WOW!!! Way to go, Mark Shields!!! Calls SBL ad "FRAUD"

[LynnTheDem]

JIM LEHRER: Not stooges of the Bush campaign?

MARK SHIELDS: Of course they are, Jim. I mean, the problem with smear campaigns is that too often they work. All we have to see - and there's a modus operandi here. We've seen it before in Bush campaigns; we saw it in 1988, we saw it in '92, we saw in 2000 against John McCain.

And this isn't just the fingerprints of the Bush-Cheney campaign, or the footprints; it's the DNA. I mean, it's the funding of it, the people involved in it were involved in McCain; they use exactly the same example to go after the person just as they did with John McCain in 2000.

MARK SHIELDS: Bill, let's be very blunt about it, this whole thing. That ad is a fraud.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec04/sk_8-20.html

[lil-petunia]

1. Yet another REASON TO LOVE PBS

Lehrer, Shields both ROCK!

[VOX]

2. All right, Mark!!! Let it rip, guy!!!!!

At least Shields has the guts to call it like it is.

:toast:

[bushwakker]

3. Shields is a former Marine

If only the JK camp had as forceful a spokesman as Shields.

[iceman_419]

9. I disagree

Kerry went about things the right way, in a political sense. Most people here feel that he waited to long, but Kerry couldn't have come out against the SBV until he had proof. If he did attack them, then Kerry would have looked bad politically. Now that Kerry has all his cards in order he can go after Bush and the SBV. Kerry is using this to attack Bush which is exactly what he should be doing. Attacking the SBV personally would be a big mistake, even if they are liars. Remember the political world and the real world have very different rules.

[emulatorloo]

12. JK is a prosecutor, he knows how to build and win a case

You are correct. . .

[bushwakker]

17. Kerry was terrific yesterday

and I hope he keeps it up because the SBL's will not stop. I believe however that a better reponse by the campaign and by the surrogates who appear on televison might have made it so JK didn't have to personalyy respond.

[kodi]

32. i disagree

Kerry went about things the right way, in a political sense. Most people here feel that he waited to long, but Kerry couldn't have come out against the SBV until he had proof. If he did attack them, then Kerry would have looked bad politically. Now that Kerry has all his cards in order he can go after Bush and the SBV. Kerry is using this to attack Bush which is exactly what he should be doing. Attacking the SBV personally would be a big mistake, even if they are liars. Remember the political world and the real world have very different rules.

you are engaged in a misdirection of the basic issue. it is not the issue of whether or not Kerry can now go on the offensive against Bush himself, but the swift and effective debunking of the Swift Boat Veterans accusations.

in May 2004 the Swift Boat Veterans announced their intentions at a press conference. i am assuming that the Kerry campaign knew of this since i did. the Kerry campaign had months to prepare for this attack. In that interval the Kerry campaign could have assembled whatever they needed to counter-attack the smears and presented it to the press within 24 hours.

one can look up on the net if any of the Kerry accusers donated to bush, one could file an FOIA request to the dept of the navy on the pertinent records of the events the Swift Boat Veterans mentioned in their releases, months ago.

this information could have been assembled and put on a shelf ready to be retrieved the moment these attacks started and presented to the press the day the Swift Boat Veterans ads aired.

the Kerry campaign did not do so, and the mumble-mouths the Kerry campaign sent onto the airwaves to counter the accusations was amazingly inarticulate for a campaign that had months to work on this.

either they had the information and using a "cunning plan" worthy of the Black Adder suckered the Swift Boat Veterans and Bush into this, or they did not have the sense to expect it.

remarks that Kerry had to be careful about "attacking" the Swift Boat Veterans is far-fetched. all his campaign had to do was undermine the "alleged" facts the Swift Boat Veterans ad presented by presenting immediately the counter-information research it took the media 2 weeks to do. This has nothing to do with personalities and attacks on the persons themselves.

if one wants the media to do what you want of it, you have to do their homework for them. that's pretty plain, isn't it?

The only excuse is that the Kerry campaign did not respond earlier because they did not have the real information to undermine the attacks when the attacks occurred.

if that is so, why not? anyone who knows the bush crime family knows these people would do anything they could to win.

Kerry's entire propaganda thrust during the convention was the tie in of his military record as indicative of his ability to serve as president. it was the most important facet of his projection onto the American people.

it went like this "i was a wise and brave man under fire, and as president i will show that same wisdom and bravery."

that was in affect, Kerry's "holy ground." it was what set him apart from bush.

that these attacks on that holy ground were not met with complete and total annihilation is bizarre.

do Americans actually realize what it is to deny at the ballot box the American president a second term? it is regicide by plebiscite. that is a hard thing to do to the leader of your country, and not a thing taken lightly by people. the alternative must be sufficiently regarded as better, much better than the president seeking re-election.

nothing that undermines that can get in the way, and playing chess or judo do not cut the mustard in defense of that projection.

[iceman_419]

36. I know

I understand it seems much easier for us to determine what it going on and hold to solve the problem, but we are not running for office. You may disagree, which is cool, but I think Kerry did what was right. That survey which showed only 35% of veterans now support Kerry was a poll conducted with about 400 veterans. Kerry has time to win back that veteran vote, but now that he has the evidence to attack Bush. This could be very daming, and what we should do is not so much concentrate on the SBVT, but work on getting the word out about how horrible this economy is. While Kerry and his group have to worry about SBVT we can help them out by telling people more about Kerry's policies. That is what I will do at least.

[kodi]

38. its not a matter of pulling the trigger, but if the chamber is even loaded

i traveled on business 3,800 miles throughout the southeast the last week of july/first two weeks of august. everywhere i went, and almost all the people i spoke with were talking about the swift boat veterans for revenge ads. and those folks were buying the thrust of those ads. from blue-haired little old lady recpetionists, to plant mangers, to research directors to presidents of companies, the remarks were almost always negative about kerry as a result of those ads. i was doing more to debunk those ads with these folks than kerry's campaign was doing.

this is not a mere event, but a process of defending oneself.
and i am not sure if i agree with:

Kerry has time to win back that veteran vote, but now that he has the evidence to attack Bush.

because he would logicaly be expected to have had this data to defend himself even before the swiftboat veterans for revenge even aired their ads. in other words, he knew what was about to happen and was unprepared for it.

since the kerry campaign did not fire back as soon as they saw the muzzle flash makes me believe that they were unprepared for returning fire on this. if i am wrong, then why did it take two weeks to fire back forcefully?

leaving it to a mass media well-known for distortion to dig up facts to support kerry on this would be suicidal.

again, the swift boat veterans for revenge were publicly speaking about this stuff in may 2004, and to have the kerry camp apparently startled by the ads in july makes me question what the kerry campaign "counterattack people" (or truth squad) were doing for 12 weeks.

to use a warfare metaphor: if you and i were just walking down the street in say, des moines iowa, and someone started shooting at us, we would most likely duck for cover and try to figure out what the hell was going on, however, in a presidential campaign, especially against the bush crime family, the street we would be walking down would be like one in war-torn fallujah, iraq and to take fire on that street, we should be prepared automatically to return fire in a moment. it is this context in which the stuff happened.

but maybe the kerry campaign did not think that the busheviks would stoop so low?

that's naive, not nuance.

as to the economy; i agree with you, completely.

as a businessman, i hit hard daily on this with republicans i come in contact with. they have no defense, and most agree with me. hell, i have spoken to middle-aged, white, conservative, christian men who tell me that they won't support bush because of the economy but are still concerned about the social philosophies of the democrats. so, we are now seeing the divisive social values issues being to be swamped by the economic issues.

and its about time.

[WyLoochka]

13. I really like Mark Shields

but he is neither an effective nor a forceful spokesperson.

I think he should give up his News Hour seat. He's been there for years and has not been successful at drawing an audience who will listen to him. What he says usually doesn't resonate. And he has given far too much ground to the occupants of the opposing chair over the years.

He was terrific long ago when he sat opposite David Gergen, but then Gergen was replaced by Paul Gigot and now David Brooks has that spot. He isn't able to effectively parry their arguments, let alone score points on a regular basis. He tries, he's a good guy, but he just doesn't get the job done.

I wish he'd step aside and let someone else have a shot at making hay with the opportunity that the News Hour presents.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. FEEDBACK: [e-mail], Shields at [e-mail]

[Raven]

5. I hope and pray that the discussion of these ads

has people reaching two conclusions: Bush doesn't fight fair and Bush didn't fight at all. Coward, coward, coward...!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. You have much faith in the critical thinking abilities of the populace

I think it will have to be spelled out.

[Champion Jack]

11. That's a good meme...

just like Vietnam, bush has someone else fight his battles

[Bernardo de La Paz]

39. Great meme: Just like Vietnam, Bush has someone else fight his battles

[KayLaw]

6. I don't get it

How can this sort of ad be legal? It seems very clear the message is false. It's as if I and some other women took out an ad falsely claiming Bush sexually assaulted us twenty years ago - isn't it?

[imax2268]

7. Shields layed the smackdown

on Kristol...

great show...indeed...

[LynnTheDem]

10. Stupid RWW Tricks:

Take one sentance.

"Some people say bush is a dickhead bastard, but that isn't true" said Republican Z.

Cut bits and pieces out and do an ad:

"bush is a dickhead bastard" said Z.

According to the rightwingnut wackos, this is an ok thing to do.

[Skarbrowe]

14. It's in the DNA!

Odd that he should use that phrase. :) So true, so true.

signing off from the Twilight Zone,

Skarbrowe

[Pepperbelly]

15. that's HORRIBLY unfair!

Bush's parents were married.

:D

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Wrong.

Barb was married to George H W Bush, was never married to the chimp she had the affair with.

[blm]

19. Bush wasn't born. Barbara shook him out of a coconut tree.

.

[Auntie Bush]

27. Wrong...Barbara shook him out doing the bumps and grinds with George.

They accidental stepped on his head in their excitement...thus explaining his brain damage. So please folks... don't blame Georgie for his stupidity...it's all Momma's fault.

[blondeatlast]

30. Yes, but it was an unholy matrimony; Barbara Bush just doesn't

quite qualify as human, if you ask me.

Please let me know when this appears on FR; I'm too cowardly to go there myself.

[ncteechur]

18. Yeah, David Gergen said the same thing the other night.

He said that he thought this would backfire and hurt the repubs in November.

[Old and In the Way]

20. What did Brooks have to say about it?

Was he his usual, "gee, shucks, why can't we get past this stuff?" He is the worst of the bunch, because he appears so reasonable.

[The Magistrate]

24. Kristol Was Filling In, Sir

He had the look of a brazen boy standing before a broken cookie jar insisting the dog did it. Claimed no connection between these smears and the campaign, and that they wouldn't really help the campaign anyway, so that proved the assertion.

"What an ultra-maroon!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[stevedeshazer]

29. Mr Kristol's facial expression was priceless, Sir

I suspect he did not anticipate Mr Shields' forceful response.

[maine_raptor]

21. Can't wait for Capitol Gang tonight

Wonder if Mark will chew the DBag of Liberty a new one (as usual)?

[alarcojon]

22. Glad to see it from Shields

I've always thought of him as the "I'm not a liberal, but I play one on TV" type.

[Gloria]

23. Craig Crawford on Hardball Last Night!

He was on with Tom Oliphant (bowtie) and the creepy John Fund. Fund was whining about 527's and said voters didn't want to see this sort of stuff.
Crawford went further....he, like Gergen on a previous Hardball this week, said that he didn't see this helping Bush at all because it kept on reminding people that Kerry was in Nam and Bush wasn't.

He also brought up the fact that the payroll records indicated Bush was 'somewhere' not there.....He was asked if he was saying Bush was AWOL and he just grinned and said, "I'm just saying that the payroll records have a gap" (something like that!)

He also said he was worried about what Iran was saying and was wondering if we were going to have another war ...with Iran??????

Andrea Mitchell asked where Edwards has been. Oliphant said that he's beein going around and getting very good local press...He referred to some sort of polling that showed extremely positive feedback.....

[Bandit]

25. Fund was almost crying and saying "Can't we just agree they both served

honorably?" He asked Oliphant if he would admit the AWOL story was false and Oliphant said Bush*'s own records showed Bush* did not show up for pay during the months in question. Fund was out of his legue.

[Old and In the Way]

26. I watched that.

Oliphant kept covering his mouth...to keep from laughing. He had that Cheshire Cat look.

Fund, the girlfriend beater, doesn't seem to like the idea of contributory democracy, does he. What ought to be discussed is how many Americans are support the 527's, especially MoveOn, because we've watched Bush/Cheney rack in $100's of millions over the past 3-1/2 years in their non-stop fundraising with the 1% of Americans (as Bush notes, the "haves and the have mores). They really don't want us to have a voice in our government, do they? Why do they hate America so much?

[Dover]

28. What Bushco continues to do successfully, strategically speaking, is to

ignore Dubya's weaknesses on any subject (in this case Bush's awol status) and instead throw a critical light on Kerry...thus leveling what is an uneven playing field favoring Kerry, by creating doubt and magnifying hairline cracks in the veneer. A good offense trumps a good defense. I suppose they figure they have nothing to lose having already weathered the AWOL storm for the most part, and Kerry has MUCH to lose....so why not risk some acceptable levels of flak? It's something that I haven't seen the Kerry camp do yet. Instead they avoid his weaknesses as vulnerabilities that must be protected at all costs...while relying on Bush's weaknesses to do the work for them.

[MaryH]

31. I don't think I have ever seen Mark Shields so Mad

I watch Lehrer every nite so I've seen Mark Shields a lot. And I don't think I have ever seen him so off like he did last nite.

And he was right to. I'm glad the NYT came out with their story yesterday. That really helped me to understand what has been going on.

But I have no respect for Kristol. He just seems mean spirited to me.

[NightOwwl]

33. They had these two on MSNBC this morning.

Shields did a great job.

On a side note, MSNBC is the only cable news channel I watch anymore.

[faithnotgreed]

34. isnt that the truth. go chris (on monday he will look "further" into

the ads)

hope he keeps his latest ratings... thats an incentive as no other i guess

[KharmaTrain]

35. The Capitol Gang Is Must See Tonight...

Shields and Al Hunt (Mr. Judy Woof-Woof) will have a field day with this stuff, and we can get a good idea of how the worm will start turning on this story. Douchevak will call Kerry a Traitor, O'Bierne will say how all we do is hate Bunnypants the great veteran and Margaret Carlson will grin like Bugs Bunny.

Another must see will be McLaughlin...no friend of this regime and I get a feeling he will open up on this thing as well. I expect Pitchfork Pat...who somehow got a bug up his ass on Scarface and all but came out and kissed the Freeperboat slime...to be the only resistance in what could be some delightful Bunnypants demasculating...especially if Lawrence O'Donnell is on.

Plus, there's a special Countdown with Olbermann tonight...that's sure to be worth the watch and Matthew's weekly talk show tomorrow morning.

One great thing here is there's precious little hate radio until Rush cracks the oxy-contin and the mike on Monday AM...and if there's a shitstorm brewing on cable TV, that arm of the Rove machine will have a lot of catch-up to do.

[DU GrovelBot]

## 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.

[Algorem]

37. transcript of Oliphant vs. shit bloat O'Kneel also goood:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/vietnam_8-19.html