The Seattle PI's lead political columnist, Joel Connelly, has ignored the substantive issues in our disputed governor's race ever since the election. He has had little critical to say about the King County elections office, which has admitted to breaking the state's laws. He isn't bothered by the fact that there are more votes than voters, not just in King County, but in the state as a whole. If he has made any attacks on King County executive Ron Sims, who is responsible for the elections office, I have missed them.
But he has had time to take nasty cracks at those who have tried to discuss them, as you can see here and here. And he has had time to give Governor Gregoire the kind of free political advice that one might expect from a paid consultant.
I haven't criticized Connelly much since his personal loss, but this is really too much. I have no trouble saying that sometimes Democrats are right when they criticize Republicans. But I can not imagine Joel Connelly saying that Republicans may have a point when they see flaws in this election, flaws that may be large enough to invalidate it. He is simply not willing to think about the question, or at least not write about it.
There is nothing terribly wrong about being a partisan hatchet man like James Carville — if you are working for a candidate or party. But it is not a good role for a newspaper columnist, not if they want to be taken seriously by anyone other than party hacks.
As I have mentioned on my own site from time to time, Connelly is poor at correcting errors. If he wants to be taken more seriously, he might start by admitting that "far right" is an inappropriate label for Sound Politics. And though it may be a compliment of sorts to call the founder of Sound Politics, "Stefan Sharansky", the name is actually "Stefan Sharkansky".
(Note to commenters: Connelly's blatant partisanship, and his reluctance to correct errors in his column, are aggravating, but please do not insult him personally. We want Connelly to move up to our level, not us to move down to his.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 14, 2005 06:49 AM | Email ThisYou can hear the same sort of thing on Dave Ross' show on KIRO. The dems in this state have always marched in lockstep; the current set of talking points is to mention (1) that there is no evidence of malicious intent behind the election results and (2) it's time to move forward with the "people's" business.
Because any deviations from the above 2 will be admitting a problem exists. And that's the last thing the dems want.
Posted by: Steve on January 14, 2005 07:00 AMThis is nothing new, nor is it surprising...It happens all over the country. It's the "Dan Rather thing" at the local level, and is the poison that infects all of the mainstrean media. I know people here in Port Orchard who cancelled their subscriptions to the Seattle Times and PI because of their coverage of the 2004 Presidential election. The example most clear is in the CBS Panel Report where they said there was no bias at CBS, but referred to the bloggers who exposed the truth as having a "conservative agenda." That shows a bias in the REPORT ITSELF...I just don't read the Seattle Times or PI, the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times at all, because of their bias and the reasons you stated. It's interesting that the front page of the Bremerton Sun has only articles from these papers, as well as the AP, which makes the Sun simply a mouth piece of their left-wing agenda. All this is simply why the alternative media contines to take a bigger and bigger share of where people go for their information.
Don
The P-I is simply '(P)athetically (I)ncompetent,'
Dan
(Sigh)...the man shows his total ignorance of FLorida 2000. Since I'm down here, I can tell you in a nutshell what he's talking about.
Miami-Dade (a Dem county that Gore won by about 25% more than Bush) tried to count some ballots outside of camera view. MEDIA (not just Republican) viewers protested...loudly. Miami-Dade elections workers relented, and allowed the observers. The supervisor of elections there (a Democrat named Leahy) felt that the county could not complete the recount by the day before Thanksgiving, and with the advice of the mayor, he ordered a "stop counting" decree. Miami-Dade sent the secretary of state their amended totals, and called it a day.
Liberal folklore reads that the "Republican mob" (which, again, included media members from the liberal newspapers) intimidated Miami-Dade into stopping the count. That would have been a felony, so where are the arrests? 911 calls? Calls to police or MDSD? Zero, to all of those. Leahy said (and I quote): "We simply didn't have enough time to hand-count all of the ballots in the time period." That would be the Florida Supreme Court-ordered time period, one which clearly violated entrenched state law.
Damn...I said "nutshell", didn't I? :)
Anyway, this bozo in your paper typifies most liberals in that he's still sore about 2000. Bush became the first president EVER to lost the popular vote the first time, yet get re-elected. He took my state this time by 350,000 votes (5%). Why this whining about FL 2000 still?
I guess FL 2000 was their blueprint for WA 2004: count 'til you win, even if you have to find some that (oops!) weren't there the first...or second...time.
Posted by: Jonathan in FL on January 14, 2005 07:16 AMThank you for your email regarding the governor’s race. Earlier this week I took an oath of office to uphold the laws of our state. In that capacity I voted yesterday to accept the election certification of the Secretary of State – a Republican – and the recommendation of all 39 county auditors in the state.
This was the closest statewide election in Washington’s history, and our process was tested as never before. The goal of our election system is to make sure that every legitimate vote is counted accurately, and if errors are made, that they are found and corrected. For that purpose state law allows a maximum of two recounts and gives county auditors leeway in recounting new ballots.
As you probably know, the State Supreme Court ruled in early December that, "…ballots are to be ‘retabulated’ only if they have been previously counted or tallied, subject to the provisions of RCW 29A.60.210." That left people with the false impression that no new ballots may be counted. The provisions upheld by the Court allow county canvassing boards to tabulate votes that were not canvassed in the first count. The key distinction is that errors should not be corrected on a state level, but rather by the individual county canvassing boards. In the end, at least six counties found ballots and added them to recount totals, including Chelan, King, Kittitas, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom.
Dino Rossi has decided to pursue a different outcome in court rather than persuade the Legislature of the validity of his case. That is his right, but due to the "Separation of Powers Clause" in both the Washington State and United States Constitutions, I cannot intervene in Rossi’s lawsuit. He made a clear choice to sidestep the Legislature and make his case a legal one in the courts. The final decision resides with the courts, just as it did in the 2000 presidential election, and I will abide by their decision.
I've included links to what I found to be helpful information. The first two are from Secretary of State Sam Reed's website outlining the case. The latter three are links to Eastern Washington newspapers that endorsed Dino Rossi and closely reflect my opinion on the situation. Please review those materials, and if you have any further questions, feel free to call my office directly at 360-786-7946 or the toll-free legislative hotline at 1-800-562-6000.
Thanks again for your email.
Sincerely,
Timm Ormsby
The Secretary of State's opinion on the first State Supreme Court case (refer to paragraph two on page seven) : http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/news_docs/Recount/Docs/SFX306.pdf
Frequently asked questions on election contests: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/news_docs/recount/MFQ%20on%20Election%20Contests.pdf
An editorial by the Spokesman-Review (1/13/05): http://spokesmanreview.com/opinion/story.asp?ID=48017
An editorial by the Tri-City Herald (1/13/05): http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions/story/5989544p-5888743c.html
An editorial by the Yakima Herald Republic (1/5/05): http://www.yakima-herald.com/?storyid=311510301466584
-----Original Message
So, what do these papers do? They move even farther to the left. Soon they will be over the cliff. Maybe the Puget Sound will be the national test case for having no local papers, but a very strong internet news service.
Posted by: Janet S on January 14, 2005 07:31 AMAs I've been attempting to teach my kids the popular vote does not matter. Electing the president is the job of *States*
If Washington used the same system to elect the Govenor you would find a completely different picture of the election.
Right now a candidate only needs to win in King County and at least come clost in all the others to get elected. In an electoral college type election a candidate would have to win about 10 counties besides King to get elected. A candidate could actually loose King County and become Govenor. Not so now.
This type of system would give small counties and especially those in eastern Washington much more of a say in who gets to be Govenor.
Diane Finestein is proposing to change the president to a popular vote. This would make every election come down to NY cand CA deciding who wins. Not a good thing in my opinion.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 14, 2005 07:41 AMDoes anyone know if this is being corrected? I have searched for info on this and have so far found nothing.
Posted by: Julie on January 14, 2005 07:59 AMI have tried to reason with him for years - but he has an intellectual "one way valve" (as do most liberals) making it impossible for them to consider the converse of their logic (much less the Golden Rule).
Joel Connelly is blind to the light of reason, and too much of a pansy to stand the heat of advocacy.
We should ignore him, he is a shill. But at least he is not ignoring us - and by his attention is bringing more and more people to consider the width, breadth and diversity of conservative thought when they give us a moment of 'due diligence' by looking over Sound Politics. We attract new readers every time Connelly rants...
And that's why conservatives love what's going on with the blogger revolution.
I don't mind Mr. Connelly airing his opinions in the P.I. But what I do mind is that his column should appear in the Op-Ed pages and nowhere else, and that because he criticizes "Baghdad" Jim McDermott that somehow qualifies him as moderate.
Mr. Connelly is NOT middle-of-the-road, but when told that he can present all of the critical e-mail he receives from the state's lefties in disagreement of his columns. Then he can lob the hand-grenades at any opinions right-of-center, claiming the objective middle ground.
Another reason why I cancelled my long-time subscription to the P.I. (don't even get me started on Ted Rall [hack ptooey ech].
Posted by: Shaun on January 14, 2005 08:21 AMMr. Connelly and Carlson used to regularly get into it. There was always a certain level of frustration that Connelly was more intent on the endless repetition of the Dem's talking points than free ranging discussion. Either unwilling or incapable of normal give and take.
I'm not sure what the practical definition of a hack is, but Connelly's name is one of the first that comes to mind.
Posted by: scott158 on January 14, 2005 08:29 AMThere is nothing terribly wrong about being a partisan hatchet man like James Carville — if you are working for a candidate or party. But it is not a good role for a newspaper columnist, not if they want to be taken seriously by anyone other than party hacks.
She can propose anything she wants, it will go nowhere. The electoral college system is what we do and will have.
Posted by: Chuck on January 14, 2005 09:04 AMIn any event Paul Berendt has got competition in his quest to be the most deluded.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2005 09:24 AM“The Democratic governor has been under "Shock and Awe!" fire from a Republican Party -- and its front groups -- that know the art of mounting a coordinated attack.”
“Front groups”? What exactly did you mean by that?
I contribute to SoundPolitics. I have never received a call from KVI, WSRP, KCGOP or the Rossi campaign. Well, that last one’s not true, Rossi’s people once called to ask Rabbi Lapin to speak at the rally.
So WTF is this “art of mounting a coordinated attack” supposed to mean? They sure aren’t coordinating with me. Heck, I wish!
We certainly don't get the attention (and remuneration) from our party and elected officials that people on the left, your side, get: Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, Josh Marshall are all bloggers that get specific direction and FUNDING, lots of funding, from candidates and PAC’s, party officials and interested parties. **coughSoros cough**
But casting us in conspiratorial light is advantageous to maligning, marginalizing and dismissing us, and our contentions.
“The Building Industry Association of Washington continues to devote itself to toppling Gregoire. The new governor (and GOP Secretary of State Sam Reed) are taking a pounding from limelight seekers -- the past (Martin Ringhofer), the perennial (Tim Eyman) and the aspiring (blogger Stefan Sharansky).”
1. SharKansky.
2. When you write, are you a “limelight seeker”?
“The hurling of charges makes for great headlines.”
Pot, meet kettle.
“It remains to be seen, however, whether this state's electorate prefers politics as an unceasing contact sport or would appreciate a return to effective government.”
What this state prefers is an election in which felons and illegally registered voters don’t disenfranchise legal voters.
Brian
WTF=what the flibberty-floo.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 14, 2005 09:32 AMYesterday NPR had a short segment on the WA election. Somehow they managed to omit any mention of King County's admissions of voterless ballots and mixed-in provo ballots, let alone the other allegations.
That goes beyond bias. It is dishonest.
In a logical sense, it's as if they did a piece on O. J. Simpon's "legal troubles" without mentioning his ex-wife had been found stabbed to death.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 09:32 AMhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/271060p-232100c.html
A sample:
Now comes the twist: The independent investigation, clueless and in its own innocent way disgraceful, pretends that this fiasco was not politically motivated.
I don't know how much longer the mainstream media can keep pretending that the reason they are having circulation / viewership problems is not related to their bias. I question whether even the Seattle Timid and the Lost Intelligencer can afford to remain purposely clueless about the bottom-line implications of their bias for much longer.
But for a TERRIFIC positive counterpart (I am almost surprised the Pathetically Incompetent editorial board would allow it to be printed):
See today's PI column by Robert Jamieson; where he justifiably and seriously rakes Gregoireovich over the coals:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/207868_robert13.html
SIDEBAR on any and all attempts by big-State (D)s to do away with the Electoral College:
ZERO chance it will ever happen:
There are IIRC 17 States that have only 3 or 4 votes in the EC; another 8 that have only 5 or 6. Doesn't matter who is in charge of those State legislatures: NOBODY will willingly give up that much say in the Presidential election.
All you need to stop any Constitutional amendment is 13 states. We're safe. :-]
Methow Ken
The media is dominated by conservative talk show hosts, columnists and TV shows. When the liberals do a tiny bit of what the very successful Limbaughs, Medveds, Hannitys, Coulters, O'Reilly's, Savages do, "foul" is claimed.
(And a tiny bit of what you have been doing here for months).
All of the above have written articles in newspapers...nationally (unlike the PI)...and of course dominate TV and radio shows.
What's funny is when people call Medved and complain about his using perjorative terms to describe Democrats, he defends it as part of the political process since time immemorial.
Complaining about name calling and labeling? From the creator of "Fraudaire"?
And free advice? Rush doles it out in heaps.
So...be careful what you rail against. If rules were put in place to silence a little PI reporter who writes about things you don't like, what effect would that have on the right wing folks above?
Posted by: Tom on January 14, 2005 09:50 AMDo you actually believe that CBS, ABC, NBC, the NYT, the LAT, and the Washington Post were rooting for BUSH this last year? Do you think these outlets were highlighting and continually talking about KERRY's flaws? This doesn't pass the laugh test.
How many front-page articles were run on the GWB TANG non-story? How many top-of-the-hour news reports? Come on, think about it. How many months did this go on? In fact, didn't we hear the identical stories in 2000, ad nauseum?
In contrast, how front-page articles and top-of-the-hour news reports reported even the bare fact that more than 200 of Kerry's fellow officers had signed a petition saying he shouldn't be CinC? WHEN did this reporting emerge, vs. when did the petition emerge?
I'll answer that part:
The petition was in MAY.
The New York Times didn't even MENTION the EXISTENCE of the SBVT until after the SBVT had aired several commercials, until the SBVT book was #1 at Amazon, in late AUGUST.
If the press were right-wing, I daresay those things would be reversed.
Perhaps now you know what democrats feel on a national level, for years and years.
Posted by: Tom on January 14, 2005 10:07 AMThe column isn't on the Op-Ed page...but often they are not! Columnists are often front page news or on non Op-Ed pages in newspapers.
Posted by: Tom on January 14, 2005 10:20 AMThis is the huge pot calling the tiny little kettle...well, you get it.
Doesn't feel too good, eh? Try living with it 24/7..which democrats have to do....
Posted by: Tom on January 14, 2005 10:30 AMJim called it sad. He's right.
Your attitude is, I guess, ignore him because nobody cares what the left thinks? OK.
It is an intense evasion to compare as equal or lesser the mainstream media which dominates television, print media, academia, think tanks and local government of large urban areas with that of conservative talk radio, editorial columnists and bloggers. The former has and audience of several hundred million, the latter an audience that is much smaller, most likely only in the tens of millions.
You expose your views which are primarily an emotional discomfort with the rise of the alternative viewpoint of conservative talk radio and blogging which simply provide equilibrium and exposure to the views that the mainstream generally supresses.
One need look no further than today's PI to see the clear supression of facts regarding the gubernatorial election problems.
You must realize, that you've discredited yourself beyond recovery in the eyes of any generally rational person discussing this election regardless of which side they are on.
Good day sir.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2005 10:50 AMI'd like to see you make a case that the coverage of those two issues, about our recent presidential candidates, actually favors the Republican. You just go ahead & try that, if you're serious that you believe the press leans right.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 11:20 AMTo say that there is some equivlanece between a left-thinking columnist who is blamed for surpressing facts for the PI and a host of right-thinking columnists/tv/radio show hosts that regularly surpress facts discredits me beyond recovery fails the test of logic on every level.
It's the same thing! Why not admit -- "you do it, we'll do it too" instead of suggesting I have no credibility. Your "good day sir" closing betrays your lack of willingness to even debate the issue.
It's hard to find too many successful people who take the "my way or the highway" approach to issues. Loyal idealogoues, of course, do and revel in it. Some even call themselves "dittoheads" proudly -- unwilling to debate, think or go beyond accepting what they hear or are told.
The scope matters? Seems that drudge suggests the right-wing news broadcasts and radio shows often outpoll the left-wing biased media you rail about. But even that suggests scope matters.
So, in the end, I maintain my views are rational, in every context. You may disagree...and you do...but you have shown me nothing to convince me otherwise.
PS...I listed to the right wing shows often as I find them very entertaining. I mention this so that you know I speak of what I know.
Posted by: tom on January 14, 2005 11:30 AMDon
Posted by: Donald Cheney on January 14, 2005 11:32 AMThe Democrats are working very, very hard to make it appear that the election contest is a doomed, desperate hail Mary pass, rather than a legitimate court case with questions that must be answered–let alone a real danger to her new office. Democrats and their various accomplices–Joel Connelly, for example–would have you believe that the only people pushing for this are partisans and nutjobs, and that it doesn’t have a real chance of getting through.Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 14, 2005 11:33 AM
The presidental election coverage was fair....after all, how did all of us hear about flip flopping, dean screaming, kerry windsurfing, swift boat veterans, etc? We also heard about about bush's national guard service, cheney hunting trips with supreme court justices, lack of WMD, cabinet members trashing bush, etc.
THE SBV case is particularly interesting...tiny little effort in a few states became front page news for weeks. I wouldn't think a left-leaning press would want to do that if they wanted Kerry elected.
Posted by: tom on January 14, 2005 11:34 AMBaloney....THE mainstream media never TOUCHED the Swift Vets story. It was the bloggers and cable news that pushed that story. But CBS and the other MSM pounded the Texan National Guard story day after day, even BEFORE the false document story came out...But did you hear them pressing Kerry to release HIS complete military records...Not once. And don't tell me that Kerry released them all..There were 90 pages he never did release. No major network pressed Kerry on that point.
Don
Posted by: Donald Cheney on January 14, 2005 11:42 AMTry this on: Imagine that 200+ of Bush's former peers & bosses in the TANG had held a press conference, with a petition they'd all signed saying what a piece of work he was, how he had behaved dishonorably, and how there's no way he should be in charge of the nation's military.
Do you really think that news would have stayed out of the national press for nearly THREE MONTHS?
I really really don't think so.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 11:48 AMSo Tom, have you read the article for either "entertainment" as you say, or better yet, information?
Here is the salient passage:
Each year I do a guest lecture for the "Politics and Media" class at the University of California, Irvine. The class has between 150 and 200 students, and is held in a classroom with auditorium style seating. Though they complain every year, I begin the class by obliging the students to reseat themselves according to their answers to a series of questions, such as who did you vote for in the presidential election, do you favor any restrictions on abortion rights, do you favor the Brady Bill, ought same sex marriage be mandated by the courts, should we have invaded Iraq. It takes a while, but eventually the students have sorted themselves into an audience that flows left to right, like the political spectrum.
Then I ask them to imagine a newspaper that had to cover the nomination of a conservative to the United States Supreme Court or a decision to go to war with Syria or some such issue or set of issues.
Then I ask them: Would the newspaper put out by students in the rows on the left side of the room be different from the newspaper put out from the students in the rows on the right side of the room. Every honest head nods yes, of course.
And the light goes on.
MSM is populated by alums of the rows on the left side of the room. It shows and we know.
So Tom, when is the light going to go on for you?
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2005 12:30 PMThe msm did all it could do to marginalize and discredit the Swift Boat Vets. They were summarily dismissed in every single NYT article that I read. Maybe you could enlighten us with a link to 1 (one) postive and balanced news piece offered up by nation's largest paper concerning their position.
Your take on the bias issue is bent and irretreivable. "Fake but accurate", right?
NBC CBS ABC CNN MSNBC NPR etc. but FOX takes off and the lefties cry about "bias".
Pathetic.
Posted by: Shaun on January 14, 2005 12:59 PM206-448-8160 or email him at:
joelconnelly@seattlepi.com
He said that the PI is not "obligated" to report on anything. Furthermore, he stated that bloggers, "throw lies and induendos at the wall, just to see what sticks".
What a hack!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 14, 2005 01:20 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/207532_robert12.html
The article is basically a "day-in-the-ife-of-a-blogger" but really highlights what Shark, SoundPolitics, and its contributors have been able to accomplish!
Blogs = balance^10 for Conservatives
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 14, 2005 01:30 PMYou are wrong...Fox, Rush, etc. are the only speakers of TRUTH. The left liberal biased media is a bunch of scum trying to brainwash the truth seekers. Thank GOD (yes GOD) for freedom where the truth can be heard.
Thank GOD for this website so the TRUTH can come out over the LIES of the left.
The democrats always steal, lie and cheat. Of course you know that since you are one. Don't try to come here and spread your filthy lies.
Rossi is our governor. Anybody else is a cheater.
This website is great. I love it and all the people here. GO ROSSI! GO REVOTE!
Donald, the SBV story was all over the "media" -- it's just wrong to say it wasn't touched. Look below for an easy example.
Shaun, says my note is BS and Pathetic. He then challenges me to find even 1 link from the New York Times that talked about SVB in fair manner.
It took 2 seconds on Google to do just that: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/politics/campaign/05veterans.html?ex=1105851600&en=e3f4130245f12aa8&ei=5070&oref=login
Frank, I have no response to that.
Again, this is in response to multiple attacks on the media and specifically to a challenge to find even one balanced article on the issue.
---------------
NEW YORK TIMES
Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN
Published: August 5, 2004
A group of Vietnam veterans has bought television time in three swing states for an advertisement that attacks Senator John Kerry, accusing him of lying about his war record, including the circumstances surrounding his medals, and betraying his comrades by later opposing the war.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the 60-second advertisement, scheduled to begin running today in scattered markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Robert G. Elder, like Mr. Kerry a Navy lieutenant who commanded a Swift boat, declares, "John Kerry is no war hero," and Robert Hildreth, who held a similar post, intones, "John Kerry cannot be trusted."
The Kerry campaign immediately denounced the group, noting that none of the men had actually served on the Swift boats that Mr. Kerry commanded, like Gene Thorson, who told reporters, "These assertions are garbage; these people weren't there with John Kerry."
The advertisement, which layers snippets from recent interviews with a dozen veterans over familiar black-and-white photographs of Mr. Kerry and his men in uniform, is the latest tactic of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 200-member group that held a news conference in Washington this spring to make similar accusations. It is one of several independent groups, known as 527's for the provision in the tax code that enables their operation, to run attack advertisements this season.
Tax documents show that from April to June, the group collected $158,750 from 11 people, $100,000 of it from Bob J. Perry, a Houston developer who is a major contributor to Republican campaigns.
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said he had not seen the advertisement and tried to distance the president from it.
"The Bush-Cheney campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service during Vietnam," Mr. Schmidt said. "The election will not be about the past, it will be about the future."
Mr. Kerry's aides circulated an 18-page packet discrediting the veterans group and linking its backers to Republicans, noting that a public-relations consultant the group paid $27,000 this spring, Merrie Spaeth, was also involved in a advertising campaign attacking Senator John McCain during his tough race against Mr. Bush in the 2000 primary in South Carolina. The Kerry campaign also convened a conference call in which two of Mr. Kerry's crewmates, and a man he pulled from the Mekong River, defended his service.
"The fact is, John Kerry risked his life to save the lives of others,'' said Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign.
Adm. Roy F. Hoffman, who is retired and who says in the advertisement, "John Kerry has not been honest," acknowledged that the men in the advertisement did not serve on Mr. Kerry's boat, but he said their time in parallel boats on coordinated missions, or as Mr. Kerry's superiors, made them valid commentators on his record. The group provided station managers with a 13-page memorandum, backed up by more than 60 pages of sworn statements, book excerpts and military records.
"We were on the same operations, we were operating within 25-50 yards of him all the time, and for them to suggest we don't know John Kerry is pure old bull," Mr. Hoffman said. "He has made this the centerpiece of this campaign, and we just don't think he's qualified to be the commander in chief of the armed forces. We have every right to be heard."
Produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio & Potham, a Republican firm based in Alexandria, Va., the advertisement tees off with Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, saying that the best way to understand Mr. Kerry is to "spend three minutes with the men who served with him." Then the anti-Kerry veterans speak one by one:
"John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," says one, Van O'Dell. "I know. I was there. I saw what happened."
Another, Jack Chenoweth, says, "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day." Adrian L. Lonsdale, one of Mr. Kerry's superiors in Vietnam, says Mr. Kerry "lacks the capacity to lead," Shelton White, a Swift boat commander, says he "betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," and Joseph L. Ponder adds, "He dishonored his country, he most certainly did."
A doctor, Louis Letson, repeats accusations he made in newspaper interviews this spring that Mr. Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because his wounds resulted from a ricochet off friendly fire, saying in the advertisement, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." The Kerry campaign pointed out yesterday, as it had previously, that another doctor, J. C. Carreon, signed Mr. Kerry's treatment record.
Mr. Hoffman said the group was spending $500,000 to run the advertisement but would not say how long it would be on the air; a Kerry aide said the buy was far smaller, $156,000 in seven smallish markets like Green Bay, Wis., and Toledo, Ohio, suggesting it was a "vanity buy'' intended to attract news coverage.
Posted by: tom on January 14, 2005 03:51 PMAgain, when conservatives argue about the liberal bias in the media, they are not talking about commentators (for every Limbaugh there is a Franken, for every Tucker Carlson, there is a James Carville), they are talking about bias in straight news stories. Sometimes the bias is in the writing (injecting opininions into news), sometimes it is in the framing (setting up certain points of view to be the default values), and sometimes it is in the selection (ignoring stories that hurt the leftist worldview).
Posted by: timekeeper on January 14, 2005 04:23 PMImagine that 200+ of Bush's former peers & bosses in the TANG had held a press conference, with a petition they'd all signed saying what a piece of work he was, how he had behaved dishonorably, and how there's no way he should be in charge of the nation's military.
Do you really think that news would have stayed out of the national press for nearly THREE MONTHS?
I think you realize there would have been wall to wall coverage instantly. Come on, try to tell me the press would have downplayed that one.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 04:37 PMEvery time I answer a direct question, with direct evidence, I'm met with a change in the rules and the question. I was challenged to find a single article. I did. But suddenly, the question changes. Why? Because the questioner didn't like the answer.
Does this sound familiar? Of course. It's the republican strategy for the election!
"Don't change the rules!" (rossi ahead)
"Stop the legal vote counting!" (rossi still ahead - this one was a lawsuit bye the GOP)
---
"Count more legal votes!" (oops, rossi behind, change the rules)
"Change the rules. Revote" (the mother of all rule changes).
Frankly, the facts don't seem to matter to those who want Rossi in power. It just shows that anything can and will be said to get Rossi in office -- even if he got fewer votes and lost the election legally -- certified by a republican secretary of state who refused to bow to partisan pressures and instead did his job. The governor became governor using the election system that is our law -- made our law by Mr. Rossi himself.
As more evidence is uncovered to discredit republican claims (e.g. military ballots not sent out in time), the arguments change and change.
In direct response to your question, the media's job isn't to take accusations from paid political parties and write articles about them. The national guard wasn't from a paid political group.
All this whining and rule changing is getting tiresome. Even one of my hard core republican friends told me today he wish Rossi would jsut give it up (echoed by some republicans calling into republican radio stations). They say it's impacting his chances in the next election (I think they are right).
Posted by: tom on January 14, 2005 04:41 PMWe've provided them with most of their stories for well over 2 months now!
Heck! Without Stefan....most of the Connelly types would never rate high enough to meet his *weepyness* Paul Berendt! Now the Dem machine seeks out the liberal media...just to cry crocodile tears and explain away all of those big bad findings posted in the blog!
For one example: "A doctor, Louis Letson, repeats accusations he made in newspaper interviews this spring that Mr. Kerry did not deserve his first Purple Heart because his wounds resulted from a ricochet off friendly fire"
This phrasing is a LIE, and I do not use the word lightly.
Friendly fire was not the reason Dr. Letson said Kerry didn't deserve a purple heart. He said it was because the entire injury was a little itty bitty piece of shrapnel that he removed with tweezers and put a bandaid on. He also said that Kerry might have to work at keeping this shrapnel from falling out, because it was so shallow and minor.
You may think Letson was lying, but the NYT ought to tell you what Letson's REAL reason was, so that you can decide for yourself.
All the news coverage of the SBVT was just like that. I paid quite a lot of attention to it, and I knew what the SBVT's specific claims were.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 04:46 PMLet's look at it the other way. Imagine if rumors circulated that John Kerry hadn't completed a physical in 1970 and possibly copped out of a important responsibility.
Would this have been HEADLINE, above-the-fold news REPEATEDLY? Would this have been at the top of the hour on TV? Would a CBS producer have spent FIVE years trying to make a story out of it and eventually settling for a suspiciously modern-looking memo "typed" by a guy who's conveniently now dead?
NO, Tom, that's not how it would have gone.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 14, 2005 04:57 PMI had not questioned you previously. I noted that another poster had pointed out that there was a three-month embargo on SBVT and their allegations by the NYT, and your article had already been noted as the one that broke the silence in its pages. As Bostonian (again) notes (in his comment immediately prior to yours), the NYT didn't require any corroboration to run story after story about Bush and his ANG record. If 200 of Bush's colleagues in the guard had reported that he was not fit to command the armed forces, it would have been reported like a thermonuclear blast, with thousands of stories, "analysis" pieces, and op/eds wall-to-wall.
"Change the rules. Revote" (the mother of all rule changes).
This is not a rules change. If the allegations of illegal votes are substantiated, the judges may order a revote. It's happened before. (In 1998, a judge in Miami ordered a revote after fraudulent votes were discovered in the mayoral contest. Joe Carollo, the Republican candidate, won the revote; his opponent was unable to manufacture fraudulent ballots in the second vote, because of the intense scrutiny the race produced.)
As more evidence is uncovered to discredit republican claims (e.g. military ballots not sent out in time), the arguments change and change.
You mean, the imminent federal government lawsuit is a Republican plot? Not all of the counties had problems getting absentee ballots out on time; I received mine (from Island County) about a month before the election. Granted, I'm not currently deployed, but even if I had been, I still would have received my ballot in time to vote before the deadline.
As for constant change, one of the reasons that the GOP arguments keep changing is that nobody can get a straight answer from the King County elections people. It is more than two months after the election, and they still have not reconciled the numbers between voters and ballots, and it appears that they will never be able to do so. Every day a different set of numbers comes out of Dean Logan's office, and a different justification for why they still don't add up.
In direct response to your question, the media's job isn't to take accusations from paid political parties and write articles about them. The national guard wasn't from a paid political group.
If that is the case, then why do the mainstream media jump all over press releases from MoveOn and the various Soros-funded groups? Again, it's the whole double-standards thing; report only on what helps the preferred (liberal) candidate.
For every republican who wants to give up, there are several democrats who want to keep it going. Washington has a plurality of Democrats (or Democratic leaning independents), yet several polls (not internet polls, but real polls) have shown that more than 60% of the state is asking for a revote. Simple math indicates that a majority of Democrats want a revote, and that is confirmed by the breakdowns indicated by the polls.
Strange Princess
Does anyone find it bizarre, when Fraudoire drives 'round the state in a state car, trying to shine like a superstar? Talk about a tool she plays the fool-- backwards frontwards she dances like a greedy pig on a stool! Soapbox opera, it's like expecting Sinatra but being shot at by Fatah.
Let's see if her law school training will give her the brain-power to overcome the cruel hand-tools of the "attack machine". But if the queen decides to tax, instead of axe, her polularity will crack. Maybe smoking that will make her think back, to the robe, white shawl, hood and staff. That's right, remember UW and LewdiChris's social club? Who could forget, she remembers doesn't she? It was white and black, but now it's so grey...she can't remember her actions, it's like night and day!
Weigh in on the Revolution, join the Rant, Join the Right!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 15, 2005 12:25 PMSorry I did not respond to your linked NYT story about the SBVets story. Thanks for reprinting it here on Sound Politics.
The challenge was for you to find one positive/fair story on the Swift Boat vets. Clearly, the piece you linked does not qualify - if you feel that it does, refer to my previous post. Irretrievable, indeed.
Shaun
Posted by: Shaun on January 18, 2005 10:46 AM