When I go to the SWIFT Boat Veterans for Trust site, I cannot get to the add. Does anyone have a URL for a direct link to the add?

K

Posted by: Ken at August 5, 2004 02:29 PM

I couldn't load it with Firefox. I had to use Internet Explorer to see it. They used Microsoft's proprietary .wmv format. I'm sure there's a plug-in, but why bother?

Posted by: lpdbw at August 5, 2004 02:35 PM

Here it is.

Posted by: alcibiades at August 5, 2004 02:38 PM

alcibiades:

Thanks, the www.swiftvets.com like works great.

I couldn't get http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html

to work in either Safari or IE.

K

Posted by: Ken at August 5, 2004 02:53 PM

er... the "link" works great.

I'm, like, so embarrassed!

K

Posted by: Ken at August 5, 2004 02:54 PM

Instapundit is riffing on apperently the DNC or Kerry, Inc is planning posssible legal action against the ad.

Do the words "Bring.... It.... On!..." sound familiar?

If they do, I'd say that opens the door to legally confronting F-911, does it not? Talk about blowback.

Posted by: Andrew X at August 5, 2004 03:40 PM

You MUST see the letter from lawyers for KerryEdwards and the DNC. Find it at

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html

Wow! Talk about trying to stifle free speech!

Posted by: Tropean at August 5, 2004 04:08 PM

If I may whore for a moment (in an appreciative way)--I was just Googling for a source to suggest some support for my impression that most military personnel just didn't care much for Kerry...and here I find you have come up with what I needed for my post.

Thank'ee.

Posted by: Ian Wood at August 5, 2004 04:17 PM

No, no, no.

Links are:

.MPEG here

Quick Time here,

Windows Media here,

Real Player here

Right now, they're busy switching over to faster servers, which is no doubt being expedited and paid for by Spaeth Communications, but there you are.

Posted by: Ian Wood at August 5, 2004 04:20 PM

Bush has been fortunate in his enemies (the same can be said of Clinton), and in his allies. The Swift Boat Vets were going to be active regardless of whatever BC '04 wanted. BC '04 feared backlash, of course.

But what did Bush's enemies do in response to the Swift Vets? Try to silence them through threats of a lawsuit. Good God, talk about a failing grade in PR 101. What would have been a blip soon forgotten is now a major negative story for Team Kerry.

I think I'll pop a cork tonight.

Posted by: jack white at August 5, 2004 04:25 PM

Yes. Encouraging. Using that logic then GW should send everybody to Iraq, then he'd win in a landslide.

Posted by: drew at August 5, 2004 04:38 PM

The question of untrustworthy news organizations keeps appearing in blogs, on the news channels, in magazines and newspapers. At first the report was that SOME folks were misled into perceiving bias where none existed. (Tut, tut those poor ignorant fools)

Then came Limbaugh/Radio followed by FOX and suddenly all those who were misled had a voice that spoke to them. The mainstream attacked Limbaugh/Radio with insults and disparagement of the audience. FOX was hit with biased reports, slander and threats of lawsuits.

The blogs have similarly been disparaged by the Mainstream Media as the diaries of moonbats wearing aluminum foil hats and seeing black helicopters everywhere. Yet, the power of blogging to reach people grows. More visitors appear each month.

The hunger for truth (a market) is being served. The question is why can't the Mainstream Media recognize its loss of trust and loss of market.

In a more perfect world, FOX would have slight differences with CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,CNBC, Al Jazzirra (sp?). They faces would be different and sets different but the news facts would be presented as unvarnished facts. Editorials would vary widely.

Blogs WOULD be simply online-diaries... Except for the betrayal of trust, arrogance, and ignorance of the MM.

People seek news they can trust so that they can make plans and act accordingly. When the news presentation is false then plans are false and actions wasted.

In a business sense, they had the market and blew it. They lost touch with the retail customer. They began presenting news for each other. The awards, praise and pandering to each other lost sight of US the American Reader.

An honest voice need not shout, need not hire lawyers to speak for it, need not make exaggerated claims to be heard. It simply takes an audience who is tired, frustrated, annoyed with the lying and spinning.

I know which candidate speaks the truth as he knows it. I know which one would not know the truth if he said it. There are some people who cannot lie and thare others who are so compromised that they do not know a lie or truth.

Posted by: Andy at August 5, 2004 06:04 PM

Does Kerry have anybody running his campaign strategy? What sense does it make to play up his military service when his strength is among non-military voters? Sure it's one of the few "advantages" Kerry has over Bush, but why use it to play to a weakness?

But he doesn't stop there...then by threatening legal action against the Swift Boat veterans he looks defensive and gives the appearance that his actions can't stand on their own merit against criticism.

Did Kerry accidentally hire Karl Rove after he fired his first campaign manager?

Posted by: Mike M at August 5, 2004 08:11 PM

If Sen. Kerry's actions before, during, or after Viet Nam wind up costing him at the polls, the Dems only have themselves to blame.

I've always believed there was a chance that Kerry's actions during that era had the potential to sink his candidacy. The reason being is that we all know the nation still bears scars from that era. That being the case, is it wise to choose a candidate that many believe helped cause the wounds in the first place? At the very least, many vets likley believe Kerry poured salt on the wounds with his post-combat statements. The Dems needed a pol with a Viet Nam record that more closely mirrors Sen. McCain, instead they nominated a vet version of Abbe Hoffman disguised as a taller Audie Murphy.

Obviously, only time will tell how this will play out.

Posted by: RandMan at August 5, 2004 09:56 PM

Thanks for heads up.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 5, 2004 10:53 PM

RAH was on to something when he designed a political system for Starship Troopers that limited voting to veterans.

Posted by: Smitty at August 6, 2004 01:19 AM

do you guys know where to find the "direct link" to:

The Kerry Iraq Documentary (in windows media format or quicktime)

and

Democrats Extreme Makeover video (in windows media format or quicktime)

http://www.gop.com/News/GOPTV.aspx

like the one Ian Wood gave, so that i can save it in my harddrive?

you can leave the answer here or contact me at my email address.

Posted by: john marzan at August 6, 2004 02:09 AM

Mike M:

It depends on what you believe the state is of American politics.

IF you assume (and I think the Kerry people did/do) that the nation really is divided between Red and Blue, with only a tiny smattering of undecideds, then how do you win? Depending simply on your own troops is not enough (because, even if they're over 50%, they may not be in the right places, given the workings of the Electoral College system).

So, you have to go for some cross-over votes. (This is part of the genius of the AMerican system, kudoes to the Founding Fathers.) Kerry, I suspect, is relying on war experience to try and garner support from:

Vets
Families of soldiers

The other thing is that these efforts have to be planned out weeks, if not months, in advance. Yesterday's economic figures were the first bad ones in months. But if you're Kerry's advisors, you look at the trend, and you probably concluded that the economy wouldn't tank (much), so using that as your core message isn't gonna help.

Posted by: Dean at August 6, 2004 08:16 AM

It's true candidates need to appeal to more than just their base, Dean, but there are way more non-military voters out there than military. Kerry's own base is also mostly anti-war. By pushing his service so heavily, he's turning off his own party, and risking insulting veterans who would probably appreciate a more solemn and genuine approach to Kerry's service. Even worse, Kerry is trying to be pro-military while at the same time trashing the mission and the Commander in Chief. That's way too thin a tightrope to be able to consistently walk.

Trying to beat Bush with the military is a noble attempt at political judo, but I seriously doubt that there are enough military-but-anti-Bush voters out there to make it worth it. He would do better if he chose a position, which judging from his rhetoric and voting lately seems to be anti-war, and convincing voters why they should follow him instead to pandering to all groups with contradictory half measures.

Short version: Kerry is failing because he flip-flops and refuses to take a hard line on any important issue. The war being primary. He's also campaigning to his weaknesses instead of his strengths.

Posted by: Mike M at August 6, 2004 08:50 AM

Well, there's more to it than this... Looking through this and other right-leaning sites, I see a lot of people (including, IIRC, our Noble Bartender) supporting Bush primarily (some people entirely) because of role of CinC in the War on Terror.

Not because of his domestic policies, not because of his environmental record, not because of the economy (it shows occasional signs of perking back up, but it's never been Bush's biggest selling point), but _strictly_ because he's been our War Leader. In short, Bush is becoming a single-issue candidate. As long as Bush continues to lean on his war record and 9/11 so heavily, that's all Kerry really needs to attack him on.

Posted by: legion at August 6, 2004 09:09 AM

Kerry can't win with the military approach. He isn't trusted by vets or active military, or by anyone connected with people in the active military.

In other words, if pushing the military is the only angle that allows Kerry to win, he has already lost.

Posted by: Fleming at August 6, 2004 09:54 AM

As long as Bush continues to lean on his war record and 9/11 so heavily, that's all Kerry really needs to attack him on.

Legion -- for many people, the WoT is more important than other issues. Who cares about universal health care, when major cities are being blown up with suitcase nukes?

And Kerry is attacking Bush as CinC -- by saying :

“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”

— John Kerry's remarks At The UNITY 2004 Conference, Washington, D.C., 8/5/04

I don't think he can reasonably attack Bush on this issue because he doesn't have a clue. Even in his acceptance speech, when he vowed to wait for an attack before "responding" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

For better or worse, the WoT issue is the big trump card. Since Kerry doesn't even want to acknowledge that we are at war, he can't exactly address the War on Terror.

Pity. Democracy needs at least two reasonable opponents to work. I don't see that happening this year. Or for the forseeable future.

Posted by: bkw at August 6, 2004 11:50 AM

Kerry's conduct before/during/after Vietnam would have absolutely no bearing on this election (and, barring treason, shouldn't have, in any event) had he and his enablers not pushed the Bush/AWOL issue and made what-happened-35-years-ago a front-and-center issue.

As Donald Sensing put it on his site:

"Senator, if it's Vietnam you want, it's Vietnam you get."

Posted by: furious_a at August 6, 2004 12:47 PM

This isn't an election, it's a Vote of Confidence in George Bush. The Democrats don't have so much a candidate as a scare-crow, defined only by what he's against.

It's easier to tear down than it is to build, but in the end what people want is to build up, not to tear down.

bkw - If Kerry wins, it will be business as usual until a city gets nuked. If Bush wins, the Left will go into final and complete meltdown, and the Democrats will be forced to ditch them or go down with them.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 7, 2004 04:13 AM