by his/their(Democrats) response. Because of his lack of action to this very day I could never support another Kerry candidacy. This by the way was a personal attack and he could have used his immense personal fortune to fight for his credibility without it being political. When you are slandered and Libeled you are allowed to use your own money to defend yourself. He and his wife had more than enough money to fight back without even tapping his campaign funds.

[karynnj]

78. Read the reserch forum thread on how he did fight back

Even if you don't like Kerry, you will see that the media has changed radically. Normal reactions that would have worked even 4 years before, didn't. Kerry's service should never have been a question. Note that Brinkley, a noted biographer was treated as if he were on Kerry's campaign - he was a scholar and he had spoken to over a 100 people, including many who later told different stories.

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

You may want to scan it - they will try the same thing - over a different issue on someone else. If that is your only problem with Kerry, it might be worth considering that he is an unusually clean politician, who has lived a pretty admirable life.

[Bandit]

83. Like I said in my original post I like and respect Senator Kerry

I am extremely disappointed he did not use his own wealth to clear his name. This was a personal attack on Kerry himself and not the Democratic Party and he has the right to defend himself using his own money. He did not do so. He still to this day has not doen so. A logical conclusion is he is not sure he could win the fight. Sorry I want a real fighter as our leader. Kerry could do better. I know he fights hard for America but he also has to fight for himself and his family..

[karynnj]

95. Actually he didn't have the right to use his money

first of all it is mostly Teresa's money. After you take federal funds you can not raise money nor can you use your own.

The fact is that a group of Kerry friends are searching for as much documentation as possible on all the claims - and one by one they are refuting them. These charges also affect the guys on Kerry's crew. On the "Hidden Wounds" video which teaches about PTSD, one person who spoke was Del Shandusky. He mostly told his story - but at the begiining of his words when he defined himself as being one of Kerry's crew he lashed out at O'Neil and the other "twinkies from Texas who said they served with Kerry". These people said they would make this effort even if Kerry were leaving public life.

His family does not seem to share your view that he didn't fight hard enough. I doubt many parents have a kid who speaks of them with the awe and admiration which the extremely talented, brilliant Vanessa Kerry does.

[TayTay]

106. Too bad that truth is not a defense for some people

and that only a distorted and untrue version of a story can be accepted, regardless of what the actual facts are. For some of us, this is one of the things that really makes us most angry about the Republicans; they make up their own facts and then accuse Democrats of not abiding by and accepting them.

I do not accept that argument from Republicans. I will not accept it from any other parties either.

[TayTay]

104. Another thing that is completely untrue

The main SBVT attack came in the beginning of August '05. Kerry had already accepted the nomination of his Party to be President. He was using Federal Election Matching Funds from that point forward and could not use his own funds or funds from the pre-General Election fund to mount private ads against the 527 group. This is another falsehood that has been uttered in this thread.

I think Kerry did what he could to fight back against the SBVT against a media that was determined to hype it as much as possible. The attack was conveniently planned for 3 days after the Terrorist Alert Level was raised to Orange. It was very hard to get media oxygen to fight back, though a very strong effort was made.

Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that Democrats have a harder time getting air time and getting their message out, especially at a time when the government is wholly in the hands of the other party have their heads in the sand and are willfully ignorant of the circumstances that surround real elections in this country. This is too bad, as it is denial and contributes to our losses.

[Toots]

196. You are being deliberately obtuse IMO

The poster made a very valid point. this was a personal attack. Kerry just like any American has the right to defend himself. I did not see anywhere in bandit's post where he suggested commercial ads as a defense. You put your own words into his mouth and called him a LIAR. Any american has a right to sue. I don't care if they are a Senator or a President. If they have been slandered they can sue. Kerry could haved sued these people but did not. He can still sue these people but is not doing so. Kerry is never going to win a Presidency and it is because he does not act when it necessary. IMO it was extremely important to addresss these Swift Boat Liars and clear his name. He did not and has not done so and his name is still mud to many Americans who assume it has to be the truth because Kerry never sued to establish the truth in an official manner.

[peace13]

130. How did Kerry deal with the swift boaters?

For the life of me I never heard it. I had Kerry signs burned in my yard, sent money to his campaign multiple times and marched in Columbus, Ohio to try and ensure that our votes were counted but I can not remember him responding to the swift boat liars. Just saying.

[blm]

150. Here's the facts from the Research Forum - join the battle against media

because they are the ones who were complicit every step of the way with the swifts.

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.

[peace13]

152. Thanks for this

As a Kerry supporter I still say that he never stood up, by himself, and refuted the swift boat liers. Not in plain english, not in a hands down,'this kind of thing needs to be stopped right now' kind of fashion. It did not effect Kerry people but it did make it hard to grab the swing votes. At the end of the day the fact of the matter is that he did have the votes they just weren't counted and that is something that he promised to do. End of story. We see things differently and that is OK.

[blm]

153. You can't say something didn't happen if it DID happen.

Kerry attacked the swifts HIMSELF in an hourlong speech he made to the Firefighters Convention, and attacked the WH's involvement with them. The excerpt from that Aug 19, 2004 Firefighters Speech is in that post above.

The media did not show up for the speech - did not show it at all - and few even reported that the speech was made.

You say it never happened.

BTW - The Princeton report specifies that the machines are programmed to be erased after the tally so there is no trace of the rigging.

Kerry had no choice when there was no LEGAL EVIDENCE to take to a court to continue.

There are opinions and there are FACTS. If you don't base your opinion on FACTS, then you should be careful about making declarative statements out of your opinion.

[peace13]

155. As a Kerry supporter

I can say, because I was watching every day, that he did not make the point clear to the voters. That is a personal observation. As I say we do not agree on this one. Enough said.

[karynnj]

42. That's why friends of Kerry started the Patriot's Group

Kerry,more than most people in public life, has lived a life of honor and integrity. He fought in a way that would have worked even 4 years earlier. He very quickly got information to the media disproving the lies - but the media opted instead to continue playing with the SBVT. How many lies did Kerry have to disprove from a specific person before that person was simply considered a liar.

Look at what Clinton did - his war room was good, but as soon as he countered something - the media declared it not an issue. (even though on some charges, there was some truth.)

[Mass]

76. HE COULD NOT, or do you want to rewrite electoral laws.

The Swift Boats knew exactly what they wanted. They launched their campaign just after he accepted the nomination, when he could not use his money anymore.

[Jo March]

124. Are you saying that he has not been fighting for Dem ideals?

All of this time? Do you actually believe that? Or do you not know what he's been doing in the Senate since 2004?

[MagickMuffin]

32. Thanks for posting this,

I've always been a big fan of John Kerry. He didn't get a fair shake by the media, but we experienced that back in 2000 when Al Gore also didn't get a fair shake by the media. Instead the media's job was to make fun of the candidates, while the Repubs would attack their strengths.

I watched every rally that was broadcast on C-SPAN for Kerry/Edwards, sometimes it was Theresa or Elizabeth that held town hall meetings. Every time I watched I could tell by the massive crowds that America was ready for a change. I liked his message and the thought of someone talking in complete sentences.
But, alas not many people are willing to watch C-SPAN.

Unfortunately, we don't own the voting machines, and we have more ethics then to rig an election.

I know that Kerry has been fighting the Bush Regime/Cartel for years from Mad king George, to Mad king Boy George. He knows a lot about their criminal behavior.
BCCI, Iran Contra, now the Iraq war.

It's interesting how the Iraq War Resolution turned into a Declaration of War.

[earth mom]

33. The time for ass kickin was in 2004!

Kerry may be trying to kick some ass now, but it may be too little too late. His wimpy behavior during and after the election was pathetic. The election was stolen, he won, the majority of the country knows it and he still doesn't bring up the election fraud up in interviews! :banghead:

Kerry needs to step and confront the rethuglican bastards about every dirty deed and trick they used to steal the presidency...that is if he really wants to win back the heart and minds of the people!

[Katzenjammer]

44. That's Kerry alright - a day late and a dollar short

How people let themselves be bamboozled by that guy is something I can only barely understand, but that there are people who STILL don't get what a dud he is just totally boggles my mind.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

48. well he did win the election.

so. . .

and as far as bamboozled is concerned, I don't know if thats quite the word.

[mtnsnake]

176. He did? Wow, it's amazing how he shrunk a few inches & looks like Bush now

Must be all the stress of being in the WH ;)

[earth mom]

53. Are you sure you're talking about Kerry? That sounds like Bush to me!

:eyes:

[Laurab]

168. I think you're right

they're a little confused about the bamboozeling dud! And "dud" is being way too kind to bush, but I'm SURE that's who they meant!

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Jo March]

119. And don't forget that he looks FRENCH and likes to sail

Damn you, Kerry, for bamboozling me!

:eyes:

[karynnj]

128. You mean he's not French ...... That's why I voted for him

He fooled me.

[Jo March]

136. No, he's not French. Just another thing he fooled us on

And those windsurfing pics? They were PHOTOSHOPPED!!!

The horror!!!

[karynnj]

145. Gee - the winsurfing too!

I recently saw people windsurfing while my family and I were on vacation. It looked impossible but very cool. Now, that's not real either - next you'll tell me an actor stands behind the stage and actually gives all his speeches.

[Jo March]

154. Naw. He actually wears a wire.

:rofl:

[karynnj]

164. and he cleverly let the LW spread rumours that Bush did

how devious.

[karynnj]

50. The majority of the country does NOT think Kerry won

Kerry has spoken often on election fraud:

Here's an incomplete list:
- The campaign put out a statment in November 2004 written by Cam Kerry that spoke of irregularities and voter suppression
- He spoke to a AA Boston group on MLK day - sfter which the RW lamblasted him for speaking about voting issues rather than honoring MLK.
- He spoke to Boston area kids who won a LWV essay contest and their parents
- He marched with John Lewis in Boston in fall, 2005 and spoke about voting issues.
- He spoke at Kenyon College in Ohio and at some rallies for Strickland in May 2006
- He recently sent an email out to 3 million people - after the planned smaller distribution got enormous attention on the RW because he accused Blackwell of suppressing the 2004 vote
- He also spoke on these words (for which Senator Boxer thanked him) on the floor of the Senate:

From Thomas, the on-line Senate record – given July 20th, 2006.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.
It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.
This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home. The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.
By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.
For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.
We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.
We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.
There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.
And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.
A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here
wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots. There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.
We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.
We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote.
How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.
We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.
It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.
I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[earth mom]

64. What I meant was that Kerry needs to expose the massive FRAUD

that went on in '04 election. Instead, Kerry is speaking of voter disinfranchisement, NOT FRAUD.

Look how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was brave enough to risk his reputation by publishing a report of the fraud in Rolling Stone magazine! Meanwhile Kerry didn't put his ass on the line to do the same!

Rolling Stone article reprint:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

From the article:

"Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ''strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.''

<snip>

"In addition to altering individual ballots, evidence suggests that Republicans tampered with the software used to tabulate votes."

<snip>

"The mounting evidence that Republicans employed broad, methodical and illegal tactics in the 2004 election should raise serious alarms among news organizations. But instead of investigating allegations of wrongdoing, the press has simply accepted the result as valid. ''We're in a terrible fix,'' Rep. Conyers told me. ''We've got a media that uses its bullhorn in reverse -- to turn down the volume on this outrage rather than turning it up. That's why our citizens are not up in arms.''"

<snip>

"Sen. John Kerry -- in a wide-ranging discussion of ROLLING STONE's investigation -- expressed concern about Republican tactics in 2004, but stopped short of saying the election was stolen."

[karynnj]

91. Kerry is speaking about things that are fraudulent

in some of the things that he spoke of on the floor of the Senate. RFKjr's chart that shows the votes lost includes votes never cast - including a very large number estimated lost due to long lines. Kerry has said ON RECORD about this - that they cheated legally. There is no law on the books in Ohio that precludes machine distribution like this.

There is a difference between RFKjr saying the election was stolen, verus Kerry saying it. Kerry can not claim this without a smoking gun. He has said enough that it's clear that he thinks that with a reasonable voting process, he would have won. Look at Gore's Rolling Stone comments - Kerry is really in the same position.

[earth mom]

109. Kerry needs to stop worrying about what people think of him

and do the right thing by the voters. There were 2 threads on here yesterday saying that the machines can be hacked. Is that not enough proof for him? How much more evidence does he want or need?

Kerry is the one who had the presidency stolen from him. He's the one who needs to go after the thieves. Simple as that.

[karynnj]

125. He did say this in the Senate in July

How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

What's proof for DU may not be sufficient for the government. (In 2005, when Kerry was in NJ for Corzine, someone posted here about a Princeton area reception that Kerry was at at the end of the day. One person there was Russ Holt, the congressman - a physist, who is probably the leading Congressional expert on the machines. )

I doubt Kerry is slowed down because he is worried about what people think about him. Look at his history:
- In 1971, Kerry was asked by Morey Shafer if he wanted to be President - After first joking "President of what?", Kerry answered, "Sure, but there are important things that have to be done and I'm not sure I can do them and keep people happy enough." (from memory - wording may be wrong. Interestingly the BG chopped the response at "them", distorting the answer.)
-In 1985, when vets came to him with stories of the Contras and drug running, he worried about looking like a "conspiracy nut", but investigated because stopping things like were why he went to Congree.
-In the late 80s and early 90s, he continued to fight to close BCCI because it was involved with widespread money laundering and terrorism. Not one Senator stood with him at the end and even Jackie Kennedy called to ask him to stop. Democratic moneymen were complicit - including some Carter people.

This does not sound like a person who would allow something that will destroy our democracy to continue out of vanity, politics or personal gain. He would however be very likely not to move on something until he had an unimpeachable case - that was his reputation as a prosecutor. It makes sense - if it is attacked badly and it fails, there may be no second chance to prove things.

[leftofthedial]

40. you're four years too late, John.

sheesh.

[wisteria]

92. Oh where oh where have I heard that same old inaccurate line before?n/t

[kaygore]

47. Kerry is sounding like Allen with his changing excuses

He had millions left over and could have countered the ads if he had wished. This is bullshit. I volunteered for his campaign in fur states at various times in the election and the sense I got is either he didn't want to win or those who were running his campaign didn't want him to win. Or, he really didn't have any strongly held beliefs and so could not articulate a position or execute.

[karynnj]

59. That's a bit below the belt

This was a very close election - in truth there are very likely many many truthful answers to what could have changed the result. From the big things - like if Bush did not use the federal government illegaly (terror mamipulations and the "ads" he paid supposed journalists to write - with government agengy money), a cable medis that is no longer close to unbiased, the OBL tape in the last week that cut the strong Kerry momentum, the weak local parties, and voter supression and other problems in Ohio to smaller things like correcting the small number of times he misspoke. Never has the media been less forgiving to one candidate as it covered for every (near daily) error of the other.

There is NO candidate that I have followed since 1972 who had more strongly held beliefs.

[fedupinBushcountry]

162. How despicable

to compare a true Democrat to Allen, I can only imagine how you helped Kerry in '04. Oh and I am so sick of the I helped Kerry this way and that way, well what did you do when you came up against such pessimism, join in it or debunk it?

[PlanetBev]

49. Too late

I e-mailed johnkerry.com in August 2004, begging him to get off his fucking windsurfer and fight against what they were doing to him at the Repuke National Convention. I had a bad feeling at that time we were going to lose.

When he gave up so quickly in November, I cried for a week. I ain't going through this again.

[karynnj]

61. Kerry windsurfed a few hours during the Republican convention

when it was traditional for the opposite party to be quiet. (With a normal press - in a sports obsessed culture, this ordinarily would have been a well received photo opt. It was a lovely NE day, the sea and sky were gorgeous. I never saw windsurfing before and it looked great. The image was being outside, on the water, healthy, good clean fun. I recently saw people windsurfing while I was on vacation, it looked graceful and very very hard and mostly was being done by people under about 30.) Kerry spent the rest of that day working on material for the first debate. Kerry has said that winsurfing always focused him - from the results of the first debate it did very very well.

But I guess you would prefer he cleared brush or fell off a bike. By the way, if you look at the photos of the August windsurfing, the ad did NOT use that footage. It used an old photo of Kerry windsurfing years before (Kerry is dressed differently). The ad would have been there even if Kerry stayed indoors.

[wisteria]

96. I cried too, the difference is I always knew Kerry was out there mostly

fighting and defending himself on his own. I had to face the fact that it is our party that doesn't know how to fight back and respond quickly. They are learning, but still I have my doubts sometimes.
No matter how painful the loss was, I still believe that Senator Kerry would make an exception President and that is what our country needs more than ever now. I would gladly support him all over again.

[Jo March]

123. Yes, all of the repubs jumped all over that windsurfing thing, didn't they

It was almost a talking point, how they always brought it up when speaking of Kerry. Yep, they always mentioned it when speaking of Kerry as if to paint him as someone who didn't want to win.

Yep, they made sure to always bring it up...

:think:

[karynnj]

165. Imagine what they would have done if Bush windsurfed

He would have been extolled as an athletic god, more fit than anyone his age ever. (Hey, they said he was the most athletic president because he jogged and rode his mountain bike, not always falling off.)

Strange that they ignored that Kerry had a reputation as a workaholic.

[oc2002]

57. Sowwy Kerry, your too late. No Money? or No Guts?

What does it cost to call the swift boaters 'political' terrorists and liars backed by crooks and liars?

[wisteria]

58. I really want to see him become President. I hope he decides to run again.

I don't care what pundits offer up as sane reasoning. I don't care what excuses are given because they are all old and outdated anyway.
Senator Kerry was robbed of the Presidency last time and he deserves another shot. Democrats stood by and allowed the Republicans to lie about him and mostly just keep quite because they didn't want to take on the Republicans.The Swift Boaters were extremely well funded and I think we all know who arranged for these trolls to have as much money as they needed to smear Kerry and fill the airwaves with lies about him. The media just gave into the Republicans and allowed the SBV to use the mass media at no additional cost. The NEOCON'S were willing to do anything- short of murder (and I am not so sure they wouldn't have attempted it if they thought they could get away with it)to get Bush reelected and continue with they power and oil grab. The amount of money Kerry had in reserve, even if Kerry could have accessed it,would not have been enough to take on the entire mass media. Senator Kerry fought the charges, he was appalled at the charges, but it proved impossible to make but a small dent in the Republican Media Machine. Even with these lies and smears being spread around, I think what worked against him in the end was the orchestrated last minute appearance of Bin Laden.

[pecwae]

60. Kind of saddening to read.

I supported and looked forward to President Kerry. I wish I had heard him say this far earlier.

[wisteria]

94. You are mistaken if you think he did not fight back. He did.

Perhaps,you expected more than was possible with the media and Republican money running against Kerry. I supported him throughout the primaries and the general election, and I always felt he did what he could at the time against this smear against his record. No one is perfect, and if the mistakes of GWB were magnified and played over and over like the SB lies were of Kerry, we would have had a different outcome.

[sendero]

135. You can't have it both ways..

... if he was hamstrung last time he'll be hamstrung this time too. I'm just sick of the excuses. A leader, like the president of a company or a general, does not sit around and make 100 excuses for why he failed. He failed because **** who cares ****. He failed because he did not have the fire and the passion to take on the Republicans.

Yes, he sounds better now, so what? So he gets to wait until the Repugs have 4 more years to run the country into the ground, and to try to win by being the lesser of two evils again?

No, there are plenty of better folks, no thank Senator Kerry - stick with the senate where long, long, long tedious speeches are the order of the day. They will NEVER win an election, and neither will someone who let the right spew all over them and gave a fucking firehouse rebuttal.

[karynnj]

146. If there is even one "better" person, he or she will win the primaries

He did do a lot more than a firehouse rebuttal. He also is not making 100 excuses - to my knowledge He NEVER brings the subject up - here, he answered the reporter's question.

[Beelzebud]

62. Oh is that why he had MILLIONS left over after the election?

What a fucking liar...

It's TOO FUCKING LATE TO FIGHT BACK, ASSHOLE, THEY ALREADY RUINED YOU

[whometense]

63. Hmmmm....

how come you edited out this part of the article???

KEENE, N.H. - Moments before Sen. John Kerry shows up to campaign for a local politician at a backyard rally here, voter Sue Borden wrinkles her nose at the mention of the man who lost to President Bush.

“You get one chance,” the Democrat tells a reporter. “If you can’t win, then it’s time to let someone else try.”

But less than an hour later, after she meets Kerry and listens to him deliver an impassioned speech from a wooden deck, Borden softens and says she would consider voting again for the Massachusetts Democrat.

“I always liked what he stood for but felt that he was very snobbish and arrogant,” she says. “He’s not that way. People told me I would change my mind once I met him. And they were right.”

Reads a bit differently with that in.

[ProSense]

101. Hmmm! n/t

[karynnj]

105. Can I guess Whome?

Because that story - which I have seen repeated with different people at least 100 times since 2004, doesn't fit the agenda of some.

This also sounds like the guy, we saw in Boston Saturday, who gave the speech that for almost anyone else would be the speech of a lifetime. He then spent over an hour shaking hands and speaking to people at the hall, agreeing to an impromptu talk to a group of school kids with a q&a, having a short meeting with a small group of Ethiopean immigrants living in Boston, and then signing autographs and having his photo taken with many people who joined the crowd outside Faneuil Hall (which is in the heart of downtown Boston). He and Teresa were followed out to their car by a mob of people.

Afterwards, seeing a post in the JK group, it's clear that Kerry stayed for the kids, the immigrants and the wellwishers even though it took up almost all the time before he had to leave for a Western Massachusetts GOTV rally at UMASS, Amherest - where he was met by standing ovations.

[whometense]

127. Yep.

Clearly aloof and arrogant. :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

147. especially

when drinking beer with people in Boston? :) :) :)

[windbreeze]

66. sorry...Kerry...in my book, you had your chance....and you blew it...

I was totally blown away by his seeming ineptness...and this from a seasoned politician?..it wasn't as though this was his first time running for office...so there is NO excuse...he was unprepared, and he didn't want it bad enough to get his shit together and campaign like he needed too...no offence meant to anyone, including his current support group...but I do NOT want Kerry to run..nor do I want him as our Pres...
wb...

[Ganja Ninja]

68. Gravity's holding you down, what's holding you back? n/t

[okieinpain]

70. oh he's full of bullsh**. woulda, coulda, shoulda. kerry can kiss my

ass. all I remember him saying is we have 10,000 lawyers. wah, wah, wah..

[doctor_garth]

71. lol

[Mass]

72. Another MSM lying article. It is funny how we are ready to boycott

when we dont like what they say, but run when we like.

Get over it. Dont like Kerry if you dont want to, but do us all a favor, ignore the MSM lies or it will come back and kill us.

(Not: not necessarily to the OP, but to all the whiners in this thread).

[Raffi Ella]

74. eh,I understand peoples anger and cynism towards him

especially when he talks like this but I'm not going to downgrade a man that is speaking out like this.
I,too am angry over the '04 election and what he could have/should have done but maybe until the Dems are elected that is the route he had to take.

I don't know but I'm not gonna bite my nose off to spite my face and that's what people are doing when they play into the "Kerry should have" game.

[bdamomma]

75. I would help Kerry to kick their asses also

[zulchzulu]

77. Homework for Kerry Bashers: What John Conyers thinks about Kerry

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth.

That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

[Mass]

81. Why bother with facts? They are ready to bash Kerry on the basis of the

MSM.

They are hopeless.

[zulchzulu]

86. Perhaps some people don't know who John Conyers is...

It's possible. If you get your "news" from the MSM, chances are you've never even heard of John Conyers.

If you only eat dog food, how in the hell would you know it's dog food.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. Look at all the tools on DU eagerly drinking the MSM kool aid

Isn't it cute how people accept the MSM spin without question when it furthers their petty, lying agenda?

Funny how I've never seen most of the people indignantly posting on this thread. Hmm.

[peace13]

131. It is funny how some eat their own

because of a difference of opinion!

[politicasista]

80. Another day at "Trash an outspoken Democrat Underground"

Go figure. :-(

[CarlVK]

184. Is it a bad thing to see where mistakes were made?

I don't think so. I appreciate Senator Kerry's service to the nation and his help for the Democratic cause. But to be honest he ran a butt stupid campaign. Let's not do that again!

Learning from our mistakes, and having an HONEST dialogue about where we screwed up instead of being an echo chamber of personality cult behavior, IS Democratic!

[Mass]

87. We have an election in a few weeks. What is the goal here in bashing

one of the most outspoken Democrat in this election cycle. You may wonder, but certainly not bring a Democratic majority in the Senate and the House.

And quite a nice selective editing, too. Congratulation to the OP.

[CarlVK]

185. LEARNING SOMETHING is the goal.

[Chalco]

89. You snooze, you lose. For God's sake.

All he had to do was call media types. All that takes is a phone call. Give me a break.

[Jo March]

120. Yes, because we see Dems on the news ALL THE TIME

Look! There's one now! And he's getting a fair shake by O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Carlson, Scarborough! It's unbelievable how they are listening to our Dem and letting him lay out his case without rebuttal or character assasination!

:eyes:

[malmapus]

90. Hate to say this, but I say BS...

Was talking to my wife about this the other night (not this topic but attacks on a vets records).

Started off with how we were talking about how we use to respect McCain (I told her how he had rated a 25 from the Disabled Vets). Then went off on Kerry's record being attacked.

I know if someone attacked my record, it would be gloves off. Unless they walked in my boots they can't say shit. I live paycheck to paycheck but I would find the means to get my message out no matter what.

I just don't understand, and probaly never will, why Kerry or pretty much any politican that was a vet. Will take these attacks and not respond in kind, I mean that's the most personal thing if you have ever been in combat...

[wisteria]

103. Kerry was angry and he did respond, so did Cleland almost immediately.

I guess I just can't figure out what more people thought he could of done. Everyone fights a little differently. Perhaps you feel he should of had a "how dare you" response, personally, I don't think this would have worked. I do know however, that Kerry did fight the accusations- 2xs. unfortunately, he was up against the Republican controlled power media. They have the power and the money available to do just about anything they want to do- including getting GWB reelected.

[malmapus]

121. Yeah, I guess I'm comparing apples to oranges =)

I take my service pretty personally, lol should know how often I've been attacked since dip shit took office. I guess I just fight my battles differently :)

[karynnj]

111. Kerry did:

Look at the research forum - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

All that did not work - Kerry and some life long friends are working on this in two ways.

- They are gathering all documentation from period stored information and whatever they can get from other sailors. The intent is to answer every singel lie definitively.

- A more general solution to try to prevent it happening to anyone else (or Kerry again), they have set up the Patriot Group - which is developing ways to stop these attacks - showing who is paying for them and proving them wrong. These people have done an excellent group backing Murtha. (Kerry personally had some very strong defenses of Murtha - ironically, some here have contrasted Murtha's strong response to Kerry's - ignoring that Kerry had Murtha's back.)

You can tell that it still hurts - and is likely why Senator Warner went out of his way to put on the Senate record that he (as Secretary of the Navy in 1969-1970s) checked the paperwork on Kerry's Siver Star.

Watching the Kennedy Center program on the NECN "Hidden Wounds" documentary, you could see how furious Del Sandusky still was about the SBVT. I was also able to see how close to Kerry's heart the veterans issues are and how long he's been involved. It became clear that one of the main goals of the SBVT was to try to keep Kerry from connecting with more vets.

[malmapus]

122. I stand corrected, thank you

Didn't know about all of that. Just from my perspective looked like Kerry was taking the punches without throwing any back.

[karynnj]

126. You're very welcome

I thank the people who put the reseach forum thread together and am happy that Kerry's friends care enough to help him and others.

[savemefromdumbya]

100. it's 2006 and that was 2004?

[stepnw1f]

102. Very Cool.... Go Get Em John! (nt)

[napi21]

114. Sorry John. You had your chance and you blew it! No 2nd shots

from me!

[mistertrickster]

143. I basically agree except that I think Gore deserves another shot.

He WON after all.

[lies and propaganda]

116. too bad he wasnt in the end of Nov 04

you know, when he said he was gonna count all the votes?

[NightOwwl]

133. Big F'ing Deal

During the campaign, "Bring it On" was his taunt to the Swiftboaters. But when they brought it on he didn't do a damn thing about it.

Which is why I'm not at all excited by his latest "threat."

[ProSense]

137. Not exactly how it happened!

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."

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).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

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-bc0e-904bcc95946c&

Text:

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 Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

[Bluebear]

134. Swoon.

:eyes:

[mistertrickster]

138. Too little money, Kerry complains. Funny, he had enough money

to sink Howard Dean in Iowa.

Too little, too late, Kerry.

Just go away quietly, will you please?

On edit--

Also, the stubborn fact remains that Kerry came home from 'Nam and testified of war atrocities. A lot of vets will never forgive him for that. He did the right thing, but it may be that doing the right thing forever cost him his chance at winning the Presidency.

Next time, we win. By any means necessary.

[karynnj]

148. Howard Dean went though nearly 40 million dollars

in Iowa and NH, he wasn't outspent by Kerry.

Kerry likely won because (Kerry with Rassmann) beat (Dean with 70 yr old heckler). That was the TV and media comparison right before the election. If you were undecided - it would have been a no brainer, emotional, modest hero saying "Anyone would do it", where "it" involves risking your life to save someone OR obviously angry, red faced politician telling old man to "sit down".

This may not be your view - but that's what I saw on TV at that time.

As to atrocities - it will likely be addressed with regards to Iraq. Kerry has the moral credibility to tell other countries that America will not condone these actions.

[fedupinBushcountry]

159. Blame, blame , blame

why is it you blame Kerry for Dean's loss ? It really amazes me, that you can't see how Dean failed horribly in Iowa, he went through $40 million, are you not mad at him and why are you not asking what happened to that money?

Ooops forgot so much easier to blame one man for everyone's failures.

[Jacobin]

139. Typical

Woulda Shoulda Coulda

:eyes:

[CarlVK]

142. We should have had THIS John Kerry in 2004.

[deutsey]

156. Now he's finally "prepared"?

:eyes:

Oh,why beat a dead horse? :evilfrown:

[blm]

197. He wasn't prepared for the media's complicity with the swifts. And the DNC

wasn't prepared at all.

Still - Kerry won - probably by 5MILLION votes. How did the strength of the Dem party infrastructure hold up in securing the votes?

[deutsey]

204. Then he's a very naive man.

I agree about him probably winning like Gore did.

What "Dem party infrastructure"?

[blm]

205. We all thought after 2000 the DNC would do their jobs - we believed that

Donna Brazile was doing the job McAuliffe to ensure integrity of the vote. Evidently she did not do it and Terry Mac didn't do his - the infrastructure the Dem party and their election "experts" had in place was practically nonexistent up against the onslaught of the GOP tactics they pursued relentlessly.

[deutsey]

207. I was cured of that notion after the 2002 debacle

[blm]

208. Look at this thread and blame OURSELVES - the blame is heaped on Kerry and

the practical result of that blame is that the Dem PARTY skates from being held responsible for failing to counter the FOUR Years of voter suppression actions that they concentrate on EVERY CYCLE.

Had we focused our blame RIGHTFULLY on the DNC and its Voter Integrity office after 2000 and 2002, instead of blaming Gore and Cleland for not fighting back the fraud - spmething they had no practical control over - it probably would have had a greater effect.

[deutsey]

214. I blame Kerry, Party short sightedness, in fighting, and cowardice

a bought-and-paid-for corporate media, a willfully ignorant and complacent and self-absorbed public, and, of course, the malevolent Mayberry Machiavelli's who exploit all this for their benefit and the wealthy elites they serve.

I lump Gore and Kerry in that mix...I don't know enough about how Cleland responded, although I know there were some very questionable things that happened in that election that were worth raising a fuss about (and I don't recall anyone but marginalized activists doing that, certainly no one in the Party).

And yes, I volunteer as an election judge in addition to having run a local campaign, among other things, so I do more than just post gripes here on DU.

[blm]

216. You don't believe in machine fraud?

I'm surprised at that. I thought after RFK's article and Princeton study that most here DID believe the fraud happened.

[deutsey]

230. I'm not sure where you got that...

I believe machine fraud would fall under the "Mayberry Machiavelli" part of my email...

I also became an election judge because of the 2000 fraud.

:shrug:

I'm just saying I also fault the rest for either doing nothing or not enough to expose the fraud.

[blm]

233. True - but it needed to be done BEFORE election day. The Princeton study,

just as Jonathan Winer pointed out last year, said the fraud is UNTRACEABLE after the vote because they're set up for onetime use.

Kerry trusted the DNC had been covering that area because, hey, this was post 2000 and this was a DNC that even had a separate voter integrity division on top of things, right?

I know - it makes me want to clutch my stomach, too.

[calimary]

158. Ummm... a little late, John. The time to kick the swifties' ass was

IMMEDIATELY AFTER their shit started coming out of their mouths. ALL he'd have to do is call a news conference straight away, while the issue was fresh and red hot, and the press would have responded. It would have been irresistable. He'd have gotten free coverage. Instead, he sat there and let it fester without saying peep. And that means NO press releases issued, online or anywhere else. FUCK THAT. The people you need to reach don't read, or don't have the time to go search it out. ALSO: his VOLUNTEER (read: FREE) minions could have figured up some guerrilla-theater stuff to go hound the swifties at every one of THEIR news conferences, the way Holy Joe was hounded by that car with The Kiss that showed up at every one of his appearances. It would have gotten him MORE free publicity. Christ - who did he have running his campaign for him? A post (as in dumb as a...)?

IF you think creatively, you don't necessarily always need mass quantities of money.

[karynnj]

166. There are at least 5 posts up thread with the

link to the reseach forum thread on what Kerry did do - including speaking out himself. The fact is that the truth was in the records as they were 35 years earlier. Remember even Nixon conceded he was a war hero.

The problem was not SBVT new conferences - it was the media giving it credibility by letting the liars talk about it every day for week after week after week. Note that FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON couldn't get lies off the tv either. (In his case it was one channel for 2 nights - easier than what Kerry, who was just introducing himself to the country, had to deal with.

[Generator]

161. Kerry said ASS in public?

Oh, Hillary you are dead in the water for 2008.

[karynnj]

167. I doubt this shocked anyone in Massachusetts

[Keepontruking]

175. Kerry

Wrong wrong wrong....you can't keep it simple and direct when
you are fighting against dirty big time
corporations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Circus girl

[doctor_garth]

187. meet the next president?

of what, The Skull & Bones Has-beens Association?

Don't make me laugh! In fact, I am already laughing, look:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

189. Ah the old clueless RW talking point: Skull & Bones

You needed one onf these in 2004:

[doctor_garth]

202. get your little head out of the sand

since when have Amy Goodman, Democracy Now and CommonDreams.Org been spreading old clueless RW talking point??

Skull & Bones: The Secret Society That Unites John Kerry and President Bush

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm

A little-known fact unites Democratic frontrunner John Kerry and President Bush: they are both members of Yale's secret society Skull and Bones. We speak with the author of "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power" that reveals details about the secret society and its members.

The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away and Howard Dean's status as the frontrunner has almost totally dissipated. The latest Boston Herald poll now shows that John Kerry holds a 10 point lead - a major surge for the Massachusetts Senator. Still reeling from his victory in Iowa, Kerry is starting to act like the frontrunner, shifting his focus from comparing himself to the other Democrats to putting his record up against President George W. Bush, saying he is the only candidate who can beat Bush and who represents a real difference from the current occupant of the White House.

But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any of the other candidates. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University - Skull and Bones. This fact has not been widely reported but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry."

[ProSense]

206. Obviously

she was trying to get the Democrats elected! :sarcasm:

Did Dennis Kucinich Sell Out Anti-War Democrat (Is Kucinich Skull and Bones too?)
http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2004071510.html

Mark Crispin Miller: “Kerry Told Me He Now Thinks the Election Was Stolen”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532222

As Vote Scandals Continue to Emerge Could John Kerry 'Un-concede?'
http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/299.php

Shouldn't they be doing shows about how Kerry threw the election?

At least I know who has credibility!

[doctor_garth]

211. Amy Goodman has more credibility

than Kerry, you and I combined.

Randi Rhodes, a very pro-Democrat hostess, had her on just a few days ago. Even Randi Rhodes thinks that John Kerry is a self-serving, calculating and scheming politician who thought not of the nation, but of himself when he conceded the election without fighting like a real man.

on edit: and which is it with Kerry? Does he think the election was stolen or not? If so, why doesn't he come out like a MAN and say it in front of the microphones? Why is he so scared? Why is he so afraid of Bush? If only Kerry had 10% of the courage Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has.

[ProSense]

215. More inaccuracies!

Here, listen to Rhandi Rhodes:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/JKRandiRhodes0406.mp3


You can't put words in Kerry's mouth, listen to his comments: here and here

[doctor_garth]

218. I heard Randi

and I stand by what I said.

What Kerry says is irrelevant, what he DOES is what matters. He conceded. He voted to give Bush war powers. Case closed.

[datasuspect]

232. and they BOTH can trace their bloodlines to european royalty

[WinkyDink]

190. Nope, can't buy it. Kerry had ample TV time to combat the SBL.

was he totally not campaigning? 'Cause I saw him in person.

John Kerry has been saying too little, too late. And now he just sounds weak.

And that is actually the crux of the matter. Post all the "evidence" that JK said this or that, defending his record.

THAT was the PROBLEM: being DEFENSIVE. Kerry should have risen up in righteous anger and LOUDLY---actually, as in "stentorian"---ATTACKED THESE LIARS as though they were his decades-old enemy, for they WERE the enemy.

Kerry is too patrician for his own electoral good.

[ProSense]

191. Not campaigning?

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

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."

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).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

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-bc0e-904bcc95946c&.

Text:

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 Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

[WinkyDink]

194. It was sarcasm. As in, he needed to ATTACK. This "I'm not going to let

anyone attack..." yada, yada, all said in perfectly modulated tones, with a hang-dog expression (Kerry's natural one), was simply WEAK.

The fact of the matter is, JK could not escape his vote. You know which vote.

[ProSense]

195. Oh, now it's that vote!

How lame! The vote had nothing to with it. The vote didn't stop him from getting the votes of those who opposed you know what! You know who is responsible, so go complain about you know who!

Geez!

[ima_sinnic]

192. why doesn't he go on the offensive for a change instead of waiting

for them to "swift boat" him? he's "got the goods" on BFEE from a couple of decades ago, doesn't he? I am under the impression that he investigated all aspects of BCCI and has evidence of their criminal enterprises. why the (*&#% doesn't he put that out there in no undertain terms, relentlessly? let THEM go on the defensive for a change. I waited all through the 2004 campaign for him to do this. John, you mean well, you just have to stop being such a "gentleman"! smear those goons FIRST! (only in this case it wouldn't be a "smear," because it would be the truth)

[ProSense]

193. That's why

the Patriot Project and VoteVets.org were established -- to expose the swift liars and the GOP propaganda!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2826167&mesg_id=2826167

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2826979&mesg_id=2826979

[blm]

224. You can't find 3 name Dems in DC who would back him up on BCCI.

Read Clinton's book. He never even mentions BCCI.

Clintonites were NEVER going to bring up BCCI or back Kerry up on it - there was no way to explain Clinton closing the books on it and then closing AGAIN the books on Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning.

Most of the Dem party infrastructure between 2000 and 2004 was made up of Clinton loyalists.

[LibraLiz1973]

209. Oh! So now it was the $. Ok then. NOT

Too little, too late.

[derby378]

212. Color me unimpressed...

Whatever happened to the John Kerry of the 1970s?

[stepnw1f]

213. Wow... Just Look at DUers Bashing One of the Strongest Senators We Have

Interesting.... whenever a strong Democrat speaks up, we have a shit load of people here to tear them down. Thanks blm for debunking all the bullshit regarding what happened after and during the election.

Attack the victim mentality is really telling. I advise those who are so pissed at Kerry to run for office and shut the fuck up, especially if you don't know what you are talking about. We have the GOP and their trolls to fight against, while pile on your shit too?

[Bucky]

219. With all due respect, I think people's gripe with Kerry isn't his strength

There's a wide spread consensus that Kerry didn't hit back hard enough at the Swifties the first time out--a lesson of history that Bill Clinton taught all of us in his heavily smeared run in 1992 and 96. Kerry acted like he was above it--which obviously he is, but which a candidate can't afford to act like in the day of full conservative media control.

He was naive in thinking decency matters. But he was naive against the warnings of many people in the party not to be too delicate or too dignified to fight against a smear campaign from day one. He didn't put enough resources into countering the widely anticipated voter fraud campaigns in Ohio and Florida. He fought fair in a crooked game, but didn't spend any time at all attacking the cheating coming from the other side.

Ultimately, I don't think the swifties mattered that much. In military terms, they were skirmishers--expendable troops sent out front before the real battle not to damage the enemy, but to confuse the battlefield and throw the enemy off their plan. He was right to see them as a distraction, but wrong to think that they shouldn't be put down hard.

Please don't confuse people's frustrations with Kerry's patrician style with personal ingratitude. He did the best he could in 2004. It's just a shame that that wasn't enough.

[blm]

221. He won - and if the Dem party infrastructure Terry McAuliffe was in charge

of for 4 years had done its job countering GOP vote stealing tactics, the party would have been strong enough to get the votes secured.

I do respect your tone, though, Bucky. It has a levelness to it that most don't.

[stepnw1f]

223. Thanks blm....

for opening up my eyes... I almost bought into the anti-Kerry shit!

[CarlVK]

228. Terry McAuliffe is and was no friend to real Democrats. I agree.

And that's a good point to bring up. It's one of the reasons I'm thankful that that idiot is out of the picture and Dr. Dean is doing some cleaning up and reshaping of the Party.

[stepnw1f]

222. This isn't Time for Griping

we are about to lose our democracy for good! We need to be united. Griping is not going to help us regain seats in Congress this November....

Besides... I think a lot of the info as why he didn't do what people wanted is a lot of Rovian spin, not based on fact as blm has pointed out often enough for others to read... interestingly, they dismiss it all and return with the same nonsense over and over. At first, I would have agreed with many griping, but as I too read more, I realized his efforts during the 2004 election were being misconstrued deliberately, to make it seem as if he had lost the election because "he did not do enough". Well, that's a lie! But everyone keeps repeating that lie and I'm sick of it!

People on DU are being played like fools....

[Bucky]

225. "People on DU are being played like fools..." --Sorry, no sale

"We need to be united."

I don't buy this. If Kerry supporters can't handle the relatively tame criticism he gets on this site, how are they gonna stand up for their guy if he gets nominated again?


"I think a lot of the info as why he didn't do what people wanted is a lot of Rovian spin, not based on fact."

My criticism of Kerry is my own... and not inspired by the words of Karl Rove. It really is starting to sound like you think the right way to be a Democrat is to button up and accept Kerry's renomination. I distinctly recall many times hearing wild assed Republican attacks on him and wondering "why are they letting that slide?"



"his efforts during the 2004 election were being misconstrued deliberately, to make it seem as if he had lost the election because "he did not do enough"."

He did not do enough. As the 2004 nominee, he was (and is still) the official leader of our party. I like it when he speaks out against the administration's disasters. But when the election was on and dozens of sources were screaming "look out for the election fraud" he didn't confront the matter and he didn't act to prevent the fraud. I honestly don't know if the thefts were enough to cost him the election. But if he had acted before the fact then, I'd cut him a little more slack now about saying he'll do 2004 differently if he gets a second chance.

As it is, I find his assertions today a little hollow and I genuinely think we have several other, stronger, candidates to nominate. That doesn't make me a fool, Stepnw1f. If you want respect for your opinions about your political ideas and choices, I advise you to show the same toward others.

[stepnw1f]

229. I'm Not Selling Bucky!

Keep bashing good people. Go for it and see where it gets the party as a whole. Nothing for sale...

[Independent_Liberal]

217. Thank you Kerry!

Not only do you have to kick some swift boat ass, you need to all your fellow Dems to kick their asses as well!

:patriot:

[lynne]

220. Sigh . . . Guess he needed two years to prepare.

[fujiyama]

235. Didn't he accept federal matching funds?

Isn't that what partly restricted him from airing ads during August?

Next time the candidate should know not to do that. They shouldn't have any restrictions. No more bullshit and candidates have to be smart from the begining.

I like Kerry, believed then and still believe he would have made a great president, but he didn't fight dirty. He didn't take them on hard enough.