
With less than a year to go until the November elections, it seems a metaphysical certitude any media outlet addressing the campaign efforts of a Republican candidate is going to figure out a way to reference the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
After all, supposedly impartial press representatives in 2004 did everything within their power to discredit the claims against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) made by this organization, so much so that "Swift Boat" has become both a verb and an adverb in political parlance.
Such was the case Wednesday when the Los Angeles Times published an article about Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Even though the piece dealt with an organization opposing the former New York City mayor, it did so by grossly misrepresenting some pertinent facts about Kerry's detractors (emphasis added throughout, h/t Patterico and NBer Bingo):
In an effort reminiscent of the bitter "Swift Boat" campaign during the 2004 presidential race, a group of New York firefighters who lost sons in the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks is organizing a political committee to take on former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in Republican primary states.
[...]
The 9/11 group is already being compared by some political observers to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that damaged the candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 by impugning his Vietnam War service in the Navy. Both groups feature a self-sustaining constituency of passionate supporters and are aided by outside political forces eager to use them as vehicles in the presidential race.
"Starting small doesn't mean you can count them out," said Stephanie Cutter, a political consultant who countered the attacks as Kerry's press aide in 2004. "When the Swift Boat group started . . . they had no money and no plan. In a matter of months they had enough money to go up with an ad buy, and that triggered their relevance."
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth raised more than $25 million for media buys. Some of the money was donated in multimillion-dollar installments from reliable Republican fundraisers, including Texas businessmen T. Boone Pickens Jr. and Bob J. Perry. But last December, the group was fined almost $300,000 by the Federal Election Commission for exceeding spending limits and acting in concert with GOP campaign efforts.
Actually, that's not true as Patterico adroitly identified (emphasis his):
Here is the December 13, 2006 Conciliation Agreement that sets forth the FEC's findings (.pdf). In it, the FEC explicitly found that the Swift Vets did not act in concert with GOP campaign efforts, and they were not fined for any unlawful coordination with the GOP, because they did not engage in any such activities. Rather, the group was fined for failing to properly register as a PAC and follow rules applicable to PACs:
The Federal Election Commission ("Commission") found reason to believe that Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth ("SwiftVets") violated 2 U.S.C. sections 433, 434, 441a(f), and 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, ("the Act") by failing to register as a political committee with the Commission, by failing to report contributions and expenditures as a political committee to the Commission, by knowingly accepting individual contributions in excess of $5,000, and by knowingly accepting corporate and/or union contributions. Following an investigation, the Commission concluded that Swiftvets did not unlawfully coordinate its activities with, or make excessive in-kind contributions to, any federal candidate or political party committee.
Should we expect a retraction or correction? Probably more likely for us to see a negative article about MoveOn.org or Clinton's Center for American Progress, wouldn't you agree?
Instead, as every "non-profit" organization tied to Democrats gets a pass for its activities that should warrant scrutiny by the media as well as the FEC, the electorate is assured of continual press references to the Swift Boat Vets -- none of them favorable, most inaccurate.
Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wha...??? The LA Times
December 20, 2007 - 10:21 ET by bassndudeWha...??? The LA Times printing lies? Again?? Looks like these folks would learn to get their facts right. But, that would not serve their agenda.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well
December 20, 2007 - 10:23 ET by well99"Should we expect a retraction or correction? Probably more likely for us to see a negative article about MoveOn.org or Clinton's Center for American Progress, wouldn't you agree?"
Cant they be charged with hit and run.LAT has already got their smear out.That is all that is important to them.They put it out for folks that just read the headlines.Just like those folks who hear a sound bite and believe it without checking the facts.Pretty pathetic but that is why more folks arent reading papers anymore.
I thought Kerry was going to
December 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by kgI thought Kerry was going to prove one claim wrong and collect a cool million a couple of months ago?
Yeah, T-Bone Pickens
December 20, 2007 - 14:59 ET by Del DolemonteT. Boone offered a million dollars.
Frenchy could have shut the Swifties up completely in 2004 if he could have proved they weren't telling the truth. Why didn't he do so?
All one needs to know for the answer is that he still refuses to release ALL of his military records. What's he hiding? My guess is a dishonorable discharge.
It should be noted...
December 20, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Bingo...that this is the same Stephen Braun who, along with 2 other MSM Kerry-friendlies, was authorized access to Kerry's military records.
While Mr. Braun and the other gatekeepers have kept a tight lid on the contents (perhaps via a Kerry stipulation that they acceded to prior to authorization...why doesn't someone ask them?), someone should also ask Mr. Braun for, at least, an index of the files contained in the release.
Swift'-boat v.i. 1. to tell
December 20, 2007 - 12:54 ET by mattmSwift'-boat v.i. 1. to tell the truth about a political candidate thereby exposing his or her hypocrisy in falsely claiming military hero status.
If I say its so then that's that !! ... NOT!
December 20, 2007 - 14:11 ET by wizardjrMSM, liberal elitists (redundant), and Hollywierd all work from the same life plan - pretend to be somebody else and say anything that sounds right for your role.
Once again the new media exposes the Emperor's lack of clothing - THANK YOU!
required (by lefties) disclosure:
I gave money to my fellow vets at swiftvets.com (and I'd do it again)
chuck in st paul
SSgt USAF '62-'70