Ok. Can you name such a group, created to oppose a single out-of-state Senator, based on the personal testimony of the group members?
Okay, I’m not taking sides, mostly because I don’t know enough to take a side, but I do have a couple of questions:
ElvisL1ves, perhaps the reason why Kerry’s Senate campaign was off the “out-rage radar” (to use Human Action’s term) insofar as his fellow Vets were concerned is because they didn’t know he was running for the Senate in another state. Maybe? And if a national group of Pubs could’ve convinced them to lie about Kerry’s record, why couldn’t have a group of Pubs within Mass. convinced them to do the same way back when?
Also, I’m not sure that all of your quotes respond to Debaser’s question about what did Lonsdale lie about. For instance, you cite:
None of the “then” and “now” statements strike me as mutually exclusive. Being a “good naval officer” isn’t the same as being fit to lead a nation is it? If leading a nation is what Lonsdale had in mind, and I don’t know if that’s what he meant or not, than it’s entirely possible for him to compliment Kerry’s leadership abilities within a military context and still cast doubt on his ability to lead within a political context without being a liar. Granted, he’d be speaking ambiguously, and he’d probably also be wrong (as my guess is good military leaders probably are also good political leaders in most cases), but being ambiguous and being wrong don’t equate to lying do they?
Also regarding your examples of possible lies from Lonsdale, saying that Kerry had courage and was part of a winning war effort isn’t the same as saying that he was fit to lead a nation, is it?
I’m not arguing that Lonsdale didn’t lie about Kerry. I’m just saying that the particular passage that I just quoted doesn’t strike me, at present, as examples of lying. But perhaps you can change my mind.
Really Not All That Bright, I’ve enjoyed your exchange with John Mace on fairness in politics. You said:
I think there’s a difference between what’s fair and what’s ethical. Fair, to me, just means an eye for an eye approach, or identical reciprocation if you prefer. But that still doesn’t mean an eye for an eye approach is ethical, fair as it is. So, if it’s the case that Dems were “just as bad” about spreading shit about Pubs (and I realize how controversial that “if” is), then yeah I’d say that this smear campaign was fair. But it would still be unethical, because it’s a smear campaign. That’s just my take on fairness, and to each their own.
To all: sounds like Kerry got a raw deal and that this shouldn’t have been an issue.
Why does it matter if they oppose just one senate candidate? I’m not sure why this is important.
I don’t find “lack of action when he was running for the Senate” to be particularly convincing about anything. I might find a bit surprising if Kerry was from one of the states listed by Debaser, above. But MA?
Whether they were a “front group” or not doesn’t really matter to me. The only thing that matters is the truth of their message, and fact-checking showed them to be largely liars or, at best, truth-twisters. How they ended up sending out that message is of little importance compared tot he message itself. I don’t get bent out of shape just because some mean ol’ Republicans are funding something. I worry about the substance of that “something”.
ISTM that the “front group” argument is self-defeating, in that it’s arguing that it must be a front group from the fact that it was never active in Kerry’s senate campaigns, while simultaneously arguing that senate campaigns also attract outside groups trying to influence the results.
Because that’s what the SBVfT would have been had they formed prior to 2004. It’s been suggested that, since the group came into existence after Kerry had been a Senator for some time, this itself is evidence of their dishonesty/partisanship/lack of conviction/something. I submit that forming such a group around a Senator is much more difficult than forming one around a presidential candidate. There’s less interest from potential members who don’t live in that state, obviously; less national interest; less funding, unless the Senator is considered vulnerable, which Kerry wasn’t; less media attention; less of everything needed.
First of all, you are offering a post on the Democratic Underground as a cite? That’s just a message board, and one that doesn’t allow conservative posters at all that might challenge the liberal nature of the board.
Your next cite is the one that’s already been posted several times to this thread. It’s been noted a couple times now that it doesn’t say what you seem to think it does. It reaches at finding flip flops but doesn’t really get there.
Lastly, I’m not paying the NYTimes money, so I don’t know what that cite says.
Why don’t you try being specific. Post something that one of the vets said that is inconsistent with something they earlier said. Or just give up and retract. That would certainly be easier.
In addition, the book that ostensibly got them all riled up was likely either published or publicized as a result of the presidential candidacy. It doesn’t strike me as implausible that they read unflattering depictions of themselves and (honestly or otherwise) decide to strike back.
Budget Player Cadet is the one who brought up this hijack. I would argue that it is:
-
Incorrect. It’s just not true, and he and Elvis can’t back it up.
-
A hijack. As John Mace points out it really doesn’t matter who they are. It’s the merit of their claims that’s important.
In any case, the fact that there weren’t groups with outside funding attacking Kerry while he was a Senator as there was when he was a Presidential candidate is hardly noteworthy. It’s certainly not an indicator of any kinds of conspiracy or whatever it is that Budget Player Cadet and Elvis are trying to imply.
Agreed. Those hoofbeats we are hearing are horses, not invisible pink unicorns.
It’s a silly hijack.
I think they’re trying to imply that those mean ol’ Republicans kick-started a group that might have gotten going on its own. To which I say: BFD. It’s the message that matters, not the guy who bought the paper that the message was written on.
You know, if you’re not going to click my links (the very first one is an example of exactly what you’re asking for, with citation), then I’m not going to bother.
Getting past all the personal bullshit in the thread so far, I get the sense people think the Swiftboating against Kerry in 2004 was somehow a response to his “Ready for duty” shtick. You’d get that impression, anyway.
To ensure the record is straight, that is not the case. Swiftboating attacks began months BEFORE the DNC and Kerry’s “Ready for duty” line. They kicked it off with a press conference on May 4; the convention was in late July. The book “Unfit for Command” was released in August, so it was obviously in the works long before the convention. To a large extent that line was a response to Swiftboating, not the other way around.
That’s helpful to know. I, too, thought that Kerry’s comments about his military service preceded the Swiftboating against him.
Btw, I just searched for “Unfit for Command” at Amazon, and I discovered that it has an unusually high number of negative reviews, even for a political book. The negative review that really speaks truth to power is from a copied-and-pasted article from the Wall Street Journal that was written by a guy who’s both a Republican and a veteran who served alongside Kerry. The first line reads, “John Kerry saved my life.” The guy goes on to say that even though he’s a Republican he’s still pissed about this character assassination. Here’s an excerpt:
And…
Thanks, RickJay for mentioning this book. Its reviews at Amazon summed up this scandal nicely for me. Looks like establishment Republicans were horrified at what was happening to Kerry, and the fringe was mobilized because of it.
I’m already on record here stating that it didn’t change my vote … Louis Farrakhan was still the best man for the job.
Kerry received about the same popular vote as Gore … though I can’t imagine the Nader block swinging to George LXIII. So let’s call that 2.5% in Kerry’s block, meaning 2.5% Gore voters voted for Georgie. Yes, assuming the Swiftboat affair was the only reason, we’re still not talking about a major shift. If there were other reasons, then the Swiftboat affair had even less to do with the election outcome.
Look at what people are posting here, and think “they vote too” … I’m ready to bend my knee to Queen Elizabeth II, letting the common classes vote is a big mistake.
Those things are completely inconsistent with each other. Flail away.
Your own damn cite says Corsi’s book was what “inspired” Hoffman. IOW, where it started was not where you say it started, as you have shown us all.
Sticking with that to the bitter end, I see.
Scroll up.
Keep flailing.
Really? :dubious: I mean, really?
Kerry was one of the most prominent members of the Senate, and had been for many years. Maybe you weren’t old enough to know that.
They could have tried, sure. But it wouldn’t have helped their goal of defeating a Democrat, no matter his demonstrated courage and record and decorations. Only when that became possible did they find the sense of “honor” that let them lie about and denounce a better man than they could ever dream of being, never mind that many of them were previously on record as having said the opposite.
Now, you tell us: Why, if they were telling the truth or even mostly the truth, did they not come out for Kerry’s election as LG or his first one as Senator, when Vietnam memories were fresh and VVAW resentments were still raw? Got any ideas what took 'em so long?
(No return of Republican investment in Massachusetts?)
Er…where? The “inspiration” was the Brinkley book. I’ll quote the relevant section again:
Corsi and “Unfit For Command” are mentioned exactly twice:
…so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’d be a neat trick if Corsi’s book could have inspired Hoffman, when the meetings he organized about Kerry were in April, and the Corsi book came out in August.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Sticking with that to the bitter end, I see.
[/quote]
What can I say? I’ve never been easily persuaded by “nu uh!”
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Scroll up.
[/quote]
Very helpful. You mean this?
Because that’s innuendo, not argument.
If you can actually name a comparable organization, please do so. There might well be some. A smug dismissal isn’t an argument.
Point taken.
Actually, no.