Posted on 08/05/2004 2:31:25 PM PDT by Grig
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.
The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], 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" (emphasis added).
As their first piece of evidence of the ad's supposed lies, the DNC/Kerry lawyers claim that the veterans in the ad "purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam" but, "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." The problem is that none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat. They simply said they "served with John Kerry" -- and they did.
The letter goes on to make several more misleading statements about the advertisement, in an attempt to protect Kerry's "war hero" record. Read the full text below.
Exactly, they said they served *with* Kerry, not *under* him. Except the guy who says he was a gunner on Kerry's boat, but he is not in the add in question. He, Gardner, is on the website and has made radio appearances.
The fact the Party and the Candidate are coordinating their lawyers in order to control commercial appearnces of opposition smack of a violation of the CFR rules.
IOW it should have been seperate law firms or just one making the letter. Who is paying the lawyer fees? Are these fees being reported. If this is probono then is the value being reported as a campaign contribution?
I really appreciate your thoughtful and insightful clarification. I had thought you were talking about the SwiftVets coordinating with Bush/Cheney and that is simply not the case. These are men who are speaking on their own behalf and out of their own convictions. I think if they were approached by someone from the campaign their response would mimic Theresa Kerry - "Shove it."
Regards,
TS
I LOVE THAT AD
-PJ
Can't be done in a 60-second ad. Let the generals be known, and have the privates to back it up.
I never had the impression that this veteran was a doctor. I understood he provided medical treatment, like a physician's assistant or a paramedic in the non-military arena. I'm not sure of the correct military term, but I never thought-- and I don't think he ever stated-- that he was a doctor.
is there a transcript of the ad? I couldn't find one searching FR
Under the fairness doctrine they should show at least three minutes of Kerry testifying. :-)
Yep. Kerry is worried.
Not in the advertising business, are you? :>)
The first objective of any ad is to be seen! Or heard!
And a :30 ad is only one element in a campaign! Having gotten your attention (by getting "in your face"), there is now an opportunity to expand on the story. By appearing on talk shows and promoting the book.
The ad is generating an immense amount of free air play. Not only on conservative talk shows, but on network news.
Just as you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, it's virtually impossible to make an effective broadcast ad without offending somebody.
The ad is just the "teaser". Later ads, plus talk show appearances will bring out the "meat" and it's likely to be very red meat at that. :)
And Kerry has the nerve to refer to conservative protesters as "goons"? What would he call these intimidation tactics of his own?
I think it has escaped a lot of people that the guys in the video are, for the more part, people who are in the photo on the Kerry site.
You are exactly right. Kerry wanted to tout them as part of his "band of brothers" when it suited his purpose, but when they protest with the truth... he moves to shut them down. Doesn't that say it all? I also think it is significant that the opening of the advertisement begins with Edwards saying "if you want to know about John Kerry, ask the men who served with him" (or something to that effect). They tell you to "go ask" these men (whose photo, as you note, Kerry has used) and then when the men offer the truth... well, see what happens.
If the station truly has "an overrididng duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive adverising'" does that mean that they should refuse to air anything at all from the DNC?
And they can't stop the book from coming out..the back-orders are making it a best seller already.
This isn't going away and the Kerry camp is only raising it's visibility by over-reacting this way.
I already downloaded the ad and burned it on a CD. A guy at work took it home to play on his computer tonight. Everyone is going to see this ad.
The problem from their POV is that the people are entirely TOO credible. Notice how the letter never says that the doctor didn't TREAT Kerry, only that he didn't SIGN the papers and that he wasn't "his" doctor. Anyone who ever went to sick call knows that no one in the military has a regular doctor and that many times a doctor that didn't actually treat a service member will read the report and sign it.
For example, they letter proclaims that Louis Letson isn't Kerry's doctor and he isn't the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson never made either of those claims. He only says that he was the first one to treat Kerry.
The rest of the letter work similar lawyerly statements.
The ACLU would no doubt side with Kerry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.