Swift Boaters Start Your Engines
Washington Dispatch: If Obama is hit with an attack ad fusillade, this secretive GOP operative will likely be behind the onslaught.
October 2, 2008
|
|
By this time in the 2004 election, John Kerry was already drowning in attack ads hurled at him from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But this year, outside groups funded by millionaires or billionaires have been relatively dormant—thus far. As Election Day approaches such outfits are gearing up, and they appear to be biding their time until the final days of the campaign, when they can inflict the most damage. One of those groups is American Issues Project (AIP), which has been funded almost entirely by a single Texas billionaire and involves many of the leading players from the Swift Boat campaign. In August, it aired an ad attempting to highlight ties between Barack Obama and William Ayers, the 1960s radical who participated in at least several domestic bombings. The ad didn't land with Swift Boat-like power, but it signaled the opening salvo of what could be a nasty conclusion to this year's campaign.
The man behind AIP, Tony Feather, could become one of the most significant players in the election. Feather, a longtime Republican operative, is not a household name and he rarely talks to the media. But his specialty—mounting stealth political advocacy campaigns—has played an outsized role in the last two presidential elections. Should Obama end up confronting a Swift Boat-style fusillade in the closing weeks of this campaign, the odds are that Feather will be one of the ops responsible for the onslaught.
A former executive director of the Missouri Republican Party, Feather is known for his fierce campaign tactics on behalf of candidates like John Ashcroft and former Missouri Attorney General Bill Webster. Feather ran Webster’s 1992 campaign for governor; Webster not only lost but went to prison on charges related to misusing his office for campaign purposes. Feather is also a compatriot of Karl Rove, whom he first met in 1974. The two are close enough that Rove at one point endorsed Feather's consulting firm on its website.
Politics has also made Feather a rich man. He started a handful of companies that specialize in "microtargeting" voters with direct mail, phone, and grassroots lobbying for GOP campaigns and big corporate clients. One of his companies sets up fake grassroots groups to give the appearance of public support for corporate legislative efforts. In 1999, Feather founded Feather Larson Synhorst with another GOP operative, Tom Synhorst, who is sometimes referred to as the "Johnny Appleseed of Astroturf."
FLS is responsible for many of those annoying robo-calls to voters that arrive during the days leading up to elections. The firm and its related entities, including the lobbying shop DCI Group, were among the biggest recipients of Republican National Committee money in 2004 election cycle and raked in nearly $27 million from Republican Party entities and candidates, including Bush’s reelection campaign.
Another one of Feather's companies, FLS-Connect, has a virtual monopoly on campaign phone work for the GOP, having worked for the state Republican parties in all 50 states, according to the company's website. In the past year, the RNC has paid FLS-Connect more than $9 million for its services. Since 2007, Feather's firms have earned more than $16 million from Republican Party entities, candidates, or affiliated interest groups like the National Rifle Association, according to CQ Moneyline. In June McCain Victory 2008, a PAC run by the RNC and a handful of state Republican committees, paid FLS-Connect $4,000 to provide "telemarketing" services.
Feather was the political director of the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign, and was central to Republican efforts to get around new campaign finance laws banning soft money donations to the national parties. In 2001, Feather founded Progress for America, a nonprofit group that served as the de facto political arm of the Bush White House on everything from Social Security privatization to judicial nominees. In 2003, Feather stepped down from the group to work for the Bush campaign, but PFA lived on, spinning off a 527 group, the PFA Voter Fund, to spend unregulated money directly influence the 2004 election.
Next page: In the five months leading up to the 2004 election, PFA-VF raised $45 million...
Nader has never lied to Americans, he's never taken a dime from a lobbyist, he's performed exemplary public service for 40 years, and he has always had the best interests of Americans in his heart and mind.
If you attack Nader with those kind of ads you are saying you hate the safety, health, and civil rights of Americans. That's an easy case to make and a powerful antidote to swiftboaters.
-Wexler
Yeah, I know the old man blessed it, but it still goes to show there is no shame in the "news media". O'where, o'where has the free press gone? OH MAN! I momentarily forgot where I was.
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - B. Franklin
Lest we forget, the free wheeling omission of the author of this piece. Russ Feingold was on this 2002 bill as well. It was referred to as the McCain/Feingold Act of 2002.
voteNader.NOT
Obama Fights Fire with Fire--Predictably Enough. That Whole "Postpartisan" Thing Was Never Going to Work Out, Was It?
Andrew Romano NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE
During the flight yesterday afternoon from Grand Rapids, Mich. to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Steve Schmidt, Mark Salter and Nicole Wallace pulled back the curtain--or two--separating business-class cabin of John McCain's Straight Talk Air from the traveling press corps' coach accommodations and spent some time talking to a small pool of reporters. Much of what they said was standard talking-point stuff: swipes at Obama's response to the current financial crisis; explanations of McCain's plan to reform Social Security; a preview of the campaign's upcoming economic policy rollout. But one thing Salter said stood out, at least to me. Referring to the media's recent round of McCain-centric factchecking and hand-wringing--Time's Joe Klein called one of the senator's new spots "the sleaziest... I've ever seen in presidential politics"--Salter demanded that the same level of scrutiny be applied to Obama's latest ads and attacks. "Never litigated," he said. "Never litigated on the front page of your paper. Or anywhere else. Just ours. Just ours. All we’re asking is for the same standard."
My first inclination was to dismiss Salter's complaint as part of Team McCain's ongoing effort to discredit all criticism of its candidate by discrediting the messenger--i.e., the MSM. There's no doubt that strategic objectives--read: stoking the fires of resentment among the media-hating masses--partially account for Salter's accusations of "unfairness." That said, a quick tour of Obama's current anti-McCain messaging efforts make it clear that, whatever the convenience of the claim, the guy's got a point. And that doesn't bode well for the next president--whoever he is.
The most egregious example of Obama's shifting strategy is a new Spanish-language ad called "Dos Caras." Airing in the crucial Southwestern swing states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, the spot attempts to equate McCain with Rush Limbaugh on immigration. As a picture of the conservative talk-radio host appears onscreen beneath a pair of bigoted-sounding quotes--"Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out"--the announcer says that "they want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance." He continues: "They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much. John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush."
The main problem here is that tying McCain to Limbaugh--especially on immigration reform--is deeply unfair. It's not just that McCain broke with his party and nearly torpedoed his presidential bid by co-sponsoring last year's failed comprehensive reform bill at the same time Limbaugh was regularly lambasting immigration reform and expressing hostility toward illegal immigrants on the air. It's that Limbaugh actually opposed McCain's candidacy because of his stance on immigration. He still doesn't care for the Arizona senator. What's more, the quotes from Limbaugh are taken out of context. As ABC News' Jake Tapper points out, the "larger point" of the first one--while "not one of [Limbaugh's] most eloquent moments, to be sure"--was that "NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans." Offensive, sure--but consider it an equal-opportunity slur. The second quote, meanwhile, was part of a riff mocking Mexican law--not a call to Mexicans "get out" of America. To imply that McCain agrees with these twisted quotes when he doesn't even agree with Limbaugh on immigration is absurd. Has McCain moderated his immigration rhetoric for political reasons? Absolutely. But even blogger Andrew Sullivan--Obama's No. 1 fan--says that "Dos Caras" crosses the line. "Playing racial politics this way is not what Obama promised to do," he wrote yesterday. "Cut it out."
Obama's other offenses are less outrageous--but they're misleading all the same. In response to a new McCain ad that tries to saddle Obama with disgraced former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines by claiming that Raines has given Obama "advice on mortgage and housing policy," Obama spokesman Bill Burton unleashed a howitzer blast of outrage in Crystal City's general direction. "This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth," he said. "Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything--ever." That might be true. But the problem is that it contradicts a July Washington Post profile of Raines (cited by McCain in the ad), which reported that Raines has "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters." As the New Republic's Jason Zengerle--another Obama supporter--concludes: "Seeing as how neither Raines nor the Obama campaign bothered to contradict that information when the article came out, and didn't do so until only after the McCain ad aired, you can't really blame the McCain campaign for trying to make hay of the situation. And you certainly can't accuse it of dishonorably telling a lie."
You do realize the right wing OWNS the media don't you? How about Murdock's little baby Fox News? Are they in lockstep with the OBama campaign? Viacom? Disney?
As for Gwen Ifill, are you saying she can't be fair and impartial? If so, you're wrong again buddy.
Your Bush-clone candidate has no fresh ideas, and he contradicts himself every 48 hours. Even worse, he choses an incompetent running mate who thinks that just because she can see Russia from Alaska that constitutes foreign policy experience (she's said it numerous times and refuses to back off the statement), Just because of all that, is not justification for blaming the media or Gwen Ifill.
Your candidate is going to lose all on his own. He doesn't need any media help. He only need to open his mouth.
It is also sad that the Joe Paychecks of the U.S. think that because one candidate lacks, by default the other is top grade. As if this were a horse race?
My opinion is simply that the old man and Palin will spend less of our succeeding generations' tax monies than OB. But...hold your breath now, BARACK IS ON THE WAY! Me, I choose not to wait.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams
You're right. If we've survived Bush for the last 8 years, we can survive anyone. At least with McCain and Palin, there will be plenty of material for the late night talk show hosts. If we are blessed with 4 more years of Republican rule, things will get so desperate that we might be able purge our country of Republicans for the next 20 years, just like we did in 1932.
Idolatry of the Democratic party ended with Kennedy's Camelot. To idolize this candidate, or to compare this situation to 1932 is to compare apples and oranges.
I don't think average Americans enjoy funding billionaires
Personally, I'm not going to hold this against Obama - the country can't afford President McCain - but there is something perverse about the fact that Chicago liberals don't shun Ayers entirely. By not calling a spade a spade, you're playing into the hands of right-wing propagandists who claim that behind every Obama supporter lies a violent, anti-American pinko.
That said, I'd like to hear the Obama campaign talk about the Keating Five. Like, right now, guys.
Here is where you are really off the perch, dude (or dudess, but you sort of sound dudey): Look at the past 28 years. Reagan -- while posturing about Communism, which has always kept the lockstepping GOP base transfixed -- racked up more debt than ALL presidents before him. Bush senior added to that. Plus he finally increased taxes (read his lips) enormously. Clinton, after eight years, had racked up a surplus and created 20 million jobs. In eight years, Bush has indebted the nation to such an extent, no one knows how to pay it up. The bail-out fiasco is just a cherry. The money spent has gone and will continue to go to his cronies and the GOP wheels like the Feather Nazi mentioned above.
Those, Jimmy, are facts, not speculation, not opinion. They are figures, and even though one or the other may be off by a bit, it is the big picture.
I am a constructive guy. If you don't like a multi-party democracy based on consense, I suggest you take the rest of your life and move it to North Korea, maybe Saudi Arabia or Iran (where the hate radio is great, I am told).
Since you like quotes:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
PS: You are a typical narcissist, like Palin, so I won't bother arguing with you, since your bellybutton is all you see at any given time... probably from the inside.
I think you misunderstand the swiftboaters. No candidate is immune. They use lies, character assassination, innuendo, distortion. They have learned from Goebbels and McCarthy and the other propaganda monsters in totalitarian systems. If Nader were a viable candidate, you would see ads around October 28 saying that Nader was boinking little boys in a church, or sheep, or he had taken huge bribes. By the time the charges were refuted, the election would be over.
Coming to think of it, this might get him votes in some regions of our great nation...
;o)
Against the republican's vulgarity you can only respond in kind.
Jimmy, my boy, it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you have been a very, very, very hard-working kind of guy. And your attempt to remain stupid has succeeded beyond any expectation you may have had for success in both areas: ignorance AND stupidity.
What of the irreperable damage he did to POWs, MIAs, & Vets? Hello?
making dolores alfond cry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg
vets against mccain & his mistreatment of POW families
http://sophiagroup.wordpress.com/
House Subcommittee on Military Personnel re McCains'
gutting of Missing Service Personnel Act
http://www.aiipowmia.com/testimony/hrdlicka1.html
pulitzer prize winning author Sydney Schanberg (the killing fields) explains & questions:
http://www.alternet.org/electi on08/99721/john_mccain_has_a_b izarre_history_of_hiding_evidence_a bout_his_fellow_pows/?page=entire
entire history of POW/McCain issue, by Schanberg
'The "war hero" candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam'
http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1
'Former POW Fights Public Access to POW/MIA Files'
http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/schanberg_mccain.html
vets (who are no friend to obama) against mccain
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjo hnmccain.com/cin_mccainfiles.htm
mccain "mistakes his own life story" steelers vs. packers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYsPuaMzW3g&feature=related
http://boards.historychannel.c om/topic/Current-Events/Powmia -Families-Against/520005948&start=75
report on the cover up
http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2 008/09/vietnam-war-hero-mccain-covering-up.html
list of pow/mia related videos
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear ch_query=mccain+pow+mia&search_type=&aq=f
maddow asks VA re how Mcain has voted against vets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qRy4PnmNu8
Lt Col vet/ founder of families of POWs, explains what john did as pow (pts 1-5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXAj-NdWGjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gisGMySh1E4
"he would do whatever $ paid him to do. he has no personal courage whatsoever."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25XfLGhRV7Y&feature=related
"kerry & mccain are 2 of a kind." "neither of them has helped us on the POW issue." "mccain is not pro POW." Re. family members of POWs testifying before congress; "he made a special effort, specially on the ladies, to criticize them, speak harshly, and get them to crying. he wanted to break down the family members, and break their spirits." Re mccain as prez; "it would be the biggest mistake this country has ever made."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSz22QZ5FE&feature=related
former pow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70&feature=related
Genl Wesley Clark "Mcain's answer is force & more force. "...or is he just a guy that wants to be president, and he'll say what he has to say to get the job."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sONerncAkQ4&feature=related
Pat Buchanan on McCain: "He will make Cheney look like Ghandi."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ptjl3ZQwM&feature=related
ambitions of & insight into war (seen by 6 million+ people.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk&feature=related
major flip flops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f4JLQfsNOE&feature=related
gaffes or senior moments? and lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSqxqSqrgw&feature=related
after all this, on 9/19 McCain issued the following statement(posted on his website):
"Today, we mark National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and I salute my comrades who served their country in unusual circumstances, and remember those who never returned.
"During my time in Hanoi, I was witness to a thousand acts of kindness...
We owe our missing comrades, whose ranks include service members from World War II to the current conflict, a debt we can never repay, and we owe their families the peace and closure that only the fullest possible accounting of the fates of their loved ones can provide."
On the Web:
http://www.johnmccain.com/.
It's inconceivable.
If you really want to dig:
http://www.aiipowmia.com/sea/
I've found an interesting tactic in internet politics. Instead of commenting on boards which support your political persuasion, I've been signing on to boards that are McCain/Palin slanted.
I found a board called palinforamerica. In reading through the comments I found one where the commenter supported the current effort to denounce Obama as a consorter of terrorists. I signed up.
So I posted a comment that asked if McCain's betrayal of country and fellow soldier by cooperating with the Viet Cong was showing support for America.
Then I asked about McCain's association with Charles Keating.
She replied that she didn't know about Keating, so I took the opportunity to briefly describe a)how Obaman and Ayers' paths even happened to cross; that Ayers was working on reforming the public school system in Chicago, even obtained a $49M grant for the city and is now a Distinguished Professor (with any charges against him for his action's in the '60's dropped by the Feds.)
I explained who Keating was, how he defrauded thousands of people of their money; McCains attempts to interefere with federal investigators on behalf of Keating who was a major contributor to McCain and took the McCains on holidays. I even pointed out that Keating and Cindy Mc had been partners in a real-estate development. After explaining that Keating is now, officially a convicted felon and that McCain was supporting Keating while Keating was fleecing his investors and customers, I asked her which was worse?
I had traveled through most of the interesting topics and was sending off my last (of about 10) posts, a message came up: Site no longer exists.
So you might try subtly inserting yourself into the opposition boards and bringing some reality to their beliefs.
Yes, Ayers was a terrorist in the late '60's (I don't condone his activities). When the feds dropped all charges against him, he came out of hiding. With a PhD in Early Childhood Education, it is hardly a stretch to wonder why he was working with Daley on reforming the public school system. (I guess that makes everyone associated with that effort, including Daley, suspect).
The operative word here is WAS. Yes Ayers WAS a terrorist if that word makes you feel better.
Some people would refer to McCain's betrayal of his country and fellow soldiers, by cooperating with the Viet Cong to help his sorry ass get medical care that no other POW received. Is this better than Obama's working with Ayers on improving the inner city school system of Chicago.
What about McCains cozy friendship with Chas. Keating? McCain was taking in all of Keatings campaign donations and enjoying the Keating paid vacations WHILE Keating was hard at work defrauding thousands of investors and customers of their money. They were such good buddies that McCain even tried to intervene with regulators when they were investigating Keating. Even McCain's wife thought so highly of Mr. Keating that she co-invested in a real-estate devlopment with him.
Though McCain was never charged with anything (like a few of his colleagues were), he was censured by the Senate for "exercising poor judgement"; a life-long affliction it appears. Chas. Keating is NOW a CONVICTED FELON. A title he earned for his efforts while enjoying a mutually beneficial relationship with Mr Straight-Talk who-speaks-with-forked-tongue.
So if this is all confusing to you, simply substitute "Candidate P" for Obama's name and "Candidate Q" for McCain's and then figure out which is likely to be the better person.
It ain't brain surgery.
I think you are confusing principle with opinion. You say you are of the opinion that Mc will spend less tax $ than Ob. Your opinion doesn't align with the facts as analyzed by a non-aligned taxpayer organization. At the end of 4 years, our deficit will be substantially higher with McCain's budget than Obama's. So if it is one of your PRINCIPLE's to elect someone who is more taxpayer friendly, then you might want to change your OPINION by checking out the facts.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams
\MelissaOctober 6, 2008 12:28:50 PM
Well said. The publicans do try so hard to create guilt by association (usually overlooking their own, often worse, associations).
And right on about trying to keep the divide of the '60's alive and well. That is the sole reason I didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries. Hillary and I are the same age, but it's time to let the '60's go.
By the way, why does McCain keep so silent on his betrayal of country and fellow soldier by cooperating with the Viet Cong? After all he did confess in his book. Perhaps it won't help him appear to be quite such a gung-ho, America first.
I guess that was a low blow.
is true right in Featherland"
On the contrary, I see them here-in multitudes. Moving on, the left is said to be so progressive AND open minded. I can't define progressive, but open minded? That's just not so. You can't get by two posts without a derogatory, or explitive statement coming out and always towards an "evil Republican or corporation." Or - that Republican is synonymous with Nazi. Please...the hyperbole is deafening.
The difference with me is that I will thrive no matter who gets elected. I do not take stake in either candidate. Nor am I looking for the "new administration" to fix anything the last admin broke. It just WON'T happen. (Although, I am sure it will be stated as such, sooner over later.) I advocate that position to all. Need I recite JFK's famous statement. Remember, the very people (Congress)that caused this problem will still be in positions of power no matter which candidate wins the seat. A situation that does NOT seem to seen by the intelligentsia of this site, lest they soldier on consuming all of what this site has to offer. You mentioned something about being sheep. BAAAAH!!!!
Another observation I have is that it is blatantly obvious to me that most of the posters to this site have their lips planted on the Democrat candidate's posterior as if this were a gangland horse race. It shows not their intellect, nor their best side. To say nothing about respectful debate or differences of opinion.
Lastly, I find as well that many of the posters here seem to have a limited knowledge base of gov't and/or U.S. history. Yes, I know this is a left-wing blog and I am out of my element. (I consider reading this blog as homework.) I politely refer back to the sheep statement. Baaahhhh!
This sounds like the television commercials that boast their product was tested or proven to be so by "more" doctors than not, or "more" doctors recommend. The problem here is that more is a comparator not a definite statement. Which non-aligned tax-payer org do YOU speak of?
Anytime the gov't get's involved in anything, the price goes up.
Both Barack and McCain have a swiss cheese relationship between their voting record and rhetoric in regards to:
*deregulation (both for and against)
*being against (but for the Iraq war)
*being against (but for torture)
*public/private finanacing lies
*swearing a Constitutional oath as senators to uphold and protect out Constitution from emnemeies internal and external yet opposing the impeachment of Bush, voting for the liberty-stealing Patriot Act, giving retroactive immunity for the telecoms (and therefore amnesty to the Bush administration) for serial crimes against our 4th amendment as well as approving the criminal war against Iraq according to the Geneva Conventions.
IF McCain and Obama can get away with opposing our Constitution, lying to voters, and changing their position about a whole host of issues from NAFTA to TORTURE to IRAQ FUNDING to IMMUINITY for TELECOMS before they are elected, what possible leverage will voters have on these candidate AFTER they are elected to honor their original promises and initiatives?
Electing Status Quo parties to office only guarantees strength and power to continue status quo policies and stave off change.
It is ludicrous and naive to believe that those who have created and benefitted from our current economic and moral downfall will suddenly turn around, do the right thing, and rain on their own party and pals.