Spinsanity: No Evidence Swift Vets Are Bush “Surrogates”
Spinsanity busts journalists who call the Swift Boat Vets “surrogates” of the Bush campaign. They could have included Dan Gillmor in their post, as he has made the same baseless accusation.
Spinsanity says:
While news outlets including the New York Times have documented various connections between Bush and the so-called 527 group, there’s no evidence that the President is behind the ads.
. . . .
More common than such outright conflation are accusations that the SBWFT are “surrogates” of the Bush campaign. The word implies evidence that the SBVFT are working on behalf of or as substitutes for the President, but pundits often aren’t demonstrating that.
. . . .
Disturbingly, this spin mirrors the Kerry campaign’s line on the Swift Boat Vets. The Democratic presidential candidate has called the group a “front for the Bush campaign.” Other Democrats have directly referred to them as Bush “surrogates.”
Surely pundits and reporters should present some evidence before repeating unproven political claims as fact.
(All emphasis mine.)
The Spinsanity folks didn’t specifically call out Dan Gillmor. But they could have, because Gillmor has made that exact accusation without backing it up:
George W. Bush and his associates are doing it again. They’re offering “compassionate” rhetoric to appeal to swing voters.
But this time, they have a record to defend.
. . . .
They’ve launched the sleaziest kind of attacks on opponents, suggesting that people who question their policies are traitors. Through surrogates, they’ve attacked a Democratic candidate who, unlike Bush, served bravely in Vietnam, on that very service.
(My emphasis.)
I suppose Gillmor could argue that Bush’s “associates” could be read to include Republicans with no official connection to the Bush Administration who are helping fund the Swift Boat Vets’ ads. But that would not be a very convincing defense. I don’t think that was truly the message Gillmor was trying to convey — or did convey.
When Spinsanity criticized Gillmor recently, Gillmor was a stand-up guy. He defended his comments to a certain extent, but acknowledged that they could have been misleading.
I have too much respect for Gillmor’s work on citizen journalism issues to think he’s deliberately trying to distort the facts on anything. But I think he should retract the “surrogates” allegation, or offer us some better evidence than the silly “web of connections” nonsense that the New York Times has tried to sell to the country.
I don’t think the Spinsanity folks are infallible, and it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking they are. But they do a good job of presenting evenhanded criticism of spin on both sides, and I think they’re on the money here.
Ah, but what about the Pleasure Boat Captains?
Comment by Xrlq (e2795d) — 9/3/2004 @ 9:09 am
Patrick,
I would withdraw that word in a second if I didn’t believe it. The Times piece did help persuade me, as has other evidence including the lawyer working for both the campaign and the committee.
I would also withdraw it in a second if President Bush would disavow the ad in question. He has pointedly and repeatedly refused to do so, as far as I can tell.
Meanwhile, as you know, I respect your work. We’ll just have to disagree on this.
Dan
Comment by Dan Gillmor (4247c2) — 9/3/2004 @ 6:56 pm
Thanks Dan for showing your sense of ethics. That you and MSM journalists could find a web of connections between the SBVT ads and the Bush campaign without acknowledging the many more numerous and entrenched connections between the Kerry campaign and the vastly richer anti-Bush 527′s is a statement of principle in itself. Fine. I honestly do not understand why so many are willing to sell their reputations down the river to protect Kerry from criticism, but it is a decision many have made.
Comment by mikem (fd2aad) — 9/3/2004 @ 8:52 pm
There well may be connections between the Kerry campaign and the 527s on the left, and I do note that a much milder anti-Bush ad from MoveOn was denounced by Kerry. But this is about the Swift Boat sleaze, so changing the subject doesn’t help your case.
Comment by Dan Gillmor (4247c2) — 9/4/2004 @ 9:22 am
Dan,
I don’t agree with my frequent commenter mikem that this is a commentary on your “ethics.” But I do think that it reveals a lack of evenhanded judgment on your part on this particular issue, to leap to such a conclusion based on such weak evidence. Just my opinion. As you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Patterico (f7b3e5) — 9/4/2004 @ 9:58 am
In any event, thank you for the kind words.
Comment by Patterico (f7b3e5) — 9/4/2004 @ 11:36 am
The point is, Dan, that the same evidence that you use to indict the Bush campaign on the SBVT issue has also been present to a greater and more systematic degree among the more numerous and better funded anti-Bush 527s. If you did not consider such “webs of connections” a problem prior to the SBVT ads, then how can you suddenly cite them now as evidence of collusion. It reeks of hypocrisy and what still mystifies me is that so many Kerry supporters are willing to be seen that way.
“There well may be connections… ” That is a rather weak nod to the obvious for someone who drew such clear conclusions based on much weaker evidence against the Bush campaign.
Frankly Dan, and in stark terms, you guys nominated a real stinker and now you’re stuck with him, but he is not worth the ethical contortions his supporters are forced to perform in public to protect him. Campaign for him, vote for him, donate to his campaign. But please stop jumping through hoops for the guy. He has the substance of interstellar space.
For what it is worth, I don’t think you are lacking in ethics and I apologize for inferring that. I do think that you and other Kerry supporters are forced to take unethical positions to defend him. Like the Kerry campaign’s calling for the SBVT book to be banned, after dozens of inflammatory anti-Bush books had come to market. Doesn’t it bother you, as, presumably, a liberal Democrat to be associated with that?
Enough from me. I hope you continue to comment here.
Comment by mikem (fd2aad) — 9/4/2004 @ 2:16 pm
What’s more telling to me is the premise on which the SBVfT coverage is based. The premise is that the timing of the ads is a function of political manuever rather than personal motivation.
The Swift Vets are, to me, an anti-Kerry group rather than a pro-Bush group. While there has been an anti-Kerry sentiment among veterans, including people in Kerry’s unit, for years, the publication of ‘Tour of Duty’ gave them a reason to organize.
Kerry’s book came out in January.
The Swift Vets organized, got a website, got money from a guy who does support Bush, and said their piece. This was done over the course of two-three months, which seems reasonable.
Had Dean not flamed out in so spectacular a fashion, and if John Edwards had been born in more states, either would have benefited from the Swift Vets ads.
Now that the Swift Vets have funding and can put on more ads, it continues to be an anti-Kerry campaign from which Bush benefits.
What’s telling is that MSM (perhaps including Dan) is willing to dismiss Swift Vets claims while not subjecting recent speeches made by Kerry’s Band of Brothers to any level of scrutiny.
For example, David Alston’s talk does not jibe with his service record with Kerry. And that’s an easy one to check.
Kerry and Rassman certainly gave the impression of ‘lone Ranger in the water, VC troops closing in, John Kerry comin’ round the bend scooping him out of the water in a hail of bullets’
That’s at odds with 4 Swift Boats performing a rescue and recovery after a mine explosion for an hour and a half, Kerry comes back to join them sometime during that spell. Still heroic, but less heroic upon inspection.
And neither George Bush or the Swift Vets made the Band of Brothers say the things that they said on stage at the DNC. That was pure Kerry-authorized historical fiction.
Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger is getting hammered over claims he made about seeing a Russian tank in Austria. The people doing the hammering manage to misquote Arnold in pursuit of their fact checking, but no matter. Upon closer inspection, it turns out Arnold is right.
That’s the problem for Kerry with the current situation -when you look at the smart things Democrats say, the dumber they look.
When you look at the dumb things the Repubicans say, the smarter they look.
Comment by ToddM (633597) — 9/6/2004 @ 5:47 am
Getting exposure for this site through the media industry is tough. It’s just hard to find your way through all that RNC money, and the Swift Vets for Truth (hah! right!) just got another $5 million. If the media and web seem dominated by John O’Neill and his ilk, that’s why.
So please promote http://www.swiftvets4kerry.org.
Let us not talk falsely now. The hour is getting late, and it matters like all get out.
Thanks.
Jim
Comment by Jim (38f69f) — 10/19/2004 @ 9:47 pm
“REPORTERS
and pundits keep going beyond the evidence to blur the lines between the Bush campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth .. MORE.” (via Patterico)…
Trackback by PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage (84db7a) — 9/3/2004 @ 9:23 am
What liberal media? The Case of David Shaw
In a column on CampaignDesk.org, LA Times media hack reporter David Shaw endorses the former’s critique of “he said/she said” reporting. (I can’t link Shaw’s column, which is behind a pay site firewall at the Times.) Instead, CampaignDesk.org argues, r…
Trackback by ProfessorBainbridge.com (af7df9) — 9/5/2004 @ 12:56 pm