John Kerry fought in Vietnam for (among other things) your right to freedom of speech. Thirty years later he's fighting to deny it. Glenn Reynolds has a full roundup.
Suzy Bird comments:
I'm no "lawyer," but it sure seems to me that the "lawyers for the Democratic National Convention and Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign," as quoted and described in this following article, aren't making much sense other than they assume they can intimidate at will for -- surprise -- "political gain" to use one of Kerry's and the DNC's favorite expressions.Thin skinned a bit, Mr. Kerry?There are a lot of ads and even opinions, much less "entertainment" (Michael Moore and moveon.org come to mind here) that many of the rest of us wouldn't mind writing to "station managers" across the country, "demanding" that the media not broadcast to the public, but a lot of us aren't "lawyers" and can't throw "demands" around like ears of corn.
Update: From The Boston Globe:
[A] key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.Regardless of the leaps of logic that will surely be attempted, that's all he retracted. There's plenty of other stuff that reflects negatively on Kerry, particularly his outright lie about a secret Christmas mission in Cambodia...
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (3)
It does seem as though the ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by McGehee | August 6, 2004 7:53 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It does seem as though the Hamstercrats examined a wide variety of possible responses and chose the one least likely to make them look sympathetic.
Pathetic, maybe, but not sympathetic.
1. Posted by McGehee | August 6, 2004 7:53 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 6, 2004 07:53
2. Posted by themarkman | August 6, 2004 2:12 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Didn't I read somewhere about Carville telling boosters during the convention to use intimidatoin tactics against the press?
Maybe this is just a continuation of the overall scheme.
Over at The American Prospect, the Prowler is reporting that Edwards is not getting anyone to show up at his photo-ops (he went into a local BBQ joint and no one was there), so he had his staff bring in the reporters and other staff members in order to give the impression that the place was packed.
A staffer said that the media didn't seem to mind doing that for him.
2. Posted by themarkman | August 6, 2004 2:12 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 6, 2004 14:12
3. Posted by -S- | August 6, 2004 9:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sweet renaming you gave me there...
~;-D
Oh, and there are now Swiftvet AFFIDAVITS!
The Swiftvets told their stories, the "lawyers," instead, are the liars, given their innaccurate (kind way of expressing, "their deceitful") allegations in their "warning" letter.
That is, the Swiftvets told their stories. And honestly, didn't misrepresent themselves, the whats and whyfores and whoseits, and it's the Kerry/DNC lawyers in their letter to the nationwide station managers, who actually "lie" about the Swiftvets.
Isn't it a "Lawyer 101" class level instruction, that you never ask someone to "testify" unless you already know their response? As in, these lawyers sure do fail the primary directive, which is to not look stupid but make whoever you accuse look stupid, instead.
Sorta mimics the failed "Filmmaker 101" directive by Michael Moore, though, that op/ed footage does not a documentary make.
So, at least the Kerry/Edwards/DNC/LiberalExcessInMedia is keeping their theme going.
Now we have the Springstein/Raitt/Mellencamp/et al. tours to ~look forward to~ as "non partisan" rhetoric. Will it never end?!?!
3. Posted by -S- | August 6, 2004 9:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 6, 2004 21:57