vicariousparent

"Swift-Boating" is a political tactic whereby a candidate's reputation is smeared in a one-sided presentation (using biased media outlets) of negative 'interviews' that create issues that have absolutely no bearing on the current election.

By definition, 'swift boating' makes a claim that can neither be verified nor refuted- not unlike the sighting of a UFO.

Will we see it again? Absolutely. Will it work? I think less than last time.

Hondu

fundingfather:

George W. fought the Viet Cong right here on American soil courtesy to the strings his father pulled. Then, guess what, all the records were lost. This same guy who told Americans the BIG lie on Iraq, has costs our treasury big time and the blood of our troops are soaking the sands over there in vain. I got a great t-shirt that says 1/20/2009, End of an Error. Certainly fits Dubya.

fundingfather

"This same guy who told Americans the BIG lie on Iraq,"

Yet another example of something repeated often enough it takes on a sense of credibility amongst those who repeat it.

xiggi

Do we really know that "Swift-Boating ... worked? Wasn't the real problem that Kerry decided to run on a SINGLE platform that meant NOTHING to the american voters? After all, does this country treat its (truly) heroic politicians well?

Kerry decided that he could use a sketchy story about being a war hero to walk into the White House as opposed to let his 20+ years in the Senate stand for something. The reason why Kerry could not beat a badly bruised and unpopular Republican incumbent was he was even worse ... a politician who stood for nothing for decades and whose only "positive" amounted to pilot a boat under fire. And, on top ot it, that story was as valiant as the last Democrat President escapist dalliances in Europe or his wife's running for her life in Bosnia. A whole lot about nothing.

The Swift Boat stories should have meant nothing had the patrician Kerry been able to show a record of achievement worthy of the presidency. And thinking that he almost pulled it off speaks volume about the deep bias of the US voters.

Bullet

EVERYONE here has missed the point on the campaign by the Swift Boat Brotherhood to stand against Kerry's run for the Presidency. Did Kerry serve? Certainly, and the stories coming out will always be debated. Was he "under fire"? Did he "make up" his achievements to earn extra Purple Hearts? Was he truly in Cambodia for Xmas? Quite frankly, all minor points, and rather silly to argue. In fact, I speak for all the military members I know when we salute the fact that he DID go "over there" (unlike quite a few other politicians we can point fingers at who avioded that situation like a plague, and used any and all means available to them at the time to get out of it). No, he answered the call.

And if had stopped there, not ONE veteran would have given a hoot about how accurate his military record was. He was a brother in arms, who served his time. I little chiding for getting the facts confused, certainly. But we would have let it slide, he would have been one of us.

But the real issue that EVERY VIETNAM VETERAN I have met and spoken to, every veteran of every conflict before and since tha I have had theprivilege to serve with and meet, found what he did UPON HIS RETURN distasteful, disengenious, and down-right against his own brotherhood. His lies to Congress about the"atrocities" he saw, commited, and supported "over there" only added to the image most Americans had of the Vietnam vet: a muderous brut, liar, and criminal only worthy of distrust and contempt. No, thank you John Kerry for trying to convince America that a generation of men who proudly served were somehow now equivilant to Charles Mason, and only a hair trigger away from "snapping" and eating the neighbors kids. His act of symbolically throwing his medals away had added symbolism to the Vietnam veterans who proudly served their country and came home to be spat on by their neighbors: he also threw away any chance he would ever have to be accepted as a brother by the rest of the veteran community (expcet for a few other bitter few who came back vehemently against the war, enough so to also lie about their expereinces to Congress).

As a veteran of Desert Storm, Northern Watch, and OIF, he gets a pass from me for serving his time; we honor that. But I will NEVER forgive him (and neither will the rest of the veterans I work with and know) for throwing the rest of his fellow brothers under the bus. No, you don't get to renounce your service, besmirch your brothers, trounce thier names, THEN get to claim your time as a "war hero". Not in our book.

To us, "Swift-boating" is not about the lying of some to bring an honorable man down. It's about the righteous "what goes around, comes around" of those few who couldn't stand to see the lying of the ONE not be brought to justice.

kluge

Thank you, Bullet. I think your commentary is valid, and on point. Kerry actually volunteered to go to Viet Nam - a point ignored by Fundingfather. He served, and was supported with regard to his service by all but one of the men who were with him on his boat during the war - including the Special Services officer whose life he saved, and who was smeared right along with Kerry by the Swifties. And I completely understand the reaction of veterans to Kerry's actions after his return from Viet Nam.

But the Swift Boat Veterans weren't satisfied to make their stand about what Kerry said after the war. They claimed to have "served with him in Viet Nam" - a claim which was fundamentally false. I satisfied myself by reviewing the Swifties website back in 2004, and with a review of the contemporaneous documentation (including the commendation of one of the Swifties for his own valor under fire on the day he later claimed there was no fire) that the Swifties were ready, willing and eager to lie about Kerry, and that they did so, taking calculated care to shut down accusations that were too conclusively disprovable. That's what cost them my respect. Hate the man if you like - but don't lie to hurt him, that just makes you, if anything, less honorable than the man you attack.

So, Bullet - don't forgive him. That's your prerogative and I respect that. But I don't respect those who lied, and claimed to have personal information about him in an attempt to harm him, like the Swifties did. That's just dishonorable. And the Swifties were dishonorable. In a real sense they validated Kerry's post-war statements, by their conduct. Have you considered that?

The ends don't justify the means - they just define the character of those who feel that they do. To me, that's the "point" of the Swift Boat story.

razorsharp

Another distortion by Kerry nuts. Kerry only "volunteered" because

The Harvard Crimson :: News :: John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress

In other words since Kerry knew he would be drafted, he went ahead and joined so it would look better.

And wasn't it dishonrable for Kerry to lie to the US Senate Committe on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971?

Was it dishonorable for Kerry to lie when he said Nixon illegally sent him to Cambodia when Nixon had not even been elected?

Funny, how you only seem to see dishonor if someone is attacking your candidate.

fundingfather

"They claimed to have "served with him in Viet Nam" - a claim which was fundamentally false."

Those that related their personal interaction with Kerry did indeed serve with him.

I disagree slightly with Bullet in terms of the motivation behind the Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Yes, they had a long-standing grievance about how Kerry threw them under the bus back in the war days. However, I don't think even this was sufficient to push them into activism. The straw that broke the camel's back was that Kerry based his campaign on his war hero status - something that those who served with him on the other Swift Boats knew to be blatantly false. For someone to have been so anti-military to now run for the role of Commander in Chief and base his campaign on false heroism was too much for them to take sitting down.

kluge

Apparently Razorsharp, you're a member of the "Two wrongs do too make a right!" brigade. And you can't even get your facts - facts documented in writing - right. On February 10, 1968, Kerry requested - in writing - to be sent to Viet Nam. He didn't have to. A lot of people - including George Bush - did whatever they could to avoid that after joining the service instead of waiting to be drafted.

Fundingfather - and yet the men who actually did serve with Kerry - the men who were actually with him on his small boat, the Special Services officer who was on Kerry's boat and whose life he saved - they all but one disagreed vehemently with the guys who served "with" Kerry by being on other boats in the same fleet. I agree that it was a bad decision to run on a military experience platform. But that doesn't excuse the Swifties lying about him. I understand that that sort of "anything goes, ends justify the means" politics of personal destruction is de rigeur among the right wing zealots - but that doesn't excuse anyone who participates in it.

fundingfather

"But that doesn't excuse the Swifties lying about him."

And your proof that they lied is what, counselor? The fact that their eye witness testimony differs from those who support your candidate? Too bad that the testimony of your guys flies in the face of all logic.

xiggi

Kluge, why is it so important to set the record of the Swift Boat or Kerry's service straight? Does it matter to anyone in the world why and how Kerry accepted his duty to go to Vietnam? Will you be so supportive of the role of war heroes when the presidential debate switches to John McCain v Obama?

Should we not retarget our attention (and visceral reactions, as you say) to today's developments? In a thread that is titled "Lights out for Clinton" should we not wonder if the day Obama catches Clinton in the number of super delegates won't be the day HRH realizes it's all over for 2008? Right now BO is in within ... a handful of Clinton, and is expected to jump ahead in all counts shortly. Trailing in the popular vote, the delegates, and the super delegates is hardly a recipe for success.

Inasmuch as I predicted that she would never agree to drop her campaign until the convention, I think that it has become a matter of hours as opposed to days. Looking at her future, it seems that W. Virginia will be the last opportunity to leave the race without ruining her future chances. After scoring a victory in WV, the pickings will be very slim and her chances to leave on a high note all but gone. Of course, she'll probably offer Obama the VP seat before leaving.

Time to buy a few candles has come. Let them be nice aromatic ones.

CelticClan07

ABC News: Two Firsts: Obama Leads in Superdelegate Tally, Hillary Uses Race Card

Obama now has the SuperD lead. +2 so far today pushes Obama to 267, HRC 266. One is a flip, one is previously uncommitted.

xiggi

For many Democrats, however, Conan O'Brien had it right.

kluge

Xiggi - for what it's worth, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Kerry in post 169. My issue with the Swifties isn't based on support of Kerry, it's based on revulsion at the tactics which are accepted in American politics today, and how people that I would like to think would step back from getting swept up in them get caught up in a mob mentality, urged on by the amoral mouthpieces of the right wing. I totally understand how Viet Nam vets would be opposed to Kerry due to his post-war activities, and offended that he used his war service as a campaign issue. But that doesn't excuse lying about him.

Sorry, FF, I've done my research. Some of the Swifties have just let their memories get polluted by manufactured stories - that happens. But some of them are flat out lying - and the guys who head the group know that. They carefully crafted the stories they let grow, and carefully quashed the ones where the countervailing proof was too good. My verdict is in. The Swifties were a cunningly manipulated group of men - the leaders are dishonest, and the followers should know better. They have dishonored themselves. I'd like to think that anyone who might be considered a recruit for similar tactics in the future should take that simple moral lesson to heart. The ends don't justify the means. If you participate in dishonorable methods to attack your opponents, you have tarred yourself.

fundingfather

"My verdict is in"

That's why we don't have a jury of one in this country - especially when the one has a motivation for bias.