Kerry Called A Swift-vet

[jmarie]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE AUG 24, 2004 11:09:31 ET XXXXX

KERRY PHONES SWIFT BOAT FOES

**World Exclusive**

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry reached out to Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans.

Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking.

Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV.

The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE.

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.

Developing...

[mlr73]

"To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men."

--American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox

[jmarie]

"To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men."

My thought, EXACTLY!

[mlr73]

So, why all the hub-bub about John Kerry protesting the vietnam war? He's not a coward. He served his country. Just because he didn't agree with it, doesn't make him an unpatriotic or a bad person. My mom met a few soldiers in the airport a year or so ago who were on their way back to Iraq. They didn't want to go and they didn't think they should be there. But, they had to, it was their duty being in the military. Out of anyone in the world to disagree with a war, shouldn't a soldier, especially one who is fighting, have that first right?

----------
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

--- Colin Powell, My American Journey

[jmarie]

I guess because of all the "hub-bub" of the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry. I'm thinking they have something to say, too, that's all. Let Kerry brag all he wants, but when confronted about what he says...Don't whine and cry foul play, because "To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men." Don't you think?

[schuh]

Originally posted by mlr73
So, why all the hub-bub about John Kerry protesting the vietnam war? He's not a coward. He served his country. Just because he didn't agree with it, doesn't make him an unpatriotic or a bad person. My mom met a few soldiers in the airport a year or so ago who were on their way back to Iraq. They didn't want to go and they didn't think they should be there. But, they had to, it was their duty being in the military. Out of anyone in the world to disagree with a war, shouldn't a soldier, especially one who is fighting, have that first right?



Ditto. Many, many people, including soldiers, were against the Vietnam war. Disagreeing with a war isn't disrespectful to the soldiers fighting it -- especially if you've served in the trenches along with them.

[blazedog]

August 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST = NEW YORK TIMES

The Rambo Coalition
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.


But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.


One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.


How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.


After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.


As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.


It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.


All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.


The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"


Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.


Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.

[blazedog]

August 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST - NEW YORK TIMES

Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties
By MAUREEN DOWD

It's easy for the Bushes to stay gallant. They delegate the gutter.


There are always third-party political assassins, ostensibly independent, to do the dynasty wet work.


W.'s old pal and running partner, Lee Atwater, set up the Bush modus operandi: Lay in the weeds while craftily planting plausibly deniable surrogates to slice up your rival.


The New Yorker editor David Remnick, writing in Esquire in 1986, limned the 1980 Congressional race in South Carolina's Second District "between Atwater's man, Republican Floyd Spence, and a Faulknerian figure named Tom Turnipseed At one press briefing, Atwater planted a reporter who rose and said, 'We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment.' Atwater played it cool and refused to comment, but later told the reporters off the record, 'In college I understand he got hooked up to jumper cables.' "


Karl Rove is Atwater's protégé on jumper cable politics.


The weird thing is, given how transparently the Bushes play the game of staying above the fray even as their creepy-crawly surrogates do dishonorable and undignified things, their rivals always seem caught off guard when the third parties show up to rip their throats out.


The phlegmatic Michael Dukakis never knew what hit him with Mr. Atwater's Frankenstein monster Willie Horton coming at him in a third party scare ad and G.O.P. smear leaflets and letters.


John McCain should have known what was coming in South Carolina, but he acted stunned and hurt when he was hit with the Atwater/Rove mud treatment by shadowy Bush supporters.


Just as the Bush campaign dragged out fringe veteran surrogates in South Carolina to slime the former P.O.W. for being antiveteran, now the stomach-turning Swift boat attackers are sliming a war hero as a war criminal.


They started their vengeful and brazen campaign in May, after plotting since winter. But John Kerry is only now forcefully responding - though he should have had a response ready, since the Nixon tool John O'Neill has dogged him since '71.


Charging on Thursday that Mr. Bush wants the Swift boat sleazoids "to do his dirty work," Mr. Kerry reached for yet another Vietnam reference and water metaphor: "When you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack."


The Skipper would do well to get a swifter boat. How pathetic is it that he's playing defense on Vietnam when W. didn't even serve?


Bill Clinton implied two weeks ago that Mr. Kerry was acting sluggish. "Whenever they hit me, I hit 'em back," he told Jon Stewart. "And whenever they came up with a charge I didn't believe was true, I answered back."


Reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post last week made it clear that the vile Swift boaters have told wildly varying accounts, sometimes supportive of Mr. Kerry.


The Times revealed that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - is that like the administration's Clear Skies Act for spewing pollution? - has a trellis of ties to Karl Rove, the Bush family and Bush supporters. "A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice," Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg wrote. Indeed, it was the same woman who worked for a third party group that slimed Mr. McCain on the environment in the 2000 primaries.


And the group's ad was produced by the Dukakis tank ad wizards.


The Kerry camp knows the Swift boat snipers are hurting the Democrat and fears the Bush oppo campaign will soon move from tarnishing Mr. Kerry's war record to dwell on his days as a shaggy-haired antiwar spokesman. The White House must tear down his heroism before it can tear down his patriotism.


Meanwhile, the Bush crew is shamelessly doing to Mr. Kerry what it once did to Mr. McCain: suggesting that the decorated Vietnam vet has snakes in his head and a temperament problem. "Senator Kerry appears to have lost his cool," Scott McClellan told reporters in Crawford on Friday. And the Bush campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, said on CNN that Mr. Kerry looked "wild-eyed" responding to Swift boat muck.


It makes sense for W. to use surrogates to do his fighting, just as he did when he slid out of Vietnam and just as he did when he sent our troops to fight his administration's misbegotten vanity war in Iraq.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

[badunnin]

Originally posted by jmarie
I guess because of all the "hub-bub" of the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry. I'm thinking they have something to say, too, that's all. Let Kerry brag all he wants, but when confronted about what he says...Don't whine and cry foul play, because "To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men." Don't you think?


Or, to read it another way Joyce, John Kerry would have sinned by silence had he not protested what he saw in Vietnam, and by keeping quiet and not going before Congress, he would have been a coward.

[jmarie]

I don't think you can have someone as commander-in-chief of the United States that comes back and fabricates war crime charges against the people that he was there with and against everybody else. I just can't conceive that in a free democract that we would ever make someone like that the President of the United States, particularly after they admit that the charges they made were exaggerated, over the top, not true, and in fact, were total lies. John Oneill, One of the authors of the Swift Boat Veterans Book.


So, here is a guy who was there, who served with "Kerry and you call him a bold faced LIAR? You call the man who served for more that four months a LIAR???????????????????

A LIAR?????????
Give me a break! I would believe this man over JOHN KERRY any day.

[Kristilyn1]

I think it's very important to point out two things:

1. This is NOT about Kerry protesting the war. The swifties contend that he fabricated stories about his own record AND about atrocities that were committed.

2. These guys have been gunning for Kerry LONG before he became a candidate for President. It's very convenient to allege that these guys are some kind of attack dog team for the Bush camp but that is simply untrue. Unfortunately, since it's difficult to sort out the truth on this one, the Democrats are using the only defense they possibly can: trying to pin this on Bush and discredit the organization by claiming that they are simply a bunch of Bush supporters attacking Kerry. There is no evidence to support this claim. Personally, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these guys are earnest and believe what they are saying. It's up to the rest of us to do the same--decide for ourselves.

Kristi

[blazedog]

Originally posted by jmarie
John Oneill, One of the authors of the Swift Boat Veterans Book.


So, here is a guy who was there, who served with "Kerry and you call him a bold faced LIAR? You call the man who served for more that four months a LIAR???????????????????

A LIAR?????????
Give me a break! I would believe this man over JOHN KERRY any day.

Well based on everything I've read by reputable sources including the military's own records, yes.

And based solely on the short period of time I have looked at stuff on the section of the Board, jmarie, there is really nothing negative about John Kerry regardless of the source which you would not believe and scurry to broadcast.

If veracity and military service are at issue, dare I speak of missing military records, issues of non-attendence and using political connections to jump the line and get a safe berth far from danger in Vietnam. I am old enough to remember Vietnan vividly including the fact that eventually MOST of the country didn't support the war eventually including (as it turned out) McNamara himself. Unfortunately the War dragged on until 1974 until the last troops evacuated Saigon just ahead of the Viet Cong.

Again, let's try not to pollute the channels of communication anymore than they already are by focusing on side show issues which divert thouht from crucial issues such as the economy, terrorism, the environment, health care, education, decaying infra-struction instead of side show issues being used to deflect intelligent and honest debate.

[jmarie]

which divert thought from crucial issues such as the economy, terrorism, the environment, health care, education, decaying infra-struction instead of side show issues being used to deflect intelligent and honest debate.

Bush has been asking for this all along. But all Kerry has done is want to talk about his service record and how that makes him the man for commander-in-chief. I saw an interview where Bob Dole told Kerry that running as a VET didn't do anything to help him as a candidate and that Kerry was going to make a huge mistake if he referred to that fact too much.

People are upset because of all of the lies and innuendos concerning this Swift boat Stuff. This is not diverting from issues. Because of Kerry's own words, this has become an important issue. We have a lot of vets comparing Kerry to Gen. Benedict Arnold. This is a cause for concern in our country. We don't want a President, who, in the end, is going to sell us out.

That may not be important to you...but it is very important to me. Along with the issues of taxes. I do not want Kerry in office because his counterpart has already said that if the Democrats are elscted, they will roll back all of the tax cuts for the "COMMON GOOD." :rolleyes: Whose good? NOT MINE!

[RebeccaT]

As some one still trying to make up my mind about which candidate will be the best steward of my vote, I am finding all of this more than a little sickening. I have a TON of respect for John Kerry going to Vietnam. And I also have a lot of respect for his protest - he was there, and he was able to protest something he actually experienced.

But it makes me crazy that we are spending SO much time on events that happened 30+ years ago and actions that a man took when he was in his mid-20's. What about his actions since then? What about his record in the Senate? He's been there forever, there should be a lot to talk about. So why isn't Bush talking about it? THAT seems valid - talk about positions and votes and speeches on the Senate floor, George. Talk about stuff you disagree with, that you see differently. Convince me on those grounds, not on the grounds of events that eyewitnesses cannot agree on that took place in the blur of war in another country.

I will say, as long as we are posting editorials, that this one got me to thinking... the man who went to war is not the same as the man campaigning for president despite what EITHER candidate would have us believe...

August 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Vietnam Passion
By DAVID BROOKS

I'm launching a major investigation into whether the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization is being secretly financed by the Kerry campaign. For today that organization begins airing ads drawing attention to John Kerry's 1971 testimony against the Vietnam War.

If voters see that testimony, they will see a young man arguing passionately for a cause. They will see a young man willing to take risks and boldly state his beliefs. Whether they agree or not, they will see in John Kerry a man of conviction.

Many young people, who don't have an emotional investment in endlessly refighting the conflicts of the late 1960's, might take a look at that man and decide they like him. They might not realize that man no longer exists.

That conviction politician was still visible as late as the 1980's. When Senator Kerry opposed aid to the contras, or took on Oliver North, he did it with the same forthright fire.

But then in the early 1990's, things began to evolve. First, Kerry relied on his post-Vietnam convictions and ended up casting the vote against the first Iraq war that threatened his political future.

Then the political climate changed. Bill Clinton came to power and suddenly the old Vietnam-era liberalism was no longer in vogue. The future belonged to triangulating New Democrats. Then Newt Gingrich came in and the frame of debate shifted further to the right. John Kerry was now in a position to run for national office - and thus needed to be acceptable to a national constituency.

Kerry's speeches in the 1990's read nothing like that 1971 testimony. The passion is gone. The pompous prevaricator is in. You read them and you see a man so cautiously calculating not to put a foot wrong that he envelops himself in a fog of caveats and equivocations. You see a man losing the ability to think like a normal human being and starting instead to think like an embassy.

Tough decisions are evaded through the construction of pointless distinctions. Hard questions are verbosely straddled. Kerry issued statements endorsing the use of force in the Balkans so full of backdoor caveats you couldn't tell if he was coming or going. He delivered a tough-sounding speech on urban poverty filled with escape clauses he then exploited when the criticism came.

Most people take a certain pride in their own opinions. They feel attached to them as part of who they are. But Kerry can be coldly detached from his views, willing to use, flip or hide them depending on the exigencies of the moment.

For example, on Aug. 1, Kerry told George Stephanopoulos: "I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just [in Iraq] but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."

When Bush went ahead and outlined a plan along those lines, Kerry blasted the president, saying it was reckless to embrace the idea he had endorsed two weeks before.

Even more psychologically corrosive is Kerry's continual suppression of sincere belief. Almost every American has a view about whether this Iraq war is worthwhile or a big mistake - except John Kerry. He's both called himself an antiwar candidate and said he would even today vote for the war resolution. He's either lost the ability to make a clear decision on this central issue, or he thinks it would be imprudent to express a view.

Even on vital, personal matters, he radiates an air of calculated positioning. He now declares that marriage is between a man and a woman, but does anybody think he actually believes this? He's said life begins at conception, but has he ever acted on this profound belief?

All this is odd for a person who is such a child of the 1960's. "Authenticity" was such a big concept then. Nobody would accuse the current John Kerry of that. In fact, the Democratic convention dwelt obsessively on the period in his life when Kerry was authentic, so it could evade the last 20 years of rising inautheticity.

In short, he's not the flaming liberal the Republicans sometimes try to portray. He's not flaming anything. If today's Kerry had been called before that 1971 Senate committee, he would have prudently told the throngs that he was for the goals of the war but against the implementation, for the idea but against the timing, for the troops but against this nuance and that nuance and the other one.

Nobody accomplishes much in politics without consuming ambitions, but sometimes they are changed along the way.

[mlr73]

Originally posted by jmarie
So, here is a guy who was there, who served with "Kerry and you call him a bold faced LIAR? You call the man who served for more that four months a LIAR???????????????????

A LIAR?????????
Give me a break! I would believe this man over JOHN KERRY any day.


I wouldn't necessarily call him a liar, but I might question whether or not he's telling the truth. I've seen a guy on CNN (I'm sorry, but I can't recall his name) who did serve with John Kerry. He was on the boat with John Kerry. He said that the guys in the Swift Boat commercials were not on the boat with John Kerry or were only there for a short time. Now, why should I believe John O'Neil over this guy?

The fact of the matter is, John Kerry had every right, especially being a soldier who fought in Vietnam, to speak out against the injustices he felt at the time. Vietnam, as is any war I'm sure, was a time of great duress for everyone involved. It was and still is a very emotional thing. He had and still has every right to speak out against it. He was there! Bush wasn't. Bush was probably off drinking and snorting cocaine somewhere, even though his military records might say otherwise...Oh, wait! His military records were "accidentally destroyed." How convenient.

Also, the bottom line is that this whole Vietnam thing has nothing to do with this election. It should just be dropped. For the Bush administration to not step up and say, "hey, this isn't the issue, let's focus on the real issues and get back on track of this campaign" just goes to show that Bush and his administration have no issues to stand on. They have nothing to bring to the table. If they did, they wouldn't let this whole Vietnam, swift boat crap get in the way of the campaign. They're riding on the coat tails of the swift boat ads. They want to win the election by any cheap means necessary, not based on the real issues at hand. The Bush administration is afraid that, if these ads are stopped, they will be in BIG trouble.

[blazedog]

Originally posted by jmarie


Along with the issues of taxes. I do not want Kerry in office because his counterpart has already said that if the Democrats are elscted, they will roll back all of the tax cuts for the "COMMON GOOD." :rolleyes: Whose good? NOT MINE!

Well if you're talking issues, your statement regarding taxes is incorrect unless your income is in excess of $150,000 or so in which case, you have every right to vote your class interest:) However, taxes would not be raised on most people who earn more modest incomes. Kerry has also proposed some interesting tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in America versus our current system if which companies can create a fictional headquarters off shore and pay no taxes.

Very criical to me is that the current administration is running up record deficits -- sorry but one can't have it both ways -- if one wants to spend, one has to take the hard steps of funding that spending.

[Grace]

Originally posted by mlr73



For the Bush administration to not step up and say, "hey, this isn't the issue, let's focus on the real issues and get back on track of this campaign" just goes to show that Bush and his administration have no issues to stand on. They have nothing to bring to the table. If they did, they wouldn't let this whole Vietnam, swift boat crap get in the way of the campaign. They're riding on the coat tails of the swift boat ads. They want to win the election by any cheap means necessary, not based on the real issues at hand. The Bush administration is afraid that, if these ads are stopped, they will be in BIG trouble.

Wow, you really haven't done your homework on this one. Bush DID come out and denounce the ads. He called for an end to ALL the negative ads on both sides. And he applauded Kerry's military record. Here's the quote:

Asked directly whether his Democratic rival for the presidency had lied, Bush said, ``I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.''

Here's a link to a whole article on the subject that Jessica actually posted the other day:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4943265.html

And to say that they have nothing to bring to the table is simply not true. Because you haven't spent any time researching the topic, or actually listening to GW's speeches or going to his website to read about them doesn't mean they don't exist. It sounds to me like you've chosen to listen to the left-wing talking heads who want you to believe that rather than finding out for yourself whether or not that's true.

And your post says to me (by insinuation) that you are convinced that the Bush campaign sponsored the ads. There is not one shred of proof of that. Just like Kerry probably didn't sponsor Fahrenheit 911. There are people that support Bush that do things on their own, just like people who support Kerry do things on THEIR own. Kerry couldn't stop Fahrenheit 911 or the moveon.org website anymore than Bush can stop the Swiftboat ads. This is a free country and there actually are people like George Soros or Michael Moore or these Swift boat guys who go out and do their own thing. The president has no power to stop anyone since we live in a country that guarantees free speech. And again, Bush DID say publicly that he wants the ads to stop, that he thinks Kerry's military record is admirable and that they did not sponsor the ads. So until I get proof that Bush or his actual campaign had a hand in it (not just a group that supports him, because, as an example, I support him, but my church and I could put together let's say a local tv or radio spot or billboard or whatever that points out negative things about Kerry - it doesn't mean that Bush or his campaign endorses it or funded it even though we are Bush supporters), I am not going to criticize GW anymore than I would criticize Kerry for Fahrenheit 911.

And lastly, just in case you have difficulty finding where to look for Bush's campaign issues, here's a link directly to his website that outlines the big ones:

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/

I'm not trying to get you to vote for him or to agree with his stance on the issues or anything like that. But if you're going to make big statements like "Bush and his administration have no issues to stand on" or that they were somehow in favor of or behind the Swift boat ads, then you need to back all that up with facts.

I actually believe the opposite of you - I believe that Kerry is the one who continues to pound on this issue - he's not spending one ounce of time in the recent speeches I've heard talking about HIS plans - all he does is point the finger at Bush over and over and over again. If he REALLY wants to talk about issues, he could. But instead all I hear from his is how Bush is such a bad guy for trying to make him look bad with the Swift boat ads. Sounds to me like HE'S the one deflecting because HE doesn't have anything to say on real issues. He even went so far as to put together a last minute TV ad that blasts Bush on the Swift boat thing. Why bother? Why not put an ad out about the issues instead? So it really does work both ways.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by blazedog


Well if you're talking issues, your statement regarding taxes is incorrect unless your income is in excess of $150,000 or so in which case, you have every right to vote your class interest:) However, taxes would not be raised on most people who earn more modest incomes. Kerry has also proposed some interesting tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in America versus our current system if which companies can create a fictional headquarters off shore and pay no taxes.

You might want to double check your statement:

http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/2004/pr-Kerry-8-13-04.htm

Surprise! John Kerry Plans Clinton Style Tax Hikes
Candidate provides further evidence his plan is to impose across the board increases just like those in 1993.

WASHINGTON - After campaigning for over a year on a promise to raise taxes on only the "rich,” John Kerry has finally made his plans crystal clear yesterday; he wants to stick middle class Americans with a huge tax hike.

In a speech yesterday, Kerry told his audience that he plans to follow Bill Clinton’s model and do, “the same thing that we set out to do in 1993, and I was there and I voted for it, I know how we did it.”
They “did it” with the largest tax increase in American history.

"President Bush fought to give American Taxpayers the relief they needed,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “John Kerry wants to turn around, destroy those cuts, and slam the American people with a huge Clinton style tax hike.”

John Kerry voted twice in 1993 for Bill Clinton’s tax bill, which the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called the “biggest tax increase in history.” The legislation hit the middle class hard, increasing the marginal tax rates for those making between $30,000 and $100,000 per year and raising taxes on gasoline and social security. Kerry said that he is “proud to have supported and voted for (Clinton's) economic plan.”

"John Kerry has repeatedly misled the American People by saying he only wants to raise taxes on the rich,” continued Norquist. “Yesterday’s statement demonstrates Kerry has every intention of implementing an across-the-board tax hike that will sting the middle class and working families nationwide.”

On July 31, 2003, Kerry claimed on MSNBC’s Hardball that "We Democrats…balanced the budget…without raising taxes on middle class Americans." Kerry’s claim contradicts his 1993 speech on the floor of the Senate, when he said, “I wish that we did not need to raise taxes (on the middle class), but …this budget cannot be balanced without increasing taxes.” Kerry apparently has a problem with telling the truth about both his record on tax increases and his intentions to raise them in the future.


Just another example of Mr Flip-Flop!

[jmarie]

On Monday morning, a day after former Sen. Bob Dole questioned Mr. Kerry's Purple Hearts on CNN, Mr. Kerry called the former Republican presidential candidate.

"There's respect there. We were in the Senate together," Mr. Dole told interviewer Wolf Blitzer on Monday. "But we're talking about the presidential race, and I tweaked him a little on the Purple Hearts."

And on Sunday, Mr. Kerry called Robert Brant, one of the members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
A source associated with the veterans group and familiar with the 10-minute conversation said Mr. Kerry asked whether Mr. Brant knew about the group. When Mr. Brant said he was part of it, there was "kind of a silence" on the line before Mr. Kerry continued the conversation.

The source said Swift Boat Veterans is considering sending a cease-and-desist letter to Mr. Kerry asking him not to contact their members anymore because it might be a violation of campaign-finance laws.

Even the SWIFT Boat Veterans know it is against the law for the President OR his running mate to have any contact with the 527 groups. And yet, we have Kerry phoning these Vets?

KERRY can have no contact with Moveon.org. And BUSH can have no contact with Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry.

My husband and I work very hard for the money we made. Long HARD hours that a lot of people wouldn't even consider. So, yes, I guess we WILL vote our interest, since we are tired of having to give away so much of our income....And we even make a lot of charitable contributions. I was SHOCKED to learn we have a LOT more than our RICH friend, KERRY. God is Great...God is good...Now, I hope I'm understood. AMEN :D
Joyce

[Kay Henderson]

What a thoughtful debate in this thread. I always look forward to seeing the points of view of members who post.

Like some of you, the thing I find most troubling about the swift boat brouhaha is that it is diverting us from considering the characters of the now middle-aged candidates, their beliefs and proposals for the future.

Instead, whether looking at Bush's National Guard experience or Kerry's Vietnam service and subsequent anti-war activity, we are looking back to the actions of very young adults.

BOTH men have lived their subsequent lives responsibly and have served honorably in public service. They have legitimate and real differences in their beliefs and intent, both domestically and with regard to foreign affairs in general and the war against terror in particular.

I sincerely hope that the debate over events in Vietnam a generation ago is just a dog days of summer phenomenon, and that after Labor Day, we will return to looking at what needs to be done to meet the challenges of the future.

Kay

[sneezles]

Originally posted by RebeccaT
What about his record in the Senate? He's been there forever, there should be a lot to talk about.

Truthfully, there's not much in his voting record to discuss since he rarely votes:

John Kerry's Voting Record (http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?%E2%8C%A9=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1)

[DmOrtega]

Originally posted by sneezles
Truthfully, there's not much in his voting record to discuss since he rarely votes:

John Kerry's Voting Record (http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?%E2%8C%A9=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1)

Would you be so kind and post a link for G. Bush? TIA.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by DmOrtega


Would you be so kind and post a link for G. Bush? TIA.

George W Bush was never a member of the Senate so a record does not exist.

[DmOrtega]

You're right. Thanks.

[blazedog]

Below is a list of the candidates' stance on crucial issues compiled by MSNBC, Reuters and AP -- sources which I trust most people accept as credible:)

  MSNBC.com

Bush vs. Kerry at a glance
How Republican, Democrat stand on key issues
MSNBC

Here's a quick look at where Sen. John Kerry and President Bush stand on the central issues in the race for the White House.

In their own words
Kerry: "I'm running for President to make the country we love safer, stronger, and more secure. I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again committed to leaving no American behind."
Bush: “My campaign is going to take a hopeful and optimistic message to the American people. I hope you will show your support by taking action in your community. Vice President Cheney and I are focused on the nation's top priorities -- strengthening the economy, protecting the homeland, and winning the war on terror. We will continue to earn the confidence of the American people by working to keep this nation prosperous, strong and secure.”

Abortion
Bush: Would only support it in cases of rape or incest or when a woman’s life is endangered. He signed bill to ban a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion.
Kerry: Is a staunch pro-choice advocate and would nominate only Supreme Court justices who support abortion rights. He voted against partial-birth ban. Kerry also believes that the government should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage.

Budget
Bush:  Approved record deficits in a time of recession, war, terrorism and tax cuts. Budget in surplus when Bush took office; $521 billion deficit is projected this year. Budget plan for 2005 says annual deficits can be cut by half in five years. Bush proposes that Congress limit discretionary spending in programs outside defense and homeland security to a 0.5 percent increase next year.
Kerry: Cut deficit by half, at least, in first term, in part through repeal of Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans.

Death penalty
Bush: Supports.
Kerry: Opposes “other than in cases of real international and domestic terrorism.”

Education
Bush: Championed a bipartisan overhaul of elementary and secondary education that toughened standards for teachers, schools and student achievement. Federal spending on education has jumped nearly 50 percent since Bush took office.
Kerry: Would establish $3.2 billion community service plan for high school students that would qualify them for the equivalent of their states’ four-year public college tuition if they perform two years of national service. Provide a tax credit for every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition. Credit would provide 100 percent of the first $1,000 and 50 percent on the rest. Opposes private-school vouchers. Backed Bush overhaul but says too much emphasis is placed on tests for measuring student achievement; additional factors, such as attendance and parental satisfaction, should be considered.

Energy and environment
Bush: Bush, who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, believes the threat of global warming should be addressed through new economic growth and efficiency. He also favors oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and backs legislation that would seek to reduce air pollution and acid rain by offering major polluters access to market-based incentives to reduce harmful emissions.
Kerry: Kerry favors U.S. participation in an international climate change program to curb global warming and would cut mercury emissions by American utilities and plants. To encourage more renewable energy sources, Kerry wants to create a renewable energy trust fund to reduce oil consumption by 2 million barrels per day, which is roughly the amount imported from the Middle East. Kerry also backed Senate legislation to impose stricter mileage standards on gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and automobiles.

Foreign policy
Bush: After straining relations with major European allies and the United Nations over war in Iraq, Bush has shifted his foreign policy focus to the spread of democracy by pushing a Greater Middle East Initiative that would aim to resolve the region’s political, economic and social problems through democratic reform. The president, criticized for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is also pursuing a policy that seeks to unravel the black market in nuclear components and block programs in North Korea and Iran, countries he has labeled an “axis of evil” along with prewar Iraq.
Kerry: While insisting he would never cede U.S. security to any other nation and would use force when required, Kerry envisions “a new era of alliances” to replace what he sees as the White House’s go-it-alone approach to foreign policy. He has pledged to restore diplomacy as a tool of U.S. foreign policy, treat the United Nations as a “full partner” and pursue collective security arrangements. His inner circle of foreign policy advisers features prominent Democratic veterans, including some figures from the Clinton days.

Gay marriage
Bush: Proposes constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Has continued former President Clinton’s policy allowing gays to serve in military if they are not open about their homosexuality.
Kerry: Opposes gay marriage but also opposes constitutional amendment against it; supports right to civil unions. Would ban job discrimination against homosexuals, extend hate-crime protections to gays, and let gays serve openly in the military.

Guns
Bush: Favors granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits, but that measure failed in the Senate. Has said he supports extending ban on assault-type weapons that expires in September and requiring background checks at gun shows, but has backed delays in acting on those steps. Criticized Clinton for weak enforcement of existing gun laws, but prosecution of people who lie on background checks has continued to lag.
Kerry: Supports extending ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. Opposes granting immunity to gun makers.

Health care
Bush: Number of Americans without health insurance has risen in his presidency, reaching 43.6 million in 2002, up from 41.2 million in 2001 and 39.8 million in 2000, according to Census Bureau. Has won passage of prescription drug benefit for older Americans that will subsidize costs for low-income patients and encourage private insurance companies to offer coverage for the elderly willing to opt out of traditional Medicare. Cost of drug benefit and other Medicare changes now estimated at $534 billion over 10 years, up from $395 billion when changes were debated. New tax-free medical savings accounts can be opened by people under 65 who meet certain conditions.
Kerry: Expand existing insurance system for federal employees to private citizens through tax credits and subsidies. Unemployed would get 75 percent tax credit to help pay for insurance. Tax credits for small businesses and their employees for health insurance. People aged 55 to 64 could buy into federal employees’ health plan at affordable price. Government would help companies and insurers pay an employee’s catastrophic medical costs if the firms would agree to hold down premiums. Federal support to expand access to state-administered health insurance for children. Overall costs estimated by outside analyst at $895 billion over 10 years, to cover 27 million more people. Also, require mandatory financing for veterans health care.

Homeland security
Bush: Sought and won the creation of the Homeland Security Department. His administration also pushed for creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center; launched the Container Security Initiative; boosted federal screening of airline passengers and baggage; and reorganized the FBI to improve its oversight of domestic terrorism. Wants Patriot Act renewed and strengthened. On the central recommendation of the the 9/11 Commission, the creation of a national intelligence director, Bush has suggested that he favors a national intelligence director with less than the full budgetary and hiring authority recommend by the panel.
Kerry: Voted for the Patriot Act. But he accuses the Bush administration of misusing it. Although he favors strengthening some parts of it, he favors eliminating other parts. Has endorsed all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations and urged Bush to act quickly on them.

Immigration
Bush: Proposes granting legal status to millions of illegal workers as well as people outside the United States who line up jobs in America. Plan would give temporary legal status and expand the current program for highly skilled foreign workers and farm labor to other sectors of the economy where jobs are not being filled by Americans. Opposes giving illegal immigrants an “automatic path to citizenship.”
Kerry: People who have been in the United States at least five years, paid taxes and “stayed out of trouble ought to be able to translate into an American citizen immediately.”

Iraq
Bush: Authorized by Congress, he oversaw a swift military victory followed by a violent aftermath in which the death count for U.S. soldiers is approaching 1,000. Won congressional approval of $87 billion for continued military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan and pushed plan for interim government to run country until it is replaced following national elections scheduled for January.
Kerry: Supported decision to go to war but now says he did so based on faulty U.S. intelligence. Opposed $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Social Security
Bush: Give younger workers the option of putting part of their payroll tax into personal retirement accounts, giving them a chance to make a higher return on that investment in return for smaller Social Security benefits.
Kerry: Opposes partial privatization of Social Security. Would require companies switching to cheaper lump-sum pension plans to offer retiring workers the choice of staying with traditional company pension.

Taxes
Bush: Has repeatedly called on Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, saying failure to do so would amount to a tax hike and threaten prospects for a robust economic recovery capable of generating new jobs. Congressional analysts say that making the tax cuts permanent would cost about $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
Kerry: Has called for repeal of the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, in order to pay for broad health care reform. However, he would retain the tax cuts for the middle class. He says he can halve the record half-trillion dollar budget by the end of one four-year term, even while spending $72 billion a year to extend health care to 27 million of the 40-plus million uninsured. His campaign has provided no details.

Trade
Bush: Is an avowed free trader, has embarked on a series of trade agreements with countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. But his administration has also faced charges of protectionism over steel tariffs that the World Trade Organization ruled illegal, and its reluctance to trim import barriers that protect U.S. sugar, dairy and beef industries.
Kerry: Has promised a 120-day review of all existing U.S. trade agreements upon taking office, and favors using the World Trade Organization to challenge China’s currency practices. He also has pressed for stronger labor and environmental language than Bush has required in growing collection of bilateral free trade agreements with countries around the world.
Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Grace]

That was most excellent. Thank you.

[MrsReber]

It was rather interesting. So many interesting points there.

Thanks for posting.

[jmarie]

Here is something interesting that I read on "Inside The Beltway", today.
Inside the Beltway August 25,2004

By John McCaslin

VC surfaces
A new four-legged angle — actually a dog named "VC" — has suddenly materialized surrounding Sen. John Kerry's swift boat service in Vietnam.

In a 2004 presidential candidate questionnaire for Humane USA, Mr. Kerry was asked whether any pets have had an impact on his life.

"I have always had pets in my life, and there are a few that I remember very fondly," Mr. Kerry replied. "When I was serving on a Swift Boat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC.

"One day as our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat," he continued. "After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action). Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog."

Said Mr. Kerry: "It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed, confused but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol."

J.J. Scheele, program director of Humane USA, confirmed yesterday that her organization did, in fact, receive the above statement from the Kerry campaign.

No military records on Mr. Kerry's Web site, which aides say is a complete accounting, mention a mine exploding under his boat or any dog. The only report of a mine detonating "near" Mr. Kerry's PCF 94 was March 13, 1969, when Mr. Kerry says he was injured and a man knocked overboard.

This guy is a wonderful story-teller. Perhaps if he is not elected yarn-weaver and maybe even tell stories at the Jonesborough, TN
story-telling event. :D
Joyce

[blazedog]

Just when I thought the discussion had finally turned into a discussion of the issues on which people of good faith can agree to disagree and have spirited intelligent discussion on the future of American and possibly world, jmarie attempts to turn back the discussion to what most people have requested an end to:confused:

[jmarie]

I thought the thread was about.....oops my bad. :rolleyes:

[mlr73]

Originally posted by Grace
The president has no power to stop anyone since we live in a country that guarantees free speech.

Sorry, but I disagree with your statement.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/99479.php

And, I never said that Bush was behind the swift boat ads. The only thing I was insinuating is that he could have done more to denounce those ads. I only said that he's riding on the coat tails of the swift boat ads - that's completely different.

With that said, I respectfully agree to disagree with the Bush supporters. I am a strong Kerry supporter and I will do my part this coming November to elect him as our new president. And, I am respectfully bowing out of this discussion.

[Basil87]

fyi, refer to the all cap text below:

FROM www.ew.com:

Jon Stewart gets first post-DNC Kerry interview. The candidate and the ''Daily Show'' host poke fun at the recent attacks on the Democrat's Vietnam service record by Gary Susman

It was all about Johns on ''The Daily Show'' Tuesday night. John Kerry granted his first major interview since the Democrats nominated him for president to Jon Stewart, whose Comedy Central faux-news show was also the place where John Edwards, now Kerry's running mate, first announced his presidential aspirations. And during their chat, Kerry shared this offbeat bit of campaign lore: ''You'd be amazed the number of people who want to introduce themselves to you in the men's room,'' the senator said. ''It's the most bizarre part of this entire campaign.'' ''I'm gonna make a suggestion,'' Stewart responded. ''Secret Service, right at the door.''

Kerry managed to get in a few talking points about his campaign positions, and a few digs at his rival, President George W. Bush. But Stewart frequently turned the topic to the recent attacks on Kerry's Vietnam service record made by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. THOUGH EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATIONS BY SEVERAL MAJOR NEWSPAPERS HAVE LARGELY DISCREDITED THE GROUP'S ANTI-KERRY ALLEGATIONS, made in a book and TV ads, its members continue to make their accusations on cable news interview shows. As Stewart put it, ''I watch a lot of the cable news shows. So I understand that apparently you were never in Vietnam.'' Kerry laughed and replied, ''That's what I understand, too. But I'm trying to find out what happened.''

Stewart said he also learned from his steady diet of cable news that Kerry was the Senate's most liberal member, ''more liberal than Karl Marx, apparently,'' a charge Kerry denied. Asked by Stewart if he'd ever flip-flopped, Kerry said, ''I've flip-flopped, flop-flipped,'' but then turned that charge, that he frequently comes down on both sides of an issue, against the President, saying, ''It doesn't help you to be stubborn in the wrong decision.'' Kerry also denied a rumor about his wife, Heinz Foods heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry. ''Is it true that every time I use ketchup your wife gets a nickel?'' Stewart asked. ''Would that it were,'' Kerry said. ''But use the ketchup a lot anyway.''

(Posted:08/25/04)

[Kristilyn1]

WOW! The truth comes out on Jon Stewart's hard hitting news program!

In all seriousness, you don't find it odd at all that John Kerry chooses a lightweight show like this to defend himself against these guys?

Kristi

[mlynn]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1

In all seriousness, you don't find it odd at all that John Kerry chooses a lightweight show like this to defend himself against these guys?

Kristi

Sidestepping the whole Swift Boat issue (since I think it is a dead horse and anything I would say wouldn't change the opinion of people on either side of the debate) I believe Kerry chose the Jon Stewart show to appeal to a younger demographic and show a less formal side--similar to Clinton on the Arsenio Hall show and Bush on Letterman in past campaigns. There is an article about his strategy here (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E122%257E2358539,00.html) should anyone care to read it.

[kirkbyky]

Originally posted by Grace

...that you are convinced that the Bush campaign sponsored the ads. There is not one shred of proof of that...So until I get proof that Bush or his actual campaign had a hand in it (not just a group that supports him...they were somehow in favor of or behind the Swift boat ads, then you need to back all that up with facts...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1291074,00.html

(emphasis mine)

Adviser to Bush quits over ads

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Thursday August 26, 2004
The Guardian

The rancorous debate over John Kerry's Vietnam war record claimed a second victim within the Bush re-election team yesterday, when one of the campaign's top lawyers resigned. Benjamin Ginsberg stepped down as chief outside counsel after it emerged that he had advised the Vietnam veterans' group challenging Mr Kerry's account of his military service.

On Saturday Ken Cordier, a veteran who appears in one of the commercials, resigned from the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee.

"I cannot begin to express my sadness that my legal representations have become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election," Mr Ginsberg said in a letter to Mr Bush, adding that he had decided to resign so as not to "distract from the real issues".

Mr Ginsberg is a prominent Washington lawyer who played a leading role in the Florida election recount in 2000. His firm has received $256,000 from the current Bush campaign.

But it is his role as an unpaid legal adviser to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that led to his resignation. Under campaign finance rules, such groups cannot coordinate their activities with the candidates' campaigns. The Kerry camp claimsthe involvement of Mr Ginsberg is a violation of this code and adds legitimacy to the adverts.

Despite both sides' insistence that they wanted to shift the focus away from Mr Kerry's war record, the issue stayed in the spotlight yesterday. Max Cleland, the Vietnam veteran and former senator who introduced Mr Kerry at the Democratic convention, was due to arrive at Mr Bush's Texas ranch to deliver a letter calling on the president to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth commercials.


What!!??!! <gasp> It just can't be true! The President's administration would NEVER stoop so low!

:p
Kyle

[MrsReber]

However, we should note that Kerry's attorneys are also involved with 527 groups- or so I heard from the news, which another co-worker verified this morning.

[Grace]

Yes, Susan, exactly. It's not illegal, and doesn't guarantee any impropriety. I watched Mr. Ginsberg himself in an interview last night and he answered some very tough questions very directly. His resignation proves nothing at all, except that he's willing to stand up and take the heat.

And I guess the fact that Joe Sandler does the EXACT same thing for the democrats isn't important :rolleyes: Or maybe there are people who don't even know that fact.


Lawyer Quits Bush Campaign
Thursday, August 26, 2004
By Liza Porteus

WASHINGTON — A lawyer who advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search) resigned Wednesday from President Bush's re-election campaign.

Benjamin Ginsberg (search) disclosed Tuesday that he had been providing legal advice for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an unregulated independent political action, or "527," group that has been airing ads disputing some of John Kerry's (search) claims of heroism in the Vietnam War.

Kerry has accused the group of being a front for Bush's re-election effort.

The Bush campaign and the veterans' group have both said there is no coordination between them. Legal experts from both sides of the aisle agree that there is nothing wrong with a lawyer serving in both roles at once.

But on Wednesday, Ginsberg wrote Bush stating that while his actions were completely legal and no different than what Democratic lawyers have done for anti-Bush organizations, the imbroglio is taking too much focus away from substantial campaign issues.

"The choice in this election between your principled, decisive leadership and John Kerry's record of vacillation on the most important issues facing this nation deserves the undivided attention of our nation," Ginsberg wrote. "I am proud to have given legal advice to American military veterans and others who wish to add their views to the political debate.


"Unfortunately, this campaign has seen a stunning double standard emerge between the media's focus on the activities of 527s aligned with John Kerry and those opposed to him," Ginsberg continued.

Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot (search) released a statement calling Ginsberg a "friend, public servant and statesman" and saying, "For the past five years, he provided the president with first-rate campaign legal advice."

The Kerry camp seized on the resignation as one more sign, it alleges, that the White House is behind the Swift Boat ads.

"The sudden resignation of Bush's top lawyer doesn't end the extensive web of connections between George Bush and the group trying to smear John Kerry's military record," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill (search) said in a statement. "In fact, it only confirms the extent of those connections."

On Saturday, retired Col. Kenneth Cordier, who served as a volunteer on the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans steering committee, left the campaign after appearing in a Swift Boat Veterans ad.

Bush-Cheney re-election campaign spokesman Terry Holt stressed to FOX News that Ginsberg's move was purely to refocus attention on real issues and not a result of inappropriate activities.

"Ben clearly didn't want to be a distraction to the campaign," Holt said, noting that several legal advisers to Kerry's campaign also advise groups such as the anti-Bush political action group MoveOn.org and the Democratic National Committee.

"The coordination issue for the Democrats is pretty thorny, and I can't imagine the double standard that we face in this campaign because of this dust-up that Kerry's got himself into," Holt said.

Joe Sandler advises the DNC and MoveOn.org, and says there's nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once. The Kerry campaign also acknowledged Wednesday that Bob Bauer, a lawyer advising the campaign on voting rights, is part of the same team that advises America Coming Together, a Democratic 527.

"I think this is a case of selective outrage ... the premise is flawed that there was coordination" directly between the White House and Swift boat veterans, former White House aide Jim Bayless told FOX News.

"For the Kerry people to be almost rabid in their focus on this peripheral, pseudo-issue," he continued, "is, I guess, consistent with their proclivity to blur and distort and persuade a public that doesn't have the time to get into all the details."

When asked by FOX News whether Sandler or Bauer should step down as Ginsberg did, Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter responded: "There's nothing to step down from — they are not our attorneys ... but that's not what this is about."

"The issue is," Cutter said, "the White House has been saying it has nothing to do with it. Now we know that's not true."

Steve Murphy, a former campaign manager for Rep. Dick Gephardt, said "absolutely not" when asked if Sandler and Bauer should cut ties altogether from Kerry.

"The Kerry campaign's hypocrisy today embodies the worst of American politics," Bush-Cheney campaign Manager Ken Mehlman said in a statement. "The differences between President Bush's campaign of ideas — and commitment to keeping the campaign debate focused on ideas — and the Kerry campaign's unflinching commitment to the politics of personal destruction are disappointing but not surprising."

Kerry and his campaign have consistently been asked why they don't come out and publicly condemn all 527 groups instead of just the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and a clear-cut answer has not yet been given.

Instead, criticism is focused on Bush and why he won't call for the Swift Boat Veterans, specifically, to pull their ads from the airwaves.

Cleland Heads to Crawford

Meanwhile Wednesday, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland (search) went to the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, to deliver a letter to Bush, urging him to condemn the Swift Boat ads.

Cleland, a Democratic triple amputee from the Vietnam War (search), arrived in the Lone Star State with Jim Rassmann (search), the man who says he was pulled out of a river in Vietnam by Kerry, who ultimately saved his life. The letter is signed by nine U.S. senators who are also war veterans.

"As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination and publicly condemn it," the letter to Bush says.

Some politicos said small moves could be made to quell the storm raging over the Swift Boat ads.

"If someone makes an allegation about you, you answer with facts," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., told FOX News on Wednesday. "If he [Kerry] would just answer the questions raised by the Swift Boat characters, he would set to rest whatever the issue is."

Steve McMahon, a media consultant to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's presidential campaign, said the Swift Boat controversy could actually work in Kerry's favor.

"I think the longer this plays out, it's going to begin to backlash on President Bush," McMahon told FOX News. Kerry is "running against a guy who did everything he could to avoid service ... I think that contrast is going to become clear in the weeks ahead."

The letter comes as MoveOn.org launched 15 new ads taking aim at President Bush, telling voters, "don't get mad, get even." They feature celebrities like Matt Damon, Kevin Bacon, Martin Sheen and Rob Reiner.

Meanwhile, another 527 group, the Republican-leaning Progress for America Voter Fund (search), has raised $35 million to counter Democratic ads, and on Wednesday was launching commercials in Iowa and Wisconsin that attack Kerry's ad on national security, The New York Times reported.

On Tuesday, despite Bush's call to stop airing television ads blasting Kerry's war record, a spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said Tuesday it would continue its controversial campaign.

"We're not going to stop. We'd be doing this if John Kerry was a Republican," Van Odell, a Vietnam veteran and one of the leaders of the group, told "FOX and Friends."

"I don't know how freedom of speech could be bad for the system," Odell said. "We paid for that through our blood and service in Vietnam."

FOX News' Steve Centanni and Major Garrett contributed to this report.

[claire797]

Originally posted by Kristilyn1
WOW! The truth comes out on Jon Stewart's hard hitting news program!

In all seriousness, you don't find it odd at all that John Kerry chooses a lightweight show like this to defend himself against these guys?

Kristi

LOL! No kidding!

You've gotta love Jon Stewart, though. Maybe I'll write him in for my vote. ;).

[jmarie]

You've gotta love Jon Stewart, though. Maybe I'll write him in for my vote

That would be a better choice than Kerry.:(