Did Colbert King change his mind, even a little, on the Swiftvets? Doubtful. Here’s how he starts out:

“Those who dismiss critics of John Kerry's Vietnam service as just a bunch of right-wing Republicans out to advance George W. Bush's cause don't know what they are talking about -- or they are engaged in wishful thinking.”

The key word here is “just.” He means that there are two kinds of critics, the “right-wing republicans” and the others. Here’s how he ends:

“’Kerry still hasn't satisfied me and many others… it is NOT enough that he served!’ Those aren't the thoughts of a Republican-funded, right-wing, over-the-top Swift boat veteran. Ignore them, Kerry camp, at your peril.”

So, the Swifties are still right-wing nuts. Rodney Coleman, the veteran he’s quoting here as being unsatisfied, is put forward as the sensible critic, and King thinks smart Democrats should listen to what Coleman is saying.

I certainly agree with you that “The LLM might want to start getting on these stories earlier if only to help the Democratic Party they love so much.” But King isn’t helping very much. By citing only Clinton appointee Rodney Coleman and simultaneously shouting down the Swifties he’s allowing some in his party to gather that criticism is worth listening to, but only if it comes from Democrats. The focus remains internal and self-referencing. His piece would be stronger by half if he hadn’t mentioned the Swifties at all. And I’d be even more impressed if he had pointed to some aspect of the Swiftvet presentations – or critical comments by any other of the unfaithful - that he now thinks Democrats should have taken due note of.

It's been pointed out by others -- Jonah Goldberg, I think -- that in some ways the LLM actually hurts Democrats. It cocoons them...

Mark Steyn says it too:

After the 2002 election, I wrote, "Remind me never to complain about 'liberal media bias' again. Right now, liberal media bias is conspiring to assist the Democrats to sleepwalk over the cliff."

The media and the Democrats sustain each other's make-believe land. Dan Rather tells his staff, "Kerry's told me there's nothing to this Swiftvet thing." Kerry tells his, "Rather's assured me this Swiftvet story's going nowhere."

George W. Bush ought to wake up every morning and thank the Lord the media aren't on his side.

Few in the media have served in the Armed Forces. Claude King is one, ex-officer from Howard U. Secretary Coleman gave him a reality check on how serious even liberal Black Democrat Vets view Kerry's Vietnam transgressions.

But most media people don't get it, still. Beldar just got so sick of them he started a contest for anyone who can prove the SwiftVets charges on anything can be discredited, let alone "widely disproven, entirely groundless" and other phrases the MSM has tried to shovel dirt on the Swifties to bury a story they don't want to cover.

Dave Broder, one of the insiders who has an " august journalistic reputation" on a par with Dan Rather as of Sept 7th, at least, kept it up with an exceptionally stupid, pompous, condescending Sunday article bemoaning "ill-trained Bloggers" and comparing the SwiftVets work to the CBS document forgeries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49279-2004Sep25.html

I wrote him an email, and I suspect the WashPost will get tons, and called Broder pathetic. I do credit the WashPost with at least putting out some of the most unbiased articles on the CBS forgeries and the River Incident where Kerry rescued Rassman, but thats not saying much.

Mr. Broder,

Attempting to conflate the SwiftVets 60 charges against Kerry with the document forgeries was pretty lame.

I happen to believe that the liberal media has shown it's true colors once again by the prevalance of the party line - the Vets are almost universally called "scurrilous, partisan" and all their charges are deemed "widely discredited".

Nothing the Swift Vets have said has been discredited. Either Kerry has admitted he lied or has had his "Band of Brothers" deny some details and then count on his willing media tools, such as yourself, to claim Kerry's own men disprove it!

As a Vet, I noticed all the TANG stories in big media outlets in 2000 and again last February. I also noticed you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to address the Swift Vet charges. I noticed the uniform demand last January that "Bush release all his military records" on America's biggest TV stations and newspapers. Bush did. But I notice the total code of silence surrounding Kerry releasing his own miltary files and disproving the charges.

Right now, the public is not just laughing at Dan Rather and how his liberal bias shattered his credibility. They are laughing at other one-sided blowhards like Keith Olberman, laughing at the NYTimes allowing it's pro-Democrat bias to lead to it's becoming the Old Yellowpage Whore of Journalism, and laughing at columists like yourself that are so soaked in liberal bias that you can't even do a proper mea culpa.

Fortunately, the people running the Washington Post seem to "get it", are safeguarding journalistic credibility, and are reporting many stories in an open an objective manner. Unlike the NYTimes, which still has big bias problems.....

As for you, ever wonder what is in Kerry's files and why you never wanted him to release them? Ever wonder how he could have forgotten his involvement in the assassination plot of 1971 involving 7 Congressional Leaders, that led him to quit the VVAW? Why it took Kerry 30 years to get his honorable discharge signed? How Kerry managed to discharge his own Reservist Duty?

No, of course not!!

Because as a journalist of high reputation, you hope that we can finally prove Bush Lied about his Guard service, finally cease the irrelevant long-ago charges about Kerry's heroic conduct, then move on to Finally Addressing the Real Important Issues, right?

"But most media people don't get it, still."

One example for you:

Columnist Richard Reeves gave a speech at my law school last spring, and as a 3L of minor importance (journal editor) I was invited to the post-speech reception. Though Reeves spoke favorably of Reagan, having written a biography of him, he made no bones about his disapproval of Dubya, which of course at a law school in San Francisco got him lots of cheap applause.

At the reception afterwards, I was standing around with my antitrust professor (one of the two or three out-of-the-closet Republicans on the faculty) and a couple of other people, listening to Reeves hold forth on what an unpleasant personality Al Gore is in person, when talk shifted to the 2004 race. Reeves offered his opinion that Kerry had a huge advantage over Bush because of Kerry's Vietnam service.

I jumped in and asked Reeves, "But don't you think Kerry is going to be a little vulnerable on his conduct after he got back from Vietnam?" He dismissed the question out of hand, not even comprehending that anyone could care about that.

Since the Swift Vets surfaced, I've been occasionally tempted to send Reeves a note reminding him of that comment, with a little bottle of Worcestershire sauce for his serving of crow.

I think I'll wait until November 3, though. It'll be much more satisfying that way.

- Alex (remove "dotcom" to reply)

hot anal sex her first anal anal whore free big tits porn big latin tits anal toy free interracial porn big tits and pussy free interracial movie interracial cum mature anal sex big tits round anal clip deep anal anal sex tip free anal sex big huge tits big juicy tits big tits photo anal licking ebony anal big floppy tits anal sex movie free gay anal sex anal sex technique forced anal male anal sex young big tits anal fucking big tits amateur interracial sluts big old tits hot anal anal sex toy