Time mag, and Kinsley are liars.
Posted on 06/13/2008 10:02:28 AM PDT by nikos1121
John McCain and Barack Obama are about to face a moral choice. It will probably be made in bits and pieces over the next five months, but we can imagine it as a single dramatic incident: the adviser approaches and says, "Yes or no. Do you want to swift-boat?" If you were the presidential candidate, what answer would you give?
Swift-boat is shorthand for the brilliant, despicable Republican campaign strategy in 2004 that turned John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a negative factor in his campaign. The phrase has become more broadly the term for a particular category of campaign tactics and has even become a verb. To "swift-boat" somebody is to use these tactics against him or her. If you remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign and don't see anything wrong with it--or if you believe it was the work of "independent" operatives unconnected to George W. Bush's campaign--I'm not going to waste precious space on the back page of a national newsmagazine arguing with you.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Kinsey has always, and will continue to be, a far left liberal ass.
“John Kerry’s honorable service...”
Bull. He was and is now a traitor.
That he is an elected Senator is a disgrace, and the people that elected him or even live in the same state should be ashamed of themselves.
Not this time, Michael. In the words of a prominent Democrat named Truman: "I don't give 'em hell. I tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell."
It wasn't a Republican campaign and nothing the Swift Boat vets said was ever refuted so Kerry's service is highly suspect and his post-Vietnam behavior was arguably treasonable.
I suggest that Kinsley knows this and is lying.
And oh by the way.....where is that release that he was going to sign for his service record. Dollars to doughnuts that he got a BCD or a Dishonorable Discharge. The one he likes to advertise was signed during the Carter administration.
LOL. It was so honorable that someone from the Harvard Law School admissions committee said he wasn't admitted because his less than honorable discharge would disqualify him from practicing law.
Again. John Kerry promised Tim Russert 38 months ago that he would release his original DD 214. He has never done so. Less than honorable perhaps?
And it was not a Republican dirty trick. The SBVFT was a bipartisan effort. It had nothing to do with partisan politics in terms of the motivation of the Swifties. It was about the country not the Rep party.
I hope they do. It will backfire. There is a big difference between being imprisoned for five years, and filming yourself looking like a dork for three months. One is easy to poke holes in. One is not.
Let me follow up that observation with the statement that McCain is a dips*@t, that is either dumb enough or cynical enough to push Al Gore's AWG agenda. Add in the fact that he can't tell the difference between the Grand Canyon and ANWR, and he gets my vote only because the alternative is so incredibly horrendous.
Don’t sweat this dweeb. It’s just Weasel Kinsley looking for a corner to pee in...
Editors: Please forward my comment to Michael Kinsley, author of this piece of incredibly biased journalism.
Michael: You may think the dishonor resides with the Swift Both Veterans for Truth. That is certainly your right.
In actuality, John Kerry or his campaign never refuted one allegation made by the Swift Boat Vets. The one thing he could do to refute their charges, release his entire Navy record by signing "Form 180" he has refused to do. This despite repeated calls by responsible journalists and partisans of both sides to do so.
John Kerry's problem was brought about by a mainstream media's refusal to look closely at his record, both of accomplishments in the political arena and his questionable claims of accomplishment in Vietnam. It was left to the Swift Boat Vets to pose appropriate questions about the latter. The fact that several of Kerry's superiors, as well as all but a few of his fellow Swift Boaters joined the effort was telling. Your effort to denigrate these brave men is beneath contempt.
A similar problem is about to reoccur in the current Presidential campaign. The mainstream press has steadfastly refused to pose legitimate questions about Barrack Obama's background - his associates, his early political activities in Chicago, his upbringing in Indonesia, his liberal record in the Senate.
America will not elect someone who conceals his background and history. In a man with a record of accomplishment as thin as Senator Obama's, it its crucial to know where he came from, who and what influenced him and the detail of policies will champion.
If the press does not fulfill its traditional role of vetting the candidates, you can fully expect the blogosphere to fill the gap - doing the job that the Swift Boat Vets did in 2004.
Hopefully your editors will no longer countenance your whining when you fail to do your job and some responsible group of individuals does it for you. I will proudly donate liberally to such a group, as I did to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Sincerely:
Probably did nothing mor than make me feel better, but that was enough.
I vote your post as "Turn of Phrase of the Day!"
Nice work....
My sentiments exactly. If every dollar I have donated to politicians was as effective as the money I gave to the Swift Boat Vets, this nation would not be in the mess it is in!!!
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week......
Yes!!!!!!
Hey, I feel better having posted this and all of you have made me feel better from your comments...
Thank you
Nikos
Dear Sirs:
In his recent article, “To Swift-Boat or Not,” Michael Kinsley asserted – without providing evidence – that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were part of President Bush’s re-election campaign. In fact, a comprehensive two-year Federal Election Commission investigation found that the group “did not unlawfully coordinate its activities… with any federal candidate or political party committee.”
Mr. Kinsley also labeled the Swift Vets “despicable” and accused the veterans of “fundamental dishonesty” – again, without any justification for such smears. In fact, the Swift Vets won the key debates in 2004, showing that John Kerry was not illegally ordered into Cambodia as he had repeatedly claimed, that some of his Vietnam injuries were accidently self-inflicted, and that his heroic “No Man Left Behind” story bore little resemblance to the event recalled by a dozen eyewitnesses. The veterans also successfully countered Kerry’s infamous 1971 claim that US troops had committed atrocities in Vietnam “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
Despite the best efforts of the Kerry campaign and its media supporters, many voters found the Swift Vets credible and their evaluation of John Kerry relevant. A key reason was the group’s ability to back its charges with evidence.
It’s an approach Mr. Kinsley might want to consider.
Scott Swett
Scott Swett is the primary author of To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry.
Excellent letter Scott... Thanks for the ping.
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.