|
Edited on Tue Jun-28-11 02:28 AM by karynnj
The difference was the 2004 media was NOT the media of 1992 - and neither is the current media. (In 2008, the mainstream media sided with the Democrats, countering Fox and talk radio's RW echo chamber to some degree. For 2012, the media may be worse than 2004, but at least Obama as President will have more of a platform to get his message out than Kerry had.)
Kerry campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)
That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright?
Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.
It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:
he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.
He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.
He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.
He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.
The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.
Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.
In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when the facts are not totally in your favor (as with Clinton) that the candidate would try anything different. When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.
One other difference is that Clinton's goal in every case was to spike a negative story. In Kerry's case it was far more complicated. Both his actions fighting the war and fighting to end the war are things that he is rightfully proud of. Last December, I went with several DU JK people to a Boston celebration of Kerry's 45 years of service. Near the end, 8 or so of the men who were in Kerry's crew in Vietnam surprised him - it seemed with help from Teresa or others. One of them spoke for the group. It was very clear that they love the guy and it is mutual. For those on the boat when Kerry earned his silver star, he very likely saved their lives. The SBVT attacked not just Kerry, but these men who stood with him - and that included every man - still living - who was with Kerry when he earned any medal.
The really pathetic thing is that the Navy record itself proved the liars to be liars. In addition, it answered many of the smears that Kerry has faced ever since the 1970s. The fitness reports for nearly every time period spoke of the unusual loyalty Kerry engendered from his subordinates. Enough so, that on the frigate he was on before the swiftboats, he was given some additional assignments to help some crew who were having trouble coping with things. Far from an aloof, elitist, it was clear he was a genuinely nice person. The NYT in one article described him as a social loner (which the journalist defended saying that it was her conclusion after speaking with 20 or so life long friends - because as we all know it is consistent that a "social loner" could at 60 have over 20 life long friends), but in Tour of Duty, one friend spoke of how it was Kerry's letters that kept the circle of Yale friends, some fighting and some not, all in contact.
The other thing the Clinton people, who after the loss, blamed Kerry for not hitting this harder, was that in 2004, Clinton was widely reported to have been loudly and publicly arguing that Kerry was speaking of Vietnam too much. Yet, of all the speeches at the convention, other than the minister who had been on Kerry's boat, including even Cleland's, the one who spoke of it the most was BILL CLINTON - with his "send me", that dealt mostly with Vietnam when speaking of Kerry. Good rhetoric, but given Clinton's history, it did not ring true as his real opinion - more useful would have been things Kerry did in the 1990s that helped Clinton. (It might, for instance, have helped if 90% of the credit given to opening Vietnam in Clinton's book were not given to McCain - with Kerry simply listed in the middle of a list of all the vets on KERRY's committee. McCain, in his book, gives Kerry credit for helping him through that time as well as very ablely leading that committee. Consider the book was in edit long after Clinton knew Kerry was the nominee.)
It would seem that Kerry responded more, it would have made it seem the issue was Vietnam - likely first the war record - which Kerry really did win in terms of most people who were winnable anyway. But, then it would have focused on his eloquent, honorable amazingly mature protesting the war. This would have made it even harder to get a message out - something the media was doing their best to keep him from doing as it was.
Imagine if Kerry had the media of 1992. Remember how the negative Bush convention with Buchanan and Marilyn Quayle backfired. Now think of how the media treated the nastier 2004 convention - with purple heart band aids. The 1992 media would have pushed the Republicans to disavow those band aids - and likely apologize to Kerry and all men who earned them. THAT would have ended the SBVT issue. (To add insult to injury, the outrage shown in the media was against Rather's story on Bush - which was likely pretty accurate - even though the document shown was fake - and I assume likely a Rove plant.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(250 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
