Drudge: KERRY CAMPAIGN CALLS FOR BOOK BAN

[ProgressiveOne]

Just up:

The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...

Sounds to me like Clanton is right on!

[spotbird]

1. How about a law suit?

No publisher is going to hold a money maker just because it contains lies.

[Surface Map]

2. That's what worries me.

I'm not a lawyer but why isn't Kerry suing these guys for slander or lible or something. Can't he do that if what they are saying isn't true?

[Frodo]

18. It's almost impossible to sue for that when you're a politician

The rules are different when you are attacking a public figure.

Didn't more than one book accuse Clinton of murder?

[noahmijo]

38. Cause then he'd have to spend the next few months before election

futzing around with that instead of focusing on his campaign.

This would be playing right into Bush's hands because * cannot afford to have Kerry going around being positive all the time and spreading his message as to how he's going to better this nation.

[spotbird]

42. Yes he could, but it likely wouldn't prevent publication.

There is a problem with prior restraint.

A suit would be a good thing, but time is an issue. It wouldn't go to trial until after he is President, then he won't be able to address this because all of his time will be devoted to cleaning up chimp's shit.

It might be good pr.

[Sterling]

52. Injunction anyone?

It would be easy for Kerry to stop this book if it really contians falsehoods. If he wants to waste his time is the issue. Clinton most likely did not go after the RW phreeks over the Foster aligations because they were not believable to begin with. Or maybe they were true? I am pretty sure that is why Bush won't adress f9-11 or the "War on Freedom". By doing so he would open a huge can o worms that he could not deal with.


In this case I do think Kerry should sue often and as hard as he can. I see ads everyday claiming Kerry was absent from all his votes or he eats babies or hates america. Kerry needs a team of lawyers that soecifically fight these kinds of half truths and lies. Otherwise many people will assume they are true.

[trogdor]

3. Remember "Fortunate Son"?

This was a SUCCESSFUL attempt by the Bush administration to supress publication of a book that shows the Chimp in an unfavorable light. The difference is, most of the allegations in Fortunate Son were verifiable.

[Bush was AWOL]

45. They tried to ban this book?

I googled and came up with nothing. Can you explain what took place?

[napi21]

4. I don't want to see any books banned!

I suppose a law suit is in order if Kerry wants to persue that avenue, but don't ban the book. Let these nuts have their day in the sun, but I suspect this book will fade from popularity the same as most of the other Pub supporters books have. It seems like the ones that have remained on the top sellers list have been written by Frankin, Both Clintons, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, etc.

None of us want to see books or movies banned. Sure, I guess I'm biased because our side is winning with the popularity of recent books, movies like F911, Outfoxed, and Uncovered. but I hope I would fight for the same freedom if Pub books & movies were popular too.

Let the people of America choose what they want, freely.

[truth2power]

5. I agree n/t

[tlcandie]

8. Can anyone HONESTLY think Kerry is trying to ban any book?

They asked or appealed to them to remove it. THAT IS NOT BANNING OR TRYING TO BAN. It is trying to appeal to their common decency in having the truth reported instead of lies.

Seems to me they tried to communication and decent thing one to one with the publisher, so now they will probably take it to court.

Going to find the Salon article if it's available.

[Cocoa]

10. people make it too easy for Drudge

all Drudge has to do is use the word "ban" and people lose their heads and start talking about Kerry banning books.

Here's a radical idea: maybe wait until we hear from a RELIABLE source what Kerry actually said?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Publishers have removed or

redone books in the past that have proven to be fraudulent. As the Salon article said, maybe the book sellers should put "Unfit to Publish" in the fiction section.

[progressivebydesign]

11. Ah... falling for the Drudge headline... exxxxcellent..

Gee. Drudge says "jump" and the liberals say.. "how high?". His rightwing peabrain used the term "BAN", and DUers are lapping it up.

Kerry isn't asking for a ban on the book. He's asking that a book that is filled with lies (that can be verified as such) should be removed. It would be the same for any book. The book is not presented as commentary, it's presented as fact. If a book was published that claimed you were guilty of lying, a book that was full of complete falsehoods, you would ask that the book be pulled, as well. I LOVE how Drudge is so good at pushing the liberal buttons.. I just HATE how easily you all fall for the bait.

The subject of a book that deliberately lies about that subject has the right to ask that it be pulled... it's not a ban.

[forgethell]

20. If it is lies,

and was published witht the knowledge that it was lies, even a politician can sue and win.

[progressivebydesign]

35. I think that sounds reasonable.. we do have laws for that...

too bad we're not in England, their laws are MUCH more stringent on those things.

[cspiguy]

13. amen. let 'em bring it on and the smart people will make their choice

n/t

[Sterling]

55. I want all books with outright lies posing as non fiction to be banned.

Or maybe just reclassification as fiction. In this case however the writers insist their work is non fiction which cannot be true if it contains falsehoods intended to damage Kerry's credibility. This is clearly not legal and would easily be decided in Kerry's favor if he bothered to sue the publisher.

Objective truth is what we are most laking these days and it's time to hold people accountable for poluting our national dialouge with falsehoods.


If we cannot aknowledge a common set of facts on which to base our oppinions on we are at the mercy of those with enough money and power to invent their own "truth".

[djg21]

65. Drudge is being hysterical.

Kerry is not trying to ban any book. It would take a governmental action to "ban a book," and that is inconsistent with the First Amendment, and Kerry knows that.

What Kerry is offering is at most a veiled threat -- that a publisher has no First Amendment right to publish falsehoods that are slanderous. That being said, Kerry will not sue because he is a public figure, and to prevail, he would have to prove "actual malice" -- essentially, that the publisher acted with reckless disregard for the ttuth, or that that the slanderous statements were false when made, and known by the publisher to have been false when made. This is a very hard standard to meet.

Moreover, why would Kerry want to keep this issue in the news past the end of August. He will want to let it float gently down the river with the disceredited swift boat liars.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. "Should" does not equal "must"

Despite the headline, which I take it is Drudgery, Kerry clearly used the word "should". He is not calling for a ban, he is asking the publisher to do the decent thing. They won't of course, since they are a rightwing propaganda press, which is their right.

[robcon]

7. Excellent post, B dela Paz

Kerry did not call for the banning, nor should he.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. Thanks. I should have said "his campaign", but same principle applies. nt

[Langtree]

41. You're reaching here, Bernardo ...

Most people will not take issue with the semantics here. "Should" equalls clear, tacit advocacy of banning this book. To say otherwise is to be completely disingenuous.

The Bush campaign speaking out is <i>de facto</i> Bush himself speaking out, and the same is true for Democrats. How this ever made it past Kerry's top advisers is beyond reason.

[Maeve]

46. Random House just withdrew a bestseller for being a fraud

"Forbidden Love" by Norma Khouri. Great story, just not true and publishers around the world dropped it.

But then...those are honest publishers.

[Darranar]

12. The campaign is asking for the publisher to withdraw the book...

not for anyone to ban it.

[tlcandie]

14. This thread will be locked anyway without a link ... eom

[0007]

15. Got a link?

What a misleading title

[ProgressiveOne]

16. LINK To Story on Salon.com

Unfit for bookstores

[truthisfreedom]

27. the last few paragraphs of that article pack quite a punch!

Earlier, Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, chairman and co-founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, flip-flopped on a key element of his Kerry story. In May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, "Hoffmann acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally." But with the pending publication of "Unfit for Command," Hoffmann changed his story, insisting he "knew well."


Hoffmann wasn't alone in reversing his story on the Kerry attack. In 1968, Grant Hibbard, a lieutenant commander in Vietnam during Kerry's tour, described Kerry favorably: "One of the top few in his willingness to seek and accept responsibility." But now he claims Kerry lied about his service. Another vocal Kerry critic, Capt. George Elliot, who served in Vietnam at the same time Kerry did, praised Kerry both in a 1968 evaluation ("In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed") and as recently as 1996 when Elliot publicly praised Kerry for charging after the enemy.


A Regnery Publishing spokesperson did not return a call seeking comment about the factual cloud over "Unfit for Command." But if Regnery doesn't withdraw the book, perhaps bookstore retailers will at least consider moving the title over to the fiction section.

[billybob537]

17. If you look a little deeper

into this publisher, you'll find a white supremacist who wants to start a whites only dating web site. We need to see more backround on this publisher. Not more whinning.

[forgethell]

19. I think they are making

a mistake. Nobody likes book-burners. The answer to speech, or writings, is more speech or writings.

We can win without resorting to these tactics.

[thebigidea]

21. Which would make sense if anyone called for banning or burning.

[Frodo]

24. Easy to spin that way though.

It didn't stop people here from shouting "censorship!" when some theaters declined to show Moores film. And it didn't keep others from shouting "First Amendment!" and "Free Speech" when people chose not to give money to entertainers who insulted them.

[thebigidea]

33. easy for you to spin it, anyway.

[Sterling]

56. Well Moore's movie is not full of lies.

If anyone can prove it is I suggest they sue. Same goes for Kerry. If he cares about the truth he will sue.

It's fine to say some one is telling lies about you but if you want people to know the truth you need to put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

[thebigidea]

59. As usual, the tactic seems to be: claim he lies, never elaborate

if pressed, come up with disingenuous bullshit like Richard Clarke approving the Saudi flights.

[Sterling]

63. That is why Kerry has to sue.

To PROVE who the liars are. Moore is safe, I won't worry about that lawsuit. In fact I would welcome a suit against f-911. It would confirm the most damaging aspects of the movie.

If Kerry is not lying about his record he needs to prove it once and for all in a court of law. This is a very serious issue for Kerry.

[forgethell]

49. You seem to be very literal minded. n/t

[Frodo]

22. Why does this sound like a bad idea?

I agree with previous posters comments on banning books and censorship, but I'm just talking the politics of it.

I know that there is a simple argument that one is the "truth" and the other a "lie", but both candidates have been hounded by accusations paid for by the remote corners of the opposition party. I don't think it looks good that Bush just ignored Moore and Kerry is pressuring TV stations not to show adds and book publishers not to sell books.

[thebigidea]

23. Why am I not surprised...

[Frodo]

26. Nor am I

Sarcasm without ability to respond to the points of the post?

I think I recognize the poster.

[thebigidea]

29. Forgive me for not dedicating myself to your timeless writing.

Don't worry, I'm working on a doctoral thesis about your posts... I should get to it right after I finish my massive biography of Curly Joe DeRita.

In any case, the only actual quotes from the Kerry campaign seem to be: "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."

Which are a far cry from what some posters are reading into it... but, yeah - lets listen to Matt freakin' Drudge instead.

[Frodo]

34. Hay! A Stooges fan?

We Finlay agree on something.

And it's good point on Drudge as well.

But we do know that the campaign (or maybe it was the DNC) had lawyers sent letters to broadcasters "encouraging" them not to run those hateful adds. But that "encouragement" "reminded" them that they could be legally liable for the misstatements they allowed to air.

Thanks for taking the time. :hi:

[tlcandie]

25. My take on your post ...

One doesn't care and thus ignores because they know it is all true?

One does care and doesn't ignore it because they know it is all untrue?

:shrug:

EDIT TO ADD:
My saying is that in this world all I have is my integrity. If I don't have that I don't have anything else and/or nothing else really matters.

[Frodo]

28. As I said - The truth or falsehood of the claims DOES matter

but this is politics, not just reality. There's a fringe of Rushittes who believe all this stuff and a similar small group who are all caught up in Moores acusations.

Neither was going to be voting for the other anyway.


A big percentage of people in the middle view them as very similar attacks from people with a predetermined agenda.

[thebigidea]

31. yeah, keep thinkin' Moore only reached a "small group"

[tlcandie]

32. Withdrawn

EDIT: After reading your post, again, I think I didn't read between the lines too well and am withdrawing my post so as not to distract from the thread.

[Frodo]

36. I don't consider fighting for the truth as politics either.

I'm saying that you confront the lies and point out where they are most clearly wrong (don't get caught up in the tiny details).

You don't go to the publisher and ask them not to publish a book. You certainly don't threated legal action against TV stations that carry a political add.

Right or wrong it gives ammunition to your opposition. They can truthfully say "The book John Kerry does not want anyone to read - he even tried to get it pulled from the shelves".

[Sterling]

57. No you sue.

"You don't go to the publisher and ask them not to publish a book. You certainly don't threated legal action against TV stations that carry a political add."

In a case like this damages are clear and huge if the book or ad is false. It's the only right thing to do.

[Frodo]

67. You can't sue. He's a politician.

It's virtually impossible to win a libel/slander suit when you're a politician. The legal standards are too different for public figures.

[forgethell]

50. MY point, exactly

this makes our side look small and petty. We should rise above the fray. Paying attention to this lends it credence.

Further, although Citizen Kerry has the same rights as anybody else to call for a boycott, a withdrawal, or whatever, Candidate Kerry or Senator Kerry lends a aura of government power to the request. Hence it should not have been made.

[democrat_patriot]

30. Did they learn nothing?

Will this not just bring it MORE publicity?!?

[Sterling]

61. Well if Kerry really lied about his war record.

Then I would understand why he would not want to touch this. But as his war record is critical to his chances of success in Nov it is idiotic to let this slide.


He not only needs to adress it but crush it and use it against the Pukes as an example of how they cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It is a great oppertunity if played well. Otherwise it is just another MEME like"Invented the internet" That will stick.
I watch the Dems fuck up 2k doing stuff like this.

At a certain point I will have to emotionally uninvest myself with the party if the play dead like 2k and since. That way I can at least get a laugh out of how dumb the party has become.

I almost hate the party as much as Repukes these days. Only for different reasons. Bush gets his because he is evil. Dems are just a too pathetic to take seriously these days.

[tlcandie]

66. Part of what I withdrew in an earlier reply was simliar...

If we are expecting Kerry to fight all this BS after November, then I think he needs to start and continue to knock all this BS into the ethers now!

I withdrew it because I'm not politically minded. When it comes to playing chess anyone can beat me. I'm too straight forward. I guess some would say simple minded. Hell, I'm 48 and only got pulled into politics with * running for president. I grew up in Texas and knew all about him and knew he had no business being the leader of the US. At the time he ran for governor, I was living in Washington state, so I had no ability to cast my vote against him at that time.

EDIT: Many will disagree that you have to pick your fights wisely. IMO, all lies must be defeated and obliterated if we are to change things. The lies, deceit, and secrecy are what is killing this nation. We need someone to stand up and fight every battle that tries to push those agendas.

[Langtree]

This move by Kerry's campaign will end his campaign ...

if it is not quashed quickly and artfully. Advocating the banning of a book is, to many Americans, the 'Holy Grail' of facism. The single move by the Kerry campaign will do more to damage, perhaps even deep-six, his campaign the anything the Republicans could do.

This is a very bad development, people. Don't minimize this - any objective person would have to acknowledge that this is a very, very damaging story.

[thebigidea]

40. BWAHAHHA! Ah, thanks for the laugh.

Almost as funny as "Joementum"

[Langtree]

43. Very mature, Big Idea ...

and very shallow. Ad hominemattacks on a loyal Democrat who supports Kerry even though they were competitors for nomination is to put down the whole process by which one becomes the Democratic nominee for President. I can only conclude that this story, and the possibility that the public might perceive the story, as it currently stands, to be true is a very scary idea. It should be to everyone here, but the rational, mature thing to do is to talk about how a campaign recovers from a gaffe that has the potential to irrepairably damage the campaign. Acknowledging this is scary, hence your usual sarcastic response.

[thebigidea]

44. merely invoking the term "Joementum" is an ad hominem attack?

There is nothing wrong with Joementum, I use it on a daily basis to help me get through the day... and if Joe friggin' Lieberman represents the entire process in which one nominates a candidate, I'm Bob Saget.

What's scary is blowing up a campaign aide's remark and implying it'll sink the campaign. That's scary!

I'll take sarcasm over seeing doomsday in my cornflakes any day.

Now pass the shrill hyperbole...

[OKNancy]

51. Who says Kerry wants to ban a book?

Drudge's words. Not Kerry's

I might remind you that Drudge said Hillary would be indicted for Whitewater Crimes, that Sid Blumenthal beat his wife, that Clinton had a black baby, that Kerry had a lover in Africa.

Drudge is a known shit-thrower. He likes to see what will stick.

I can't believe anyone would say it would be the end of Kerry's campaign based on a Drudge article.

[Surface Map]

53. Yes it is damaging

and Kerry needs to get more aggressive after these guys by specifically exposing the lies and filing a billion dollar lawsuit. If nothing else it would at least appear that "he's mad and he isn't going to take it anymore". He can drop the lawsuit if he can't win after the election.

Hannity and the like aren't going to let this die until they are completely discredited.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Bah forget it.

I'm self deleting this.

[AMMONRAE]

48. Disagree

We should write books about anything and it should be published.

We are not a nazi or a communist nation.

[thebigidea]

54. the irony of this is hysterical...

after years of "Watch what you say, watch what you do" - suddenly the fuckin' DEMOCRATS are called bookburners, etc.

[Sterling]

58. Sure books about anything.

As long as Non Fiction books are still made to reflect facts and not lies and falsehoods. If someone wants to write a fiction book about Kerry's poor war record then fine. But these people are knowingly spreading falasehoods with the intent to damage the credibilty of a very important man.


It is crucial to hold people accountable in situations like this.

[moran4change]

60. I agree with your general premise, but

I don't think it should give people the right to publish outrageous lies about others, public figures or not. I have freedom of speech, but I don't have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a theatre.

If Kerry can - through litigation - make the publishing house regret its decision to publish "Unfit for Consumption", then maybe we can prevent this crap from happening in the future. I think most would side with Kerry on this.

[AlFrankenFan]

62. Lawsuit rather than ban

Because though no matter how evil their motives seem, all the campaign needs to do is be able to prove their lies in a court of law and sue for libel.

[Sterling]

64. Yes I used bann when I really meant sue.

My mistake. Dems need to get sue happy and really quick. The damage the RW lies have done over the last 20 years has almost destroyed the country. It's is time to draw the line in the sand and take not one step back.

[Moderator]

68. Unfortunate kick

Kick because I locked a dupe without explanation.

[AngryAmish]

69. Why not ban the book through litigation?

Who do these people think they are? Making up lies about Kerry?

These people must be pursued and crushed. This book has no reason to exist. It must be stopped at all costs.