Powered by TypePad

« Arafat's Condition - Spin/Counterspin | Main | The Little People Are Revolting »

November 07, 2004



The comment about meeting with NV terrorists caught me by surprise too. Who or what are they referring to? Presumably not the VC, who were (nominally anyway) South Vietnamese.


NBC would not release transcripts or a video copy of a 1971 Meet the Press on which John Kerry and Al Hubbard were the guests. Do you suppose this was at the request of the Kerry campaign?


Newsweek blithly skips over the details of the whole swift boat charges. Saying only that they wanted to respond but didn't, implying that it was for political reasons rather than the simple fact that there was no good response since the charges were well-founded. Only the stonewalling that the MSM let them get away with. Don't let this go unchallenged. I know the election is over, but the MSM must be held accountable, and Kerry must still be forced to sign the 180 or hopefully lose his senate seat.


Why were the North Vietnamese Kerry met with were called "terrorists?"

Les Nessman

So many people and organizations crashed and burned for their Lefty religion this campaign cycle. Thanks in large part to the internet, it was a MSM trainwreck.
BTW, is there a death pool started for Air America? I pick Feb. 15.

Capt Trevett at the Commons

I read the whole issue. I learned some interesting things, but it was loaded with gaps and innuendo.

A different NJ Tom

Why were the North Vietnamese Kerry met with called terroists.
Breck boy is probably too stupid to know the difference or maybe he is trying to shore up his tough guy stance for 2008 by calling all of America's past enemies "terrorist". If so that is fine with me as long as I get to call the Sons of female dogs that killed the most Americans Terrorist too, of course that would be the Confederates.


Let me get this straight - Edwards did not know this?

I guess it didn't work out so good having every Democratic nominee spending their oppo resources on a President DURING THE PRIMARY.


This post-election newsweek coverage has a lot of fascinating stuff, but MY GOD is it awash with DNC spin. You'll notice that everything that Republicans do is "misleading" or "distorting", it never bothers to really explain why this is so, it is simply declared. It has now become clear that "distortion" = "True statement about John Kerry we'd rather the public not know". And I love this bit

Dole blathered that Kerry was a great friend and that he admired him, but he didn't take back what he had said.
Got that? he "blathered". Are they saving money at Newsweek by just having aides at DNC headquarters write the article directly?


I watch c-span panel at Georgetown University Public Policy Insitute rehash the election. Melinda Henneberger of Newsweek could barely contain her dislike for Bush, even while she was advising that Democrats need to be less condescending toward middle-America, a place she very obviously didn't want to be.

Marlowe Anderson

I think the post-election post-mortems are interesting ala Newsweek and elsewhere. Who cares who spins what now? Bush won , big-time, fair and square, and all that--so the impact of that on the future is of utmost interest and deserves careful analysis; the past and the election will sort itself out in time so that good bona-fide historians will be able to tell for the most part what the successes and failures of both the Kerry and Bush campaigns were. As for the one backward glance that everyone seems to agree on--Michael Moore, Hollywood celebrities, and 727s were big losers--especially Soros and Move=on.org were not true friends of Kerry's chance at the big house--they were land mines who blew up in the solid red states and 2,500 counties where people of lots of descriptions recognized instantly that these people did not think as they did and do. Enough said--Bush has a mandate and his party will now move the country in quite different directions than a Kerry administration would have.

There was a cartoon in the New Yorker not long ago about a group of doctors surrounding an obviously very ill patient on a gurney:"We've agree that your prognosis is that you have one foot in the grave; now we are trying to decide whether it's your left foot or your right foot!" That probably applies to the present Democratic Party, as well!

Jim C.

"Dan Rather's carelessness and overzealousness"

Good way to spin knowingly presenting forged documents!


This article gives great insight to how in the tank the MSM was for team Kerry. The Kerry camp doesn't want to give the Swiftee's any more attention? Fine, the "responsible" old media won't touch the story. Too late you say, Fox and the Internet are already pushing it? Fine, the Kerry camp gives the green light for the MSM to run hit pieces, feeding them with background information. Newsweek spells out the coordination from the Kerry camp and MSM's news cycle, although they fail to take note of it.


The Newsweek article states that C-SPAN wouldn't give the SwiftVets the audio for Kerry's 1971 testimony and that it's an actor doing the voiceover ("Jenjis Khan" and all). C-SPAN did show the testimony, as well as the Dick Cavett debate, a few months ago. IIRC, C-SPAN explained that there was full audio, but only partial video, so some of the audio was played as voiceover to still shots. IIRC, it was the same drawling, upperclass voice as on the SwiftVets ad. Does anyone know about this?


Yeah, what Tim said. If I'm a Dem considering running Edwards in 2008, I'd want to know why this guy apparently had not done any homework on his opponents. What a lightweight.


"Why were the North Vietnamese Kerry met with were called "terrorists?""

Because the fit the definition, maybe?



"Why were the North Vietnamese Kerry met with were called "terrorists?""

Because that's what Kerry called them in HIS diary?

The VC terrorists were terrorists before they were killing Americans BTW.

The comments to this entry are closed.