Why did John Kerry want McCain to be his Vice Presidential running mate in 2004?

[mtnsnake]

At the time it was all happening in the late Spring of '04, it irritated me to think a Democratic nominee would consider someone from the enemy party to be his running mate. Thankfully for us, McCain rejected Kerry's advances and put any further notion of it to rest when he let it be known that there was no way he would ever join Kerry on the ticket if he was asked officially to do so.

QUESTIONS: What was the philosophy behind Kerry wanting McCain on his ticket? Can someone fill me in as to how having a Republican like McCain on the ticket could possibly have helped our chances? Does anyone besides Kerry really think that McCain would've attracted enough swing voters in red states to make a big difference? Has any Democrat besides John Kerry ever courted a Republican to join hands on the Democratic ticket before?

In the future, I hope to heck no other Democratic nominee ever considers running with a Republican as his running mate again.

Shouldn't there be a rule against it? :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

We never did get confirmation on that.

McCain denied it. It was more like a rumor than anything.

[WI_DEM]

1. he didn't.

[blm]

4. He didn't . It was RW lie machine that drove a rumor started in McCain's camp after

Biden casually told McCain in early 2004 that he wish Kerry would pick him so that the country could have a unity ticket.

McCain's camp had fun spreading the rumor, but McCain did say it never happened when confronted.

You KNOW all of this. The links and interview quotes were given to you MANY TIMES and you don't care.

[Tellurian]

98. Rumor Confirmed in Post #31

ck it out for proof!

[snowbear]

2. It was a RUMOR ..... A never confirmed RUMOR.

Good grief.. poor Kerry still taking flak even when he's not running..

[rockymountaindem]

3. A few people seem determined to keep the anti-Kerry fire burning

I don't know why.

[mtnsnake]

7. Baloney. I'm just concerned some future nomineee might pull a stunt like that

I can just hear it now if Obama wins and courts Giuliani for his running mate, not that he ever would.

[rockymountaindem]

14. John Kerry never did that once

It was an unsubstantiated media-hype rumor. Why worry about it now?

[AtomicKitten]

15. the end result was definitely not good

and I too hope this is never repeated in the future ...

I understand it may have been a way to extend an olive branch in an attempt to mend the fractious political environment, but I would have preferred that this be asked and answered in private rather than allowing the press to be the mediator thinking an after-the-fact denial in the case of being turned down would smooth things over.

[mtnsnake]

25. No, it wasn't. It was almost like an omen of things to come

How any Democrat could consider someone from the enemy party for their running mate is just awful.

I wish some of the people here were right about it being a rumor, but there are too many left wing sources out there who say it was really so.

[fedupinBushcountry]

30. Prove it

links ?

[mtnsnake]

43. Prove it?

How can I prove anything? If I could prove it, I wouldn't have posed it as a question.

Here is a quick link though, one of many if you want, not that it's proof of anything but the prevailing sentiment at the time:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05172004.html

[AtomicKitten]

94. I certainly understand your point.

I think some of these folks are looking for a written proposal, a formal offer, but the whole thing is murky because the overtures were made in the press to sort of feel McCain out on the idea. The point is that it definitely was the conventional wisdom at the time, meaning that's what most folks thought was going down. The only people I've ever come across that don't believe it are the usual suspects here at DU and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Is it because McCain turned him down? Again I have to say this would have been better dealt with as a private conversation between the two men rather than this embarrassing public display that didn't play well for the Kerry campaign, but this is certainly not an issue worthy of all discomfort level expressed here. Sheeesh. Not a big deal.

[mtnsnake]

96. I think you might have hit upon something

The only people I've ever come across that don't believe it are the usual suspects here at DU and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Is it because McCain turned him down?

Bingo.

Sometimes in life, the idea of rejection is worse than the idea itself.

[AtomicKitten]

104. for crissakes we are all human

I think the problem is they have deified him and can't accept this really minor chink in the armor. Hey, they should be glad. McCain has turned out to be an epic douchebag. We ALL dodged a bullet on that one, eh? I swear if any Dem comes up with this dumbass idea again, we need to shout it down from the get-go instead of acting like stunned deer in the headlights. Ha, ha.

[mtnsnake]

116. No kidding

Why would he ever want a douchebag to be his running mate? Wanting a Republican was bad enough, but a Republican douchebag? That's going too far. I don't care how many red states Kerry thought McCain could help out with.

Thank goodness Edwards didn't shun him, too. I'm glad Edwards accepted the offer because he has charisma, among his other attributes. McCain has zero charisma.

[Tellurian]

33. Shoosh, mtnsnake...BLM hasn't found a way

to blame the Clintons!

YET!

[mtnsnake]

45. It's still early

Give it a little time.

[blm]

89. here's the anti-corruption thread you all haven't jumped into yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x127688

[mtnsnake]

91. One thread at a time, but feel free to express your own self there if you must. nt

[Tellurian]

97. RUMOR Confirmed in Post #31

ck it out!

[Bjornsdotter]

5. Never happened n/t

[emulatorloo]

6. Right Wing Lie Machine reving up its engines, Roveco fed Rumor.

A rumor only == fed by a giggling McCain and encouraged by Roveco.

[AtomicKitten]

8. The Kerry campaign made overtures in the press

perhaps to rally support for the notion, but was summarily rebuffed by the McCain campaign.

This was handled rather badly in a ham-handed sort of way and would have been better asked and answered in private than to roll the dice and risk an unfavorable result aired in public.

[emulatorloo]

16. Huffpo -- Mccain camp started the rumors

Author is James Boyce

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/vice-president-john-mccai_b_16678.html

Through a remarkable orchestration of behind-the-scenes politicking, John McCain's advisors thrust him in the middle of the John Kerry Vice Presidential selection process - the McCain as VP rumors started not in the Kerry camp but in the McCain camp.

By elevating his status among Independents and Democrats, John McCain dramatically increased his appeal and political power. In fact, McCain currently outpolls some potential Democratic 2008 candidates among DEMOCRATS.

The possibility of McCain running as John Kerry's Vice President forced Rove to deal with McCain. Because with the pending launch of the Swift Boat veterans teed up, Rove simply couldn't let Kerry pick McCain. Two veterans, running together, unifying the country in a time of war would have been virtually unbeatable.

---
Author bio A former advertising and marketing executive and winner of over 50 advertising awards for excellence, including one Clio, James was an unpaid Senior Advisor on John Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. He has been a contributor to Huffington Post since its launch in May 2005.

[karynnj]

19. yep, because the press was so friendly to the Kerry campaign

that the campaign decided that was the way to do it. Because, Kerry was too shy to speak to McCain because, you know being a loner, he didn't really know him and, you know how would he get the number.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Has there ever been any confirmation that this actually happened?

I know the rumors were running rampant, and many DUers were losing their heads over the idea, but has this ever been independently verified? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence, if it's actually out there.

[LittleClarkie]

24. Post 16 has an intereresting take on that from Huff Po

Makes sense to me. I consider McCain a weasel to begin with. Regardless of whether or not Kerry ever wanted him for Ve-ep, they were friends at one point, and it makes me sick to think of how McCain has slapped him in the face so many times. Russert actually did a good job on calling McCain on his hypocracy when he blasted Kerry for his botched joke. And now to hear that McCain has hired the PR firm that handled the Smear Vets has me hating him even more.

[sandnsea]

10. Why do people regurgitate 3 year old right wing lies?

Shouldn't there be a rule against it? :shrug:

[Island Blue]

11. You would make a fine journalist mtnsnake.

You never seem to let the truth get in your way.

[ProSense]

12. McCain started those rumors.

Here are the facts

[mtnsnake]

17. Yeah, sure. Funny how Kerry refused to nip those rumors in the bud. nt

[emulatorloo]

See also post 16 == Huffpo piece EOM

[ProSense]

20. Doesn't matter, McCain started them. You asked why Kerry did, and the answer is he didn't n/t

[mtnsnake]

29. Not according to all the sources on the web. nt

[AtomicKitten]

31. mtnsnake - you have ever reason to assume your assertion true

in spite of the feverish blog denials that are fed by Kerry supporters that apparently - and that is certainly substantiated if this thread is any evidence - wanting to deny it for some reason. I don't understand why people can't just answer your query but instead choose to quibble.

Certainly everybody else thought what you say is true:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me ask you. Do you think McCain is seriously - and I mean this professionally - flirting with the idea of accepting a second place on the ticket with John Kerry, and creating a fusion ticket to run against the President.

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542516/

and

Trial balloon deflated
But the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, shot the idea down a short time later, saying that he had McCain's approval to firmly announce that "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004."

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473

and

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Mr. Kerry, said such a ticket "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees signing A-Rod," referring to Alex Rodriguez, the team's star third baseman.

Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, "continues to be interested in" Mr. McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran whom Kerry aides describe as the candidate's best friend in the Senate, as a running mate, said one longtime Democratic official who works for the Kerry campaign.

But the official said the plan was unrealistic, because Mr. McCain "won't do it." In an interview on Friday, Mr. McCain said, "I have totally ruled it out."

from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/politics/campaign/15MCCA.html?ex=1399953600&en=92a150ca5500df54&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

[LittleClarkie]

46. Why would anyone have the right to assume truth without confirmation

even if others joined him in his assumption.

Feverish. No. Just pointing out the lack of confirmation, and the alternative suggestion that perhaps McCain floated the rumor himself. Snake has every right to consider his suggestion plausable. And others have the right to consider their suggestion plausable. Neither side has the right to assume without proof that they are correct.

Btw, your third example is from an anonymous source. "Longtime Dem official"

None of your links say where the idea came from. For all we know it could have been a media invention.

[mtnsnake]

48. Wow. Powerful links. To hear it from a Democratic strategist kind of reinforces it

that it was no rumor indeed.

[blm]

54. Democratic strategist Chris Lehane also spread rumor that Kerry had an affair - also linked

to RW lie machine. But, y'know there is similar press on that lie, too, so why don't you three work up an act for that lie while you're at it. You know - expand your act some more. Really liven up the board because you have no respect for anyone who cares about honest governance.

You like lies so you support lies and spread lies.

You will have no trouble finding more lies to spread with the corporate media and RW lie machine at your service. Nixon would be so proud of you. And Reagan. And Poppy Bush. And Rove.

[mtnsnake]

57. Let's just say the only real affair Kerry had was when he courted McCain for his VP

on his ticket.

[AtomicKitten]

66. well if you put it that way

I prefer this:


over this:




Ok, now you've put me right off my dinner.

[blm]

67. Which even McCain denies but you enjoy the lie so much you won't let it go.

Just like the corpmedia enjoyed the lie that Clintons trashed the WH and refused to let it go.

I fought that lie for ten months. I fight LIES. REAL lies. Your thread is a KNOWN lie, and you don't care.

[mtnsnake]

75. Apparently, you didn't even bother to read the links supplied in post #31. nt

[blm]

82. You won't read links where McCain says IT NEVER HAPPENED.

I don't give a shit about any link that repeats the rumor they heard - it was a RUMOR that turned into a LIE and you know it and don't give a flying fock, because your intention here is to ANNOY not INFORM.

Live by the RW lie and you will suffer from the RW lie soon enough.

[mtnsnake]

92. The official offer never happened. Kerry wanting him DID happen

according to all the sources and thousands of links at the time. Calm down. You don't need to raise your voice and cuss. It's not good for your health.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

63. I don't understand

why they are so incensed that people think it's true; it certainly was the conventional wisdom at the time and other than blog entries which are opinion pieces, I don't see any evidence to dispute it.

More importantly I think is talking about the ramifications of such a ticket. IMO it is a terrible idea.

[mtnsnake]

70. I don't understand why they're so upset either. If anything, they should condone him

for courting McCain. If McCain is who he wanted, then Kerry's people should be proud of him, not mad, and give their reasons for supporting that strategy, not that I'd ever support a strategy like that of a Dem wanting a Republican for his running mate.

[LittleClarkie]

86. Incontrovertible, it ain't.

This is a discussion forum, and we are discussing the relative merits of the suggestion that Kerry offered this position to McCain. There is a possibility he did. There is a possibility he didn't. There is a possibility it was jinned up by the press, or even floated by McCain himself to up his status.

AK didn't offer proof. She offered others who think the same as mtsnake, and one anonymous source. Eh.

Meanwhile, your glee is unseemly.

[Old and In the Way]

64. Wow, pretty damning links.

Lets see...wellknown Democratic cheerleader, Chris Matthews. McCain's COS. Chris LaHane - fired by Kerry. "One longtime Democratic official who works on Kerry's campaign". And McCain.

Quite a clearcut case you built here.

[AtomicKitten]

69. my point

~ wait I've got to get my hip boots on to wade through your sarcasm ~ OK, that's better, my point is that it was most certainly the conventional wisdom at the time, played out in the press, because the Kerry campaign floated the idea in the press to either (1) build support for the idea and/or (2) provide distance between them and McCain if he turned it down, which he did.

[blm]

73. here's the facts from McCain, himself - it NEVER HAPPENED

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3039160&mesg_id=3039160

[mtnsnake]

88. Those are facts? Good grief...

What's McCain supposed to say? "I was officially wanted by a Democrat"?

McCain said it all when he said he'd never be a running mate on Kerry's ticket. Of course the official offer never was made after Kerry found out McCain would reject him. I hope Kerry learned his lesson to never court a Republican again, should he by some miracle find himself in a similar position in the future.

[karynnj]

99. This amounts to:

Chris Matthews repeating gossip - because he is filling air time and is fascinated by McCain.

McCain's Chief of Staff denying he would be VP on either ticket - because he was asked.

The NYT is taking Lahane, who Kerry fired and who was thought to be one of the people who spread the intern story and an UNNAMED SOURCE. Note this is during a time period where Kerry was pubicly saying that neither he or the person helping him would say anything. The press even asked one of the Kerry girls who said that she really knew nothing and he would keep it private.

Not super impressive.

[blm]

34. Yeah - and the Clintons trashed the White House - McCain's rumor told me they did.

And so did the press for at least nine months. The presss wouldn't say it if it wasn't true, would they?

You believe a rumor from McCain's camp that McCain himself denied, then you were probably convinced that Clintons trashed the White House, too.

I don't believe anything so OBVIOUSLY constructed. Who is THAT stupid to believe it?

[Tellurian]

100. RUMOR Confirmed in Post #31

Ck it out, you're misinformed as usual!

[karynnj]

13. He didn't

Kerry said he would say absolutely nothing about the VP selection process. The only direst Kerry quote that I have seen is in Paul Reichoff's book where he and other Iraqi vets met with Kerry before the selection. When they advised him to pick McCain, Kerry said that "McCian was off the table." They also liked Clark and did not like Edwards. (Kerry commented on none of the Democrats they mentioned.)

An article after the election suggested that McCain either started the rumour or at least played with it when the rumour was started. Biden actually liked the idea. In reality, though Kerry and McCain had worked together on veteran benifits and the Vietnam MIA/POW issue, they were miles apart. After the election, McCain expanded his story again to say Kerry also wanted him to simultaneously be Secretary of Defense. Givene that there positions on Iraq were miles apart even then this is clearly a lie.

Kerry did say Edwards was the first person asked.

[wisteria]

18. Oh come on, this is lame. McCain started this rumor. Kerry never suggested this.n/t

[TwilightZone]

21. Did I miss the memo declaring today "bring up old, unsubstantiated rumors day"?

This stuff is everywhere today.

A little research is a wonderful thing.

[emulatorloo]

47. LOL -- and your user name is where we're living today EOM

[Tellurian]

22. knock, knock-Why did John Kerry want McCain to be his Vice Presidential running mate in 2004?

his advisors thought it was a brilliant idea! NOT!

[mtnsnake]

27. Whether it was the idea of his advisors or his own idea, we may never know for sure.

Bad idea, no matter whose idea it was. That was an embarrassing chapter for us for sure.

[blm]

32. What a manipulative piece of HOAX you are perpetrating on this board.

.

[mtnsnake]

37. I'm not, but if I was, you'd be my choice for my instructor. nt

[blm]

87. Why don't you and rest of trio go to THIS THREAD and attack ALL anti-corruption

open government posters and spread your disgust for the anti-corruption crowd delving into the last 30 years of BushInc, including the 90s.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x127688

[mtnsnake]

90. Do it yourself if you feel the need to.

Heck, I barely had time to do this one about trying to figure out why Kerry wanted McCain as his VP.

[Tellurian]

93. BLM is going into a super nova melt down..

her puter is choking on all the cut and paste denials!

911...additional memory cards...STAT!

[LittleClarkie]

36. Please don't forget the third possibility

explained in post 16, which is that McCain started the rumor himself to give himself more maverick cred. In which case it was perhaps an embarrassing chapter that wasn't written by our side.

Nevertheless, perhaps with a different Repub, I could see Kerry trying to heal the country in such a way. Hence, if McCain was still his friend at that point, I could Kerry doing this with the best of intentions. But I repeat, it's never been confirmed.

[mtnsnake]

41. Believe me, I'm not counting out that possibility

However, from everything I remember about it and from everything I read about it since, there is just too much out there that says Kerry courted McCain at the time. Yet, there is the small possibility that the rumor was started by McCain, albeit a very small possibility, IMO.

[LittleClarkie]

50. I bet my candidate could beat up your candidate after school!

See ya in the playground later on, unless your candidate's yellah.

[Cyrano]

23. Assuming this rumor was true, --

virtually any and all politicians will do whatever it takes to win.

I was all for Kerry and had hoped he would never do anything to betray us. And, who knows? Maybe he didn't.

But this is a side issue. My complaint with Kerry is that he didn't fight back when it counted.

His lack of aggressiveness is puzzling. The man was a war hero, and given his history, we thought this was a guy that wouldn't back down from anything. Why he didn't punch back in his battle with Bush is beyond my understanding.

I don't know who it was that said, "All politicians are whores." But once in a while, one comes along who we all believe is different. And I thought Kerry was one of them. My bad.

[LittleClarkie]

26. A whore? No. Too much of a gentleman? Perhaps.

The best man to be president and the best man to run for president are not always the same dude.

[blm]

28. Live links in Research Forum

The media did this - kept covering swifts while ignoring the counterattacks


April 14, 2004 - The website for SBVT was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, the information technology manager for Gannon International, a St. Louis company that has diversified interests, including in Vietnam. (1) (note - Gannon International does not appear to have any relationship to Jeff Gannon/Guckert, the fake reporter.)

May 3, 2004 - "Kerry campaign announced a major advertising push to introduce 'John Kerry's lifetime of service and strength to the American people.' Kerry's four month Vietnam experience figures prominently in the ads." (2)

May 4, 2004 - The Swift Liars, beginning their lies by calling themselves "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", went public at a news conference organized by Merrie Spaeth at the National Press Club. (1)

May 4, 2004 - "The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event...The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.' " (3)


May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Jul. 26, 2004 - Jul. 29, 2004 - Democratic National Convention held in Boston. John Kerry's military experience is highlighted.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

Aug. 26, 2004 - The Swift Liars' third television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia in 1968. (7)

August 26, 2004 - Mary Beth Cahill sends letter to Ken Mehlman detailing the "Web of Connections" between the Swift Liars and the Bush Administration, and demanding that Bush denounce the smear campaign. (5)

August 26, 2004 - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submits FOIA request "with the White House asking it to detail its contacts with individuals connected to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT)." (6)

Aug. 27, 2004 - The DNC ran a full page ad in the Aug. 27, 2004 New York Times terming the Swift Boat campaign a smear. (4)

Aug. 31, 2004 - - The Swift Liars' fourth television ad began airing. This ad attacked Kerry's participation in the medal-throwing protest on 4/23/1971. (7)

References:
* (1) SourceWatch article on SBVT

* (2) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman

* (3) (2004) Democracy in Action / Eric M. Appleman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Kerry Campaign Response

* (4) (Sept. 8, 2004) Eric M. Appleman (apparently) Some Responses to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" Ad

* (5) August 26, 2004 letter from Mary Beth Cahill to Ken Mehlman

* (6) Press Release (US Newswire): CREW FOIAs White House Contacts with Swift Boat Veterans Group

* (7) Wikipedia entry, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth



MH1 - This topic is to create a timeline of the response of the K/E04 campaign to the Swift Liars' smears. There is an RW-encouraged myth that K/E04 "didn't respond." As the timeline, once completed, will show, that is not true. Effectiveness of the response may be debated - that is subjective - the purpose of this thread is to collect the facts of the events.




On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...



Kerry defends war record
Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc...



May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/swift050404c....



Kerry campaign's quick response to Swift boat vets
By Marie Horrigan
UPI Deputy Americas Editor
Washington, DC, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts issued an exhaustively researched and extensively sourced 36-page refutation Thursday of allegations Kerry lied about events during his service in Vietnam, including how and why he received medals, and had fled the scene of a battle.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143...



Kerry: Bush lets attack ads do 'dirty work'
McClellan points out criticism by anti-Bush group
Friday, August 20, 2004 Posted: 2:37 PM EDT (1837 GMT)
BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of letting front groups "do his dirty work" in questioning his military service during the Vietnam War.

"The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that," Kerry told a firefighters' union conference in his hometown of Boston.

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.attacka... /


http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/oldtricks.php




August 5, 2004

VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It has been brought to our attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston homebuilder. See Slater, Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group's advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004).

The statements made by the phony "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libelous. In parrticular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes -- specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phony organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973), You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89 FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station my freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D.2d 623 (1961). Your station normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Assocation of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immmediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny andy future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.


Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the status of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,
Marc Elias
Perkins Coie
607 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005


General Counsel
Kerry-Edwards 2004 Joseph Sandler
Sandler, Reiff & Young
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003


General Counsel
Democratic National Committee


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/dem080504ltrswift...




From the transcript of the Aug. 5, 2004 White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan:

Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And, you know, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups.

* * *

In the days after the release of the ad a host of major newspapers published editorials condemning it including the Arizona Republic ("Campaign Non-Starter," August 6), Los Angeles Times ("It's Not All Fair Game," August 6), Plain Dealer ("Ad Says Kerry Lied; Record Says Otherwise," August 8), St. Petersburg Times ("An Ugly Attack," August 9), Las Vegas Sun ("Ad's Smear Should Be Condemned," August 9), Oregonian ("Now It Gets Nasty," August 11), and Washington Post ("Swift Boat Smears," August 12).

* * *

On Aug. 10, 2004 Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections.

* * *

From the transcript of Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance on CNN'S Larry King Live:


KING: In view of that, do you think that it's fair, for the record, John Kerry's service record, to be an issue at all? I know that Senator McCain...
G. BUSH: You know, I think it is an issue, because he views it as honorable service, and so do I. I mean...
KING: Oh, so it is. But, I mean, Senator McCain has asked to be condemned, the attack on his service. What do you say to that?
G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of
those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.
KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...
G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton's response to Bush's Aug. 12, 2004 appearance:
"Tonight President Bush called Kerry's service in Vietnam 'noble.' But in the same breath refused to heed Senator McCain's call to condemn the dirty work being done by the 'Swift Boat Vets for Bush.' Once again, the President side-stepped responsibility and refused to do the right thing. His credibility is running out as fast as his time in the White House."

* * *

On Aug. 17, 2004 the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges.

* * *

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Aug. 18, 2004:

"By saying nothing at all George W. Bush is a complicit contributor to the slanderous, lie-filled attack ads that have been launched on John Kerry on Bush's behalf. Instead of stepping up and taking the high road, George Bush's response has been evasion, avoidance, everything but disavowal.

"Larry King asked George Bush to 'condemn' it. He refused. Reporters asked the President's Press Secretary if he'd 'repudiate' it. He ducked. They can try to blame it on the rules or whoever else they want, but the blame belongs squarely on the Republicans. They wrote it. They produced it. They placed it. They paid for it. And now it is time for George W. Bush to stand up and say, 'enough.'

"This is not debate, Mr. President, and this unfounded attack on Senator Kerry has crossed the line of decency. I call on you today to condemn this ad, the men who put their lies behind it, and the donors who paid for it. It's time."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/ads04/swiftadresponse.h...



Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert
Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518



Please use this information as a guideline for 2006 and 2008 campaigns. What the media edits out of our campaigns is CRUCIAL to public perception.

Even many Democrats are unaware of the real fight that occurred in 2004 and are buying wholesale the corporate media spin which conveniently protects the corporate media who failed to give honest coverage of Kerry's defense against the lies of the swift vets and their Republican handlers.

Not recognizing the extent of the corporate media's duplicity is a danger for all Democratic candidates in 2006 and 2008.

This can and WILL happen to any Democratic candidate.

This CAN and WILL happen to ANY Democratic candidate. FIGHT THE MYTHS. Stay tough KNOWING the media is aligned with these liars.

The battle with the people really behind this group will never end. But there are veterans coming forth with a book of their own that will unmask the swifts for the lying GOP operatives they are. We need to support those vets when their book comes out. Truth matters.

[mtnsnake]

35. I'm just happy that McCain shunned Kerry's overtures.

I'm not saying that Kerry didn't have a plan in mind when he courted McCain to be his running mate; maybe he did. I just can't see the advantage to such a thing. I hope nobody else from our party ever again goes after someone from the repukes to run with them.

[blm]

39. You're happy to be spreading a RW lie because you are SO DARN GOOD AT IT BY NOW.

[mtnsnake]

51. Sorry but it's not my fault that Kerry courted McCain

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05172004.html

[AtomicKitten]

42. I think a mixed ticket particularly then would have been disastrous.

Winning strategy is to differentiate oneself from one's opponent, not blending ideologies and singing kumbaya.


Sorry, I'm taking this opportunity to post the Quizno creature:

[Tellurian]

44. In all honesty, I can't believe a die hard Demo like JFK would have thought

of something like this betrayal of the Democratic Party on his own.
He had to be convinced by the loudest, browbeating, supporters on the payroll.

What he should have done was mandate psychological testing to those applicants before hiring them.
That! Would have been a "good thing!" imo-

[LittleClarkie]

49. I would prefer proof that didn't appear to have been jinned up by the media

God knows they're capable of that.

[mtnsnake]

55. I wish there was proof, too, that it never was, but it doesn't look that way, unfortunately.

Has any other Dem besides Kerry ever wanted or had someone from another party on his ticket? Has any politician from ANY party ever wanted or had someone other than one of his own on his ticket? I'm still curious about that one, too.

[LittleClarkie]

61. I thought I'd heard that way back in the day, the winner would be prez

and the loser would be Vice Prez. If that used to happen, it stopped a long time ago.

I actually was kind of taken with the idea of a bipartisan ticket, but that's back when I thought McCain was Kerry's friend as was a decent guy. Was proven wrong on both counts.

[mtnsnake]

65. Its funny you say that

Sometime in the future, I was going to post just such a theory as being a possibility in future politics of democratic elections just to see what the response would be if the loser of the election became the winner's VP. Not that I'd want it that way, it's food for thought.

[fedupinBushcountry]

38. Guess you missed Cafferty on CNN last week

they already started bringing up a bipartisan ticket for '08 and he had a question on it. But hey the media never starts this sort of crap, right ?

Move on.

[LittleClarkie]

58. That's kind of how I picture it happening. The media brings it up

they suggest it to people like McCain who then say they'd never go for it, and then people say it was Kerry who suggested it. And it doesn't help that the people the media site are often anonymous.

I just haven't seen anything credible yet to confirm that this is true.

We don't trust the media any other time, why now?

[PresidentObama]

40. No he didn't. Unfortunately some still believe it. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

52. The DU daily 2004 rehash thread disguised to bash Kerry, huh?

Must be a profitable position - because it happens here every single day.

[karynnj]

108. Yep,, pretty boring isn't it?

The motivation of the trio is the only thing I don't get.

[politicasista]

53. Wow, today is Trash Democrats Underground Day

Category: 2004.

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

56. Wow! This is

mature

[Tellurian]

102. RUMOR Confirmed in Post #31

ck it out, ProSense. It will clear your head, if you try hard enough!

[AtomicKitten]

60. To answer your question, there should be some rule somewhere

prohibiting this from ever happening again; it wasn't a good idea then and certainly not now. I'm glad the "trial balloon" floated by our side of the aisle was popped right quick and in a hurry. It provides too much opportunity to coapt ideas and strategies, and then who the hell would a mixed team be running against anyway?

[Tellurian]

68. I Guess IT would BE:

[AtomicKitten]

74. I KNEW it was a terrible idea.

[PresidentObama]

76. Link to the Kerry campaign saying JK offered spot to McCain???

Otherwise empty speculation overexaggerated by the media, and hyped up like Hillary's chances to win the nomination. It was a terrible idea, I agree. But Kerry picked Edwards, not McCain. And there is no proof of such a ticket even being seriously considered.

[mtnsnake]

77. There was never an official offer. It's just being said that Kerry "wanted" him

which is bad enough.

The overtures were out there according to all the sources at the time. According to all sources, rumors, or whatever....McCain snubbed the overtures.

[PresidentObama]

80. So it's speculation?

I speculate that Hillary Clinton will pick Joe Lieberman to her VP pick. Call the presses. I've got a story to overexaggerate for ya!!

Like I said, show me the JK for President official's statement announcing Kerry considered McCain.

Till then, grain of salt for you....

:boring:

[karynnj]

111. But, Kerry 2008

I heard she really want Jeb Bush - one of her husband'd other new "brothers". Buut, I heard he'll have nothing to do with it - so it won't happen,

Now doesn't that logic sound stupid and preposterous. It does to me, like with kerry and McCain it could never happen - Kerry joking with Hunter Thompson to be Vp made more sense - they' ld agree on more.

[mtnsnake]

81. Yes there should, & thank goodness that repuke, McCain, snubbed the overtures.

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would have been if McCain responded positively to Kerry's overtures? We never would've lived it down.

[AtomicKitten]

84. ugh -

Seriously. The thought that McCain would have accepted is most repulsive and would have set the Democratic Party back tremendously.

Wheh! Dodged that bullet.

Thanks for bringing this up. I think a reminder is in order once in a while so we don't repeat history.

[PresidentObama]

85. What overtures?

Again, I see no proof that Kerry even went to McCain. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe he speculated about it, maybe he didn't. Speculation about what happened is very different from reality often. Not to stop you from sharpening your knife to stab other Democrats in the back, Kerry on ;)

[sampsonblk]

62. He did it. I am convinced.

Washington Post, July 6, 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30354-2004Jul6.html

'Kerry considered McCain as a possible running mate, initiating a series of phone calls to the popular Republican during the spring about a unity ticket, but McCain made clear he was not interested.

James Johnson, a Washington businessman and Democratic veteran who conducted the running-mate search for Kerry, said on Tuesday that Kerry's outreach to McCain reflected his desire to restore some civility to the political debates in the country and that the dialogue "was well worth having." Johnson said Kerry considered other Republicans as well, but he declined to name them.'--/-/--

Transccript from Larry King Live, July 6, 2004:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/06/lkl.00.html

Bob Schieffer: I'll tell you what I think is the interesting thing about this, Larry, is immediately after this was announced, the Republicans said, well, hey, let's not forget here that John Edwards is really second choice, that the man that John Kerry really wanted was John McCain.

And there is some truth about that, and the Kerry campaign is being rather candid about that. I spoke to Jim Johnson today, who headed up the search effort for Senator Kerry, and I asked him about this, this whole business about McCain. I said, did you really do that?

And he said, well, Senator Kerry talked about this as a concept. He said a national unity ticket, with John McCain possibly as a running mate, but said we only talked about it as a concept, the job was never offered to McCain, and finally that idea was abandoned.

And I said, well, why did you abandon the concept? And he said, well, because Senator McCain was not available. I said, well, what would you have done had he been available? He said, well, that's a hard question. That's hard to say. But he wasn't available.'--/-/--

[blm]

71. It was a rumor started in March based on Biden wishing Kerry would ask McCain -

McCain's camp had fun spreading it as a rumor.

McCain denied it several times when confronted.

Schieffer is spreading the same rumor every one else heard. When confronted McCain said it NEVER HAPPENED. The OP has seen the transcripts of McCain's denials but insists on spreading this rumor to have fun with the rest of his act.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3039160&mesg_id=3039160

[PresidentObama]

72. Give me a link to PROVE from the KERRY campaign....

They offered McCain ANYTHING.

Till then, it's speculation. And should be taken with a grain of salt. Kerry picked Edwards, not McCain. The rest is history!!

And if Bob Schieffer is telling the truth, and I don't see why he wouldn't, it's still speculation. The Kerry people never offered McCain the VP spot. And if you have proof, provide it.

Thank you :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

78. Thanks for the links.

It definitely was the conventional wisdom then and most certainly the impression most of us had. All evidence other than opinion pieces on blogs point to it being true. I don't understand why there is such denial about it; it's not a huge deal. We should be able to bounce around ideas, it's just this particular idea sucked IMO; oh, maybe that the reason for the denial. Well, the bottom line is it never came to fruition so no harm done. I just hope contemplation of a mixed ticket never crosses our threshold again.

[PresidentObama]

83. No denial here. Just awaiting proof.

Where is the Kerry 04' campaign staff coming out about it, where is the statements? I see nothing but speculation, and exaggerating by the media. AtomicKitten you and mtnsnake don't miss a beat, you are predictable as I am homosexual ;)

:evilgrin: The Kerrycrats enjoy the entertainment.

[Tellurian]

95. Schieffer and King? Holy Moley...looks pretty damning from here..

Thanks for posting another source besides AK's damning links!

Who knew? I would have believed BLM, Karennj and Madflorian,
ProSense, they seemed to have the facts all neatly bookmarked.

Just goes to show you! The people that shout you down, like the sound
of their own voice, rather than respecting the TRUTH!

[LittleClarkie]

105. Shrug. Damning of what. I used to think it wasn't such a bad idea

until I found out what kind of asshat McCain was. Damning? Wouldn't that be a word to be reserved for someone who did something, say, illegal?

But the article says he was considering it as a concept, which I can believe, since he wanted to unify the country, and McCain had been shat upon by Bush too. But the assertion was that there were overtures. The links don't prove overtures. They prove it was a concept, soon abandoned.

But isn't this whole discussion sort of pointless considering the man is not running for president. It feels like kicking a dead horse for no good reason. What is the point really?

Unless kicking dead things is a hobby or something...

[Tellurian]

109. Damning in the perpetual denial sense of the word...

certainly, not criminal- just disappointing, but good in the end.
It could have been a tragic historical mistake, when you think about it.

But to deny HISTORY? Oh, the humanities!

Thanks goodness, I voted for John Kerry in the last election!

[LittleClarkie]

113. I thought we were having a discussion with both sides offering links

to support their assertions. History was a tad fuzzy until someone coughed up the proper link. Hence, I see no denial of history. It took a while for someone to come up with proper proof is all.

[sampsonblk]

114. It wasn't the worst idea ever

I used to like McCain before he transformed into whatever the hell he is now.

A side point: The Washington Post article makes it clear that Kerry himself actually initiated "a series of phone calls to the popular Republican...but McCain made clear he was not interested." So its more than just a concept Kerry was kicking around. James Johnson's comments seem to confirm the "outreach" effort, which I take as a confirmation of the phone calls.

Yes, this is a dead horse.

[ProSense]

79. On a serious note, speaking of rules:

This is from the NY Post (Murdoch is Clinton's friend):



Murdoch is also a major supporter:

Drugmaker Roche Holding AG gave the maximum allowed to her 2006 campaign. News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch threw a fund- raising event for her in July. Even some of President George W. Bush's biggest backers, including Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack, supported her.

link

Now these rules need changing.

[mtnsnake]

103. Yes, some of these relationships are pretty tacky, aren't they.

The Hillary/Murdoch one has raised a few eyebrows but not nearly as much as the Kerry/McCain one did. Everyone was buzzing about that one at the time. I hope there indeed is a rule where never again can a Democrat court someone from another party to be their running mate.

[Tellurian]

106. Hillary is such a sharp dresser, though!

Ck out post #31 if your looking here!

SHOCKING, I SAY! SHOCKING!

[Kahuna]

101. Pandering, as usual.

:puke:

[citizen snips]

107. Was McCain on Kerry's short list?

[mtnsnake]

110. One has to wonder how Edwards felt, playing second fiddle to the likes of McCain.

Politics sure can be a funny game. Ya never know what will happen next.

[citizen snips]

115. or the other contenders

it was early in the VP choosing process and I believe McCain said he would "entertain the idea" of be Kerry's VP. :scared:

[karynnj]

112. No, nor the long one

[proud patriot]

117. I'm locking this thread

This has been de bunked again and again

enough already !

proud patriot Moderator
Democratic Underground