Posted on 01/05/2008 10:26:45 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
More than three years after John Kerry's bitter defeat, at the dawn of what looks like a far more promising campaign cycle for the Democrats, the party is still haunted by the specter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Once upon a time, "Swift boat" denoted an obscure military vessel, but thanks to the activities of this group it has come to represent movement conservatism's penchant for ruthlessly (and effectively) smearing any and all political opponents, from a sitting senator and war hero to an 11-year-old boy with a cranial fracture.
Research by The Nation into Federal Election Commission records of the group's top twenty donors reveals that they've been remarkably active in this cycle, contributing and bundling nearly $200,000 to presidential candidates. This does not bode well. During the last presidential campaign, the wealthy backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--now rebranded as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth--didn't do their real dirty work until the general election, where as a tax-exempt 527 group they operated outside the restraints of direct campaign contributions. We may wish we were done with the Swift Boaters, but they aren't done with us.
In 2004 the top twenty donors all gave (with one exception) at least $50,000 to the group. The top three--Houston home builder Bob Perry, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaire drugstore impresario and investor Harold Simmons--gave a combined $9.5 million ($4.45 million, $3 million and $2 million, respectively). Calculating the influence of these and the slightly less wealthy Swift Boat donors during this cycle is a touch more complicated than simply adding up their contributions. Each one exerts far more influence as a bundler, given the federal restrictions on individual giving, which limit donors to a maximum of $4,600 per cycle. So The Nation looked not only at the contributions of the donors themselves but also at those of their family members and employees. It's an imperfect method, since some employees are clearly contributing of their own volition (such as one employee of a Simmons company who gave money to Hillary Clinton), but it gives a rough estimate of who's backing whom and to what extent.
The most notable recipient of Swift Boat largesse is John McCain, erstwhile front-runner and Stand Up Guy. When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them. But in pursuit of the GOP nomination, McCain ditched the mantle of maverick for that of hack, and his once-floundering, possibly rejuvenated campaign has been aided along the way by $61,650 from Swift Boat donors and their associates. "There is such a thing as dirty money," said Senator Kerry in a statement, after The Nation informed him of McCain's FEC records. "I'm surprised that the John McCain I knew who was smeared in 2000 and thought so-called Swift Boating was wrong in 2004 would feel comfortable taking their money after seeing the way it was used to hurt the veterans I know he loves." (McCain's office did not return calls for comment.)
McCain's Swift Boat bounty is exceeded only by that of Mitt Romney, who has raked in $70,550. Romney's success with Swift Boat donors is significant because he has surpassed even McCain in his demonstrated willingness to do or say anything in pursuit of the presidency and because he has emerged as the GOP establishment's favored candidate. Last year, when McCain held that position, the Arizona senator received significant backing from Swift Boat donors. But many have subsequently switched their allegiance. Pickens, who donated to McCain in June 2006, is now an enthusiastic Giuliani donor and fundraiser (Giuliani ranks third in Swift Boat funding, with $47,950). Perry, who also recorded several donations to McCain's PAC in 2005 and 2006, is now a major donor and fundraiser for Romney. If the list of top Swift Boat donors is expanded to fifty, Romney's fundraising edge is even more pronounced. (Neither Romney nor Giuliani's campaign returned calls for comment.)
Also noticeable among the recipients of Swift Boat largesse is one who received only a single donation: Mike Huckabee. Despite meager fundraising and little national name recognition, the former Arkansas governor has experienced a bubble-like expansion of support and media attention, taking the lead in Iowa and approaching a steady lead in national polls. But the lack of Swift Boat contributions lends credence to the claim that Huckabee is viewed warily by the money men who call the shots in the modern GOP. Despite proposing a radically regressive tax change and taking Grover Norquist's antitax pledge, he's been attacked savagely by the Club for Growth and eviscerated by columnist George Will for "comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs," among them "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate entities and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity."
This all supports the notion that the people behind the Swift Boat operation are chiefly concerned with the continued upward redistribution of wealth that is, more or less, the contemporary GOP's raison d'être. In 2006 Perry ponied up $5 million to start the Economic Freedom Fund, a 527 group devoted to attacking Democratic incumbents, and landed a large donation from prominent Swift Boat donor Carl Lindner. All of which is to say that the Swift Boaters aren't some kind of side show, a coterie of vicious mudslingers operating at the edges of respectability. They are the show. They are modern conservatism's core funders and beneficiaries. With conservatives staring straight into the abyss, their activities in this election cycle could very well make the Swift Boat smears look tame by comparison.
The Left puts Party before Country every time.
Even now they are forcing Kucinich to take the “loyalty oath” to support the Democrat nominee.
Actually that should be "Holiday in Cambodia" (pending approval from Dead Kennedys Inc.). Wouldn't want to upset the non-Christians on the Left who might want to take in Kerry's fantasy film of the holiday season.
Is this same iditorialist upset that Moveon (founded to push for censuring BJ Clinton and “moving on”) is still around?
I agree. These rats are a virulent new strain. They are determined to win at all costs. They want a radical remake of American society. I cannot understand why the public does not see the immorality and treachery of these rats.
The most important defense to an action for defamation (or libel) is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Oh, and John, sign the SF-180 for General release of your military records, and prove the Swifties wrong... if you can.
btt
.
Good post potlatch!
John Kerry-Kohn is keeping his head down these days
Yes he is.
That gif was one of those little ‘keep busy’ things!
.
Yes -
Those “keep busy things” you create
That get featured as the day’s graphic at “Strange Politics”!!!
Well, maybe I’m strange but I don’t necessarily consider that an honor. Someone submits each thing and usually as ‘their own’!!
.
Yup
I know what you mean!
No, you’re not as fussy about it as I am. I have been pinged [by someone] to sites where somebody else uploads my gifs without the name on it.
.
Maybe start adding a very tiny (Sandy) Burglar.gif to all graphics
I add a NAME, and I know my own creations, lol.
I didn't think anyone actually read The Nation! I thought graduate students carried it to make brownie points with the professorate.
They're still carrying torches for Saco and Vanzetti on Irving Place. The Venona files caused them the worst outbreak of cognitive dissonance since they found out Stalin had Trotsky killed. (That's OK, the Rosenbergs really were spies and traitors, as was Hiss, but they did if for the right reasons. Stalin was protecting the Revolution against facists. Some day there'll be erecting monuments to the Rosenbergs, just wait and see.)
From Wikipedia Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hayes_%28journalist%29
Hayes attended Brown University for his undergraduate education, where he received a B.A. in Philosophy. Previously, Hayes was Adjunct Professor of English at St. Augustine College in Chicago.
From 2006 through 2007, Hayes was a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute[2], and a Contributing Writer for The Nation. On November 1, 2007, The Nation named him as its Washington, D.C. Editor, replacing David Corn. He is also currently a Senior Editor at In These Times, a progressive monthly magazine based in Chicago. He has written extensively on issues central to the progressive community, including what ails the Democratic Party in the post-9/11 era[3], and how the labor movement is changing[4].
Hayes is also a regular contributor to the Chicago Reader, an independent weekly newspaper, where he covers local and national politics.
I knew it! :)
I bet someone like him probably entered himself into wikipedia, a monument to himself!
Some people can’t suppress their cheese ball selves. As an example, our neighbor many years past in Germany was a psychologist (I grew up as a USAF brat). They had a baby and when they came back their little kid was dressed in blue, my father immediately replied when seeing the little baby, “So what did you name her?” The psychologist replied, “How did you know?” Years later I figured that one out.
Thanks for the link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Christopher_Hayes_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
He even has the intellectual glasses! (Conjecture follows) People like this seldom deliver anything tangible. Of course they would say that scribbling some words to paper is something tangible. They exist in academia, politics, arts, entertainment, and in the media; in a bubble unattached from reality, where you live in a surreal world of abstract nonsense. It’s a world of contradictions, where it’s considered smart to say something scandalous, to be against the establishment, even if you’re part of it. He’s a person whose existence is based on word smiting things together like that opinion piece he wrote. It’s painful to read the editorial he wrote! It reeks of self absorbed pretentiousness, it’s indicative of a wimp who uses words to belittle and bully people. This type is physically too little, too slow, too weak, but uses his words to pound on people he claims are bad in his opinion not unlike the school bully, only in his little jock circle of academics and journalists he’s the stud. People like this often see themselves above others, but in reality they provide less to society than the trash man that picks up the carbon footprint they leave behind. The most productive moments these types usually have in their life are when they take out their own trash, do their laundry, or mow their lawn.
Then again, this guy might have been a boyscout, served as a volunteer fireman, helped raise his siblings, and worked in a paper mill in his early years, but I doubt it. That doesn't fit the profile of such men.
Ditto, and I’ve got a pile of “thank you” postcards to prove it.
I donated every payday, and was PROUD to be a part of it !!!
Most satisfaction I’ve ever gotten from donating to a cause.
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.
