I condemn all Swiftboating attempts against Democrats.

It is immoral and unconscionable for campaigns to make up lies about their opponents and use that information to smear and distort their records. This is dirty politics, it is harmful to the democratic process and it must end.

I further condemn any campaign supporters who think using the Swiftboating lies of others is a fine thing to do because they are in the middle of a campaign and, well, anything goes. This is a very simple concept. Swiftboating is wrong. People who consciously spread these smears and lies should be called out and publicly condemned.

At the very least, anyone who says they are a supporter of John Kerry should understand this simple concept.

The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -- Albert Einstein:

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke.

Line in the sand here: Swiftboating is evil. It is harmful to the democratic process and it must stop. People who spread the swiftboating lies are wrong and should be called on it. Don't you agree?

wonderful quotes.

Just say NO to swiftboating.

Yup!

someone else smears and lies about another Democrat. One must ACT to stop the smear and lie in their tracks.

Here's another quote:

"Tell the American people the truth, and tell it to them all the time."

Swiftboating is lying, plain and simple, and allowing the media to propagate lies in a campaign is what cost us '04. It's the core of the RNC strategy that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. What we need to do is to stop the spread of this horrible tactic.
Everyone who believes in Sen. Kerry's message knows that it is fundamentally about telling the truth. Stopping lies and distortions as they happen is perhaps the greatest lesson of the last presidential election. Some have learned and will use that knowledge for good. Others have learned and will pick up where the Republicans left off.

"Enough is enough."

The only caveat I would make is that we're all human. Sometimes we get carried away and run with bad information. (I guess this is pre-emptive self defense for when I err in that regard myself. :()

That doesn't excuse people who are deliberately setting out to tear someone down with false information, and it especially doesn't excuse people who pretend to be practicing some kind of journalism.

Anyway thanks for standing up for what's right!

"my conscience leaves me no other choice..."

"A time comes when silence is betrayal."

"Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."


~~~MLK

I agree. A moral conscience is one that speaks out when wrong is done. It is moral cowardice to not do so. Sometimes you offend people in the process of standing up for what you believe is right. That is why we call is moral courage.

I believe that lying inevitably corrupts and ultimately destroys the liar. But in the process the lies also corrupt and destroy the TRUTH, which is the most precious resource a democracy possesses. Lies kill democracy and they blight growth and hope.

Our best hope for reviving our country on every level is to insist on truth and fight every lie whatever its target.

Swiftboating is wrong, period. Swiftboating Republicans is every bit as unjustifiable as swiftboating Democrats is (or, for that matter, swiftboating Joe Lieberman. Or anybody else.)

I'm not saying that we need to jump in and defend Rudy Giuliani when Mitt Romney talks trash about him, or vice versa. They each have their own supporters to do that, thankyouverymuch.

But it *is* incumbent on each and all of us to make sure that if/when we do say negative things about any politician -- be they red, blue, pink, brown, yellow, green, fuzzy, faux-stone-finished, whatever -- that we only say what is either knowably, citably so or else what is clearly labeled as our own personal opinion.

Let's say I really don't like Candidate X, okay? I can legitimately say, "Hey, I *really* don't like Candidate X," and if I am so inclined I can go on from there to add, "...because imho Candidate X strikes me as being an evil slime-sucking bottom feeder."

But if I say, "Candidate X is an evil slime-sucking bottom-feeder because s/he roasts puppies on a spit and eats them for breakfast," then I had better be ready to cite verifiable evidence that Candidate X does in fact put roast puppy parts on his/er Wheaties in the morning.

And if I say that "Well, another person I trust but won't name told me that Candidate X loves poodle pancakes for breakfast, so that's why I posted it on my blog," then that is quite simply no excuse for spreading the swiftboat slime even farther afield, either.

Swiftboating Democrats is wrong. Swiftboating Republicans is also wrong. But Democrats swiftboating other Democrats -- and, by extension, Democrats spreading swiftboat slime against other Democrats -- is wrong, wrong, wrong.

You want trust? Then verify.

is to have enough participate so that the truth rises to the top. The Macchiavellian approach of negative campaigning, lies, innuendo, etc. undermines the democratic process almost as much as flooding money into said negative campaign.

What happened to John Kerry in August 2004 was unconscionable, and perhaps nothing hurt him at the core of his heart so much as questioning his service. I can still feel the sense of shame I felt that the Democratic Party did not fight for him at that moment, when he could not spend money, and when he was trying to relax a little bit in Idaho, gearing up for September.

The rage I feel when people recycle reality and repeat untruths is enough to make me scream. Are we really going to have to continually remind folks about the fact that, with a little more support, John Kerry would be President now, we would re-elect him this year, and the war, the economy, healthcare, edcucation, and human rights would be taken care of?

Agree on always laser true words from KarenDC. It's heartening to see Kerry fully in support of Obama, and not just on paper, with the same hope and bigger picture. Good to see the idealism in the campaign.

There is deliberate swift-boating, and then just careless repeating of what people don't know. I wish we took better responsibility for accuracy, understanding, and only repeating what we think we know reliably and considered.

What the Clintons are doing now has always been done. Gain an immediate edge, win, then clean up the damage and smooth the wrinkles for the general, giving license all the way down to their supporters and blogmeisters to do the same. Really hope it doesn't work this time.

I only wish he'd had the support he's giving Obama back in 2004 - support he was denied by the party he continues to defend. The world - and the country - would be very different today if he had.

As supporters and admirers of John Kerry, how can we do any less?

There is plenty to discuss about the differences between candidates and their platforms, without resorting to outright lies, smears, and slander. I think it's a tribute to JK that we have - for the most part - been able to do so in a respectful way, listening to each others' points of view and weighing their merits.

No one should ever be allowed to get away with the kind of campaigning we've come to describe as rovian. Being a democrat does not grant an exemption to that rule.

Very well said, Tay.

In fact, you can't really win that way, because you damage what you could have stood for to so many people.

I think even supporters of other candidates can agree that the e-mail smears conducted on Obama have been despicable.

7 Jewish leaders are having none of it, and I like the way they state their condemnation:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/seven_unaffiliated_jewish_us_senators_release_letter_condeming_obama_muslim_smears.php

on that letter. But then, I guess he isn't really a Dem.

Maybe someone should write to him and ask him if he CONDONES such behavior?

Chuck Schumer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer

Oh, my.

I guess the smears don't bother him if it'll help his candidate.

This said, it would be nice if he said something. That he supports Hillary would make it even more powerful. Same thing for Franks.

These emails are circulated and forwarded. My in-laws received one.

he endorsed? That's the VERY point, isn't it?

By the way: Feinstein (I assume she is jewish, unless it is just her husband, no idea). And yes, I know, she endorsed.

on this matter.

vets who are currently smearing McCain in S.C. And it's along the lines of the emails sent in 04 which said that JK/JRE would 'bann the bible' and allow gays to take over the world . (Sarcasm tag on the gay thing.)

The swiftboat lies and the dirty-handed hidden campaign smears and emails are comparable to bullies at school who leave anonymous-and destructive--lies about their classmates on blogs like MySpace or Facebook. Or they send emails about some 'little nerd' who they just don't like.

It's like the junior high school student passing snide notes and rumors about who is sleeping with whom, even if they're flat out lies, just because it gives them the power they are craving so much.

Just like in schools, everyone should clamp down against those smear tactics of the bullies, the whole Democratic Party should clamp down against any smears against one of it's members.

Every single candidate and every single blogger should send a stern message to Taylor Marsh and people like her that they will strike back against people who perpetuate lies.

I have found myself on threads defending all different candidates, even though I'm pretty undecided overall. But truth has to be important or you lose all the good that democracy could bring us.

I am not saying that those who endorsed somebody should not say something. They should. Obviously.

However, it seems that the authors of the letter tried to get Democrats neutral in the race to say something. I may be wrong, but I think they got them all.

In 2006, JK showed the way a person and party should stand up against swiftboating because he learned the hard way that it takes a community to share the burden when one person is being attacked.

We all know that Clark, Dean, Clelland, and his 'band of vets' were the only reliable sources to defend JK when the swiftboating took place. When Kerry got numerous people to spread the truth and fight back, the media hid it.

It's like there's the real story. And then there's the trumped-up, Taylor Marsh, and Rovian story that he didn't. We've seen the timeline of the occurances and we all understand quite well the amount of money given to the SBLFB in the form of free-air time on so called political shows.

But getting back to 2005 and 2006. When Murtha was getting swiftied, Kerry stood up. When Patrick Murphey, Webb, Tester, McCasgill, Lamont, and others were getting swiftied, Kerry led the way in stopping those smears and responding. The DNC wasn't there. And it's interesting that even Taylor Marsh didn't decide to back-stab flat out lie about JK defending against the swifty style attack until she became a "Hillary blog".

For the last 3-4 years, JK has been one of the few who consistantly has made himself an attack dog against swiftystyle attacks.

He has lead the way.

People who spread lies or think they can benefit by piling on and taking advantage of lies, instead of standing up for the truth, help to destroy the foundations of our democracy. "Always stand up for the truth, no matter who is being attacked" should be the guiding principle for all Democrats, as it is for John Kerry.

I haven't weighed in on this discussion at all this because everyone has said pretty much the right thing, but it is one the we, if not all Democrats and/or Americans should be having.

Yes, swiftboating is wrong, and should not or never be condoned or tolerated.







edit for word

and I'm sorry it's gotten to the point that you needed to post this.

Because I agree with all my heart and soul.

I would rather lose with integrity than win at all cost.

We've missed you! I agree too.

People don't get it. Swiftboating is evil. It debased politics from the Presidential level all the way down to the local races in our cities and towns. It breeds contempt and disrespect for the people who volunteer to run for public office and helps create the poisonous atmosphere that nothing matters but the bottom line.

It matters. We are not getting people to file for elections on the local levels because they hate the dirtiness of politics. It's not viewed as something you do to give back to your community; it's viewed as something horrible. Good people are afraid of being slimed by opponents. This is a huge net loss to our country. It must end.

Thanks and come back often. It's wonderful to hear from you!

:hi: :patriot:

BTW...Hi again. We've been fighting together a long time, although you may not know who I am behind this 'nick'.

Good to see you check in here.

... with one clarification: When you said "People who spread the swiftboating lies are wrong and should be called on it. Don't you agree?", I think you need to define what you mean by 'spread the swiftboating lies.'

Newspapers, authors and other journalists who report news often cite or reference their sources for stories. Citing a reference is not meant to say that a reporter/journalist agrees with everything that person ever published or wrote...it is just to allow the reader to research and find further information and/or check validity. For example, a newspaper like the NY Times is often cited as a reference (or link, if online)...but the NYT contains MANY articles...some of which one may agree with or disagree with. The responsibility for truth, however, lies with the New York Times. If they are consistently wrong, or inappropriate, they lose credibility and an audience.
Another example: Many people, like Al Gore or John Kerry, write books. They may cite a reference to another book or article that is from the far right (because they are providing research information). We know this does not mean that they share this opinion, or that they are spreading lies...they just want their readers to be able to fact-check, and it gives credibility to their writing.

Online journalism is relatively new. The ways in which online journalists and bloggers operate sometimes follows the same pattern...and sometimes not. Many online journalists cite (provide a link) to support their research and allow the reader to follow up. The fact that they do this is just good journalism. It doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with or support everything found at that link. And I think we get into trouble if we assume ANY motivation to it...good or bad.

Online journalists are just like everyone else...some just want a name, a career, and to make money (just like Fox News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and others). They will write whatever helps them to do that. If they write lies and smears...I totally agree with you that we should NEVER let them get away with that...never again.

But there are also online journalists that are trying to make a difference (on both sides). They try to follow journalistic practices, be credible, factual and fair...and sometimes provide opinion. They may sometimes err, or say something we disagree with, but they try to do a job...an important one. We SHOULD be able to agree or disagree with them...but they aren't the enemy. Many are on our same team.

The only way to tell the motivation of any journalist is by what they do. It appears to me that Taylor Marsh (to cite a current example :) ) has now shown her motivation...sadly. She is 'swiftboating'. But she alone is responsible for what she writes. I agree with everyone here that she has crossed the line, and should be in the 'swiftboating' category.

But merely linking to her is another matter. That's just common journalism practice...citing a reference. I think that's different. And it would really sadden me to think that people in this forum don't see the difference.

I know the primaries are tough and divisive. But just the way in which the 'race' issue was spun by the media started to hurt all Democrats...dividing us against ourselves and the real 'enemy' in this fight... this 'smear' issue can hurt this group. No one in the DUJK group is the enemy. And we can't allow that to become the case. After the nomination, we're on the same team...at least I hope we are.
:patriot:

just some innocent link. Marsh ADDED TO the swiftboating by using information from DD. Then DD updated the post with Marsh's smear post. It was smears plain and simple. Not only that, Taylor Marsh has a known record of smearing JK, which she had done the previous week. Anyone friendly to JK would never link to Taylor Marsh, other than to say "look what the hack is saying now". Similarly as one would link to Michelle Malkin. Taylor Marsh = Michelle Malkin now.

Imagine if I told people I was friendly with Michelle Malkin & linked to her posts in a positive way, and justified it by telling JK supporters that "Michelle knows how I feel about JK". I would be laughed out of the room. MM is a swiftboater, as is Taylor Marsh.

add them to your evil list also please.

Edited to add: If one reads this thread and my thread about my decision it is clear that this thread is a driect attack on me. And what's even sadder is that a staff member perpetuated. Wanna talk about that?

I said in the other thread: "One would think that the fact that I asked Senator Clinton to be cognicent of her surrogates speaking badly about JK and also spoke up to the Congressman who said some nasty things about JK would have been enough for this group.

I don't know when the last time was anyone here actually said they told a candidate in this race they were offended by what was said about the former nominee in a surrogate speech or when the last when anyone here told off a Congressman who dissed JK?

That I spoke up to HRC and Rep. Brad Sherman should have been enough and instead of thanking me suddenly I'm supposed to run around the blogosphere demanding that other bloggers retract things. There are not enough hours in the day for me to do everything for everyone and I pick my battles. Clearly speaking up to HRC and Sherman was a much larger battle.

Finally, one last note on the day I went to the HRC event. I also met Patrick Healy of the NY Times. I told him I was a blogger for JK in '04 and still worked with his press office and that he really ought to tone down his outright attacks on JK, HRC and other Dems that he hits on in the NY Times. I told him he had been incredibly unfair to JK and as he knew most liberal bloggers don't like him because of his BS reporting."

You can all get off your high horses about who is and is not getting JK's back. And I see nothing here about not perpetuating right wing lies about HRC or John Edwards. They are Democrats too.

by anyone.

The phrase about something having 'legs' sound familiar?

And what about the idea of swift boat lies catching on 'like wild fires'.

All of us are blog savvy enough to understand exactly what happened.

and I'll ask them for the same accountability as I did of you. I'd ask them to stop the swiftboating. And I'd ask them to denounce all swiftboating against Democratic candidates.

Stop pointing the finger to others and point instead to yourself because you refuse to simply pledge to not swiftboat any dem, and you refuse to use your blog, as you used it in the original piece, to ask Taylor Marsh to rescind and apologize and refuse to swiftboat again.

what to do. Here in we have the problem. You are not my boss. You ask her to rescind and apologize. GOT IT? I hope so because you are sounding like someone who thinks they have a right to tell me what to do.

You are making ludicrous assumptions and twisting things.

Taylor Marsh. See here - http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/01/19/huerta_obama/index.html

I think when you peole like the L.A. mayor chiming in also about this it's important to see both sides. It's not cut and dry. They have been claims on both sides and the CW ran a nasty ad about Clinton that Obama never decried although he was asked to. Nevada was a messy fight. It's over.

voter intimidation at the casinos was Bill Clinton who was on the border of breaking caucus rules on Caucus Day. There was only ONE CASE documented of MAYBE someone telling her she had to vote for Obama, but it ended up that they were speaking in broken English, and could not understand. The utter irony was that Clinton won the At Large Caucuses, so CampClinton was trying to deprive THEIR OWN VOTERS from having the right to vote, and then smearing the union for choosing someone other than the Annointed One as their pick.

Still, we're getting away from the main topic which is Taylor Marsh's post on JK and the radio silence that came from DD, followed by a friendly link the next week.

Swiftboating is always wrong and should be condemned.

Citing Talk Left certanly doesn't help her argument!!!!

I don't read there very often unless following a link, but when I do I get the same feeling I get when reading a pro-Bush blog justifying Rovian tactics to win and govern with 50% plus 1 support. They substitute Democrats for Repubicans, but ultimately express the same philosophy of government.

...understand my post.

This isn't really relevant to this dispute, but the context of a link is also important. I actually linked to Michelle Malkin in a post recently in a matter which helped Obama.

The post really had nothing to do with Malkin or her views. After the twisting of Obama's statements on Ronald Reagan by both the Clintons and John Edwards, Malkin was the first to show that Edwards had something far more favorable about Reagan than what Obama actually said, linking to an article by Edwards in Foreign Affairs. My post quoting Edwards linked to his foreign affairs article, as well as to MM, which only seemed fair as her site did uncover an actual fact. In this case I felt safe in assuming that linking to MM would be taken as nothing more than giving credit where due and not an endorsement of any of her other views. (The other advantage to linking to MM is that her post was listed on Memeorandum. Linking to her would add my post to Memeorandum, giving my defense of Obama greater exposure. I felt this out weighed any reluctance towards giving MM a link.)

Again, somewhat off topic, but I find it amusing after you mentioned MM that in this rare case MM was more helpful to us than Taylor Marsh.