| Home | About Us | Login/Register | Email News Tips |

A liberal dose of news, national and local politics, commentary, opinions and common sense conversation…

Of Pulitzers and Those Who Claim to Have Been Nominated

by Pamela Leavey

Monday, I reported on a June 5, 2006 blog post/op-ed published at RealClearPolitcs.com, where Thomas Lipscomb is described as having been “nominated for a Pulitzer for his reporting on Kerry during the 2004 elections.”

Although, fellow wing-nut Dan at RiehlWorld, attempts to back up Lipscomb (while attacking me), this appears to be a complete fabrication as to claim Lipscomb was a prestigious “nominee” appears to only mean that someone — anyone can fill out an entry form and sent it to Pulitzer, per documents off the official Pulitzer web site…

Per the “Terminology” section at the official Pulitzer web site ( www.pulitzer.org), there is no such thing as being a “nominee” for the Pulitzer. The only two categories are:

1. “Pulitzer Prize Winner “(which is self-explanatory; and

2. “Nominated Finalist.” (Of which there are three, all announced publicly.)

Per the Pulitzer:

“Work that has been submitted for Prize consideration but not chosen as either a nominated finalist or a winner is termed an entry or submission. No information on entrants is provided.” [Emphasis in original]

The Pulitzer’s historical listing of winners and nominated finalists and the search function show that Lipscomb has never been a nominated finalist or winner of a Pulitzer prize for anything in any year.

Lipscomb’s name is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND in 2004 or 2005.

Again, I repeat, anyone at all who has had something published in a United States newspaper can submit their work to the Pulitzer Prize Board for consideration in the relevant category, but that does not make them a qualified “nominated finalist.” Indeed, an entry form can be downloaded right from Pulitzer.org (here’s a copyI think I might submit my own work, so I can be a nominee too). Self-submissions are allowed.

So just how does that kooky Thomas Lipscomb claim he was “nominated for a Pulitzer”? Because some right-wingnut somewhere on Earth sent in an entry form to the Pulitzer Prize Board attaching Lipscomb’s so-called “reporting” on John Kerry?

By that standard, Lipscomb’s also probably a Publishers Clearing House jackpot winner! (But, Lipscomb shouldn’t count on Ed McMahon knocking on his basement door with a giant check anytime soon!)

Lying about a credential is a huge deal in journalism — it just goes without saying — ask Jayson Blair, who was fired from the NY Times in part because he exaggerated his resume. As the NY Times wrote:

“When he was hired, Times officials assumed he had graduated, but college officials say he has a year of course work left to complete, the Times reported.” (NYT, 5/11/03)

And, then there’s writer and historian Joseph Ellis — who lied about time spent in Vietnam, exaggerating his resume, and was roundly humiliated for it.

Or, take the recent controversy over James Frey who pitched his “Million Little Pieces” as a memoir and was destroyed because it actually included fictitious information.

It’s time for Thomas Lipscomb to face the music, too.

If Dan at RiehlWorld, “had enough insight or intelligence,” he’d be backing off his support of Lipscomb — unless of course, Dan was the right-wing nutjob who “nominated” Lipscomb.

Meanwhile, I stand by my earlier piece about Lipscomb, who is nothing but a partisan conservative propagandist, hack and shill for right-wing and the “Swift Boat” liars. One has to wonder how much the SBL’s paid Lipscomb for all his hack job’s he put in print around various right-wing publications and blogs?

And, folks concerned about journalistic integrity should contact the Digitial Center at the Annenberg School for Communication at USC, where Lipscomb is listed as a Senior Fellow, and let them know that Lipscomb is a disgrace to their organization — digitalcenter@digitalcenter.org

69 Responses to “Of Pulitzers and Those Who Claim to Have Been Nominated”

  1. Excellent, Pamela!

    Immediately respond to the right-wing fanatics with easily verifiable facts before their lies can take hold. You and Ron have been fighting the good fight here, especially these last few days for Kerry — and democracy really. I think people in their private lives are also responding to the lies with little acts of bravery, standing up to lies when it would be easier not to respond to the apparent closed minds. Hard not to appear a zealot, or even combative sometimes, especially when people without ethics can say anything. I don’t always comment here, but I do always read the fine posts of the demdaily gang. The discussions here are always about trying to improve understanding, not just to win battles, even if just word battles.

  2. It’s amusing that you are more caught up with whether Lipscomb won a prize or not and you completely ignore, sidestep, his message. And that message is, Kerry lied about most of his medals! Let’s see how long it takes the liberal censor police to delete this post!

  3. The point is that Lipscomb is a liar, not Kerry!

  4. “The point is that Lipscomb is a liar, not Kerry! ”

    Oh really? I’d prove to you that Kerry lied but my posts usually get deleted as soon as I raise a valid point.

  5. Michael,

    That’s what so great about this site. Posts are filled with links which allow people to fact check. Then when posters like yourself come out with your false accusations, those confused or just not sure about the issue, can go to the source. This leaves you looking just plain foolish or uninformed. As you can see, you weren’t censored for your counter, you got to display your ignorance on this topic.

  6. And just what links am I supposed to believe? All of the links you people provide are extremely liberal and don’t deal with facts. They make statements like so and so says that the Swiftie charges were all proven to be lies and never tell us what that proof is. And of course people like you believe this nonsense!

  7. Michael,

    As long as you don’t use profanity, etc. We don’t censor comments like yours.

    We’d much rather have them in here so we can expose and answer them for the readers who come by looking for the truth.

    [It was in the mod que: probably from previous comments. Now that I think about it, Ron may have tagged your responses to always be moderated because of the repeated comments last week on the subject that you kept maintaining had not been answered. So if you post again, I would be sure it has substance.]

    Why attack Lipscomb?

    He portrays himself as a liberal when he is not.

    He spreads misinformation and refuted arguments about JK.

    He spreads misinformation about himself to falsely increase his credibility.

    The GOP conducts groundless, ugly and cruel smear campaigns against very respectable and outspoken individuals as well as government employees and elected officials.

    We just tell the truth about the prevaricating types like Lipscomb. In this case because it helps to establish that the people who are making these comments about JK have lied and distorted the truth at other times. (Remember the arguments about Clinton and the Monica Lies?)

    As for ignoring and sidestepping the message that Kerry lied about most of his medals. ?????

    THERE ARE NO LESS THAN TWELVE, 12, COUNT THEM,

    *T*W*E*L*V*E* SEPARATE POSTS DEFENDING KERRY’S RECORD ON JUNE 6th, FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. LOOK IN THE RECENT POSTS COLUMN IN THE UPPER RIGHT OF THIS PAGE.

    I highly recommend the THIRTEENTH post which is an in depth look at this brilliant, complex and dedicated human. That would be the one on Leaving No Man or Puppy Behind. As well as I know and can recognize the character behind the public person, it gave further insight into just how deep it is and how it evolved from his experience.

    Not included is the excellent Nightline report by Koppel from the fall of ’04. He had Charles O’Neil on and asked all the questions the rest of the MSM Lapdogs had SIDESTEPPED. ABC had sent a crew to the area where Kerry got off the boat, chased down the VC and killed him.

    The local residents remembered the incident quite well. He was Viet Cong, he was no teenager and he was not dressed in a loin cloth. They also informed the ABC crew that another similar crew had been there in the spring of ’04 asking the same questions. Since the video from their visit had never been put out; and the only people at that time who would have gone to such expense to go there would have been part of the Smearvets group, I can only conclude: they didn’t like the truth because it exposed some of their already established lies.

    Really, Michael. You could give us a letter from a gastroenterologist stating he didn’t find your head up there when he did your colonoscopy and we would just conclude s/he’s as blind as you are.

  8. I forgot to put in that when confronted by Koppel, O’Neil kept citing his own book as the answer to the questions. Koppel finally pointed out that he was asking the questions for O’Neil to answer OTHER than his own book.

  9. Michael,

    You might also check Ron’s post on how research has shown that coffee makes people more open minded.

    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3202

    Adding to the LIBERAL latte drinking description.

    Liberal is, by definition open minded. Hence, having been up for 75 minutes*, and NOT yet having my morning ‘instant human, just add coffee’ cup of java, I was quite willing to kick your response out of the mod cue.

    So, before you start reading through all 13 posts, get some caffeine in your system – the equivalent of two cups of coffee. Ron, note that interface with your Tassimo might trigger some response psychologically.

    * The downside of working at home: if you didn’t set up the auto feature on the pot and a business call wakes you up…

    NOW I am going to go make coffee.

  10. “As long as you don’t use profanity, etc. We don’t censor comments like yours”

    First of all, I have never used profanity. I’ll give you an example. Yesterday I responded to the post about the article by Brinkley. He provided a list of wounds that don’t warrant a Purple Heart. He conveniently left off the one that Kerry was accused of, self inflicted wounds. I pointed this out and my post was deleted 8 times. There was NO profanity in it at all just some inconvenient facts!

  11. Michael,
    The only liars areLipscomb and the smearvets.
    The real sadness is reserved for those who buy the smearvet hogwash.
    Every charge against Kerry is refuted.
    I assume you are a Vet. Why do you like being used and abused by an administration that treats you like toilet paper?
    The wounds are real. Their severity is not an issue. His bravery is real.

    Between rare bouts of sobriety, I spent a little over 3 days at DaNang checking helo flight system problems (mid 1968; after Tet). DaNang is a huge place. It seemed like some parts of the base were always under attack. I sent two guys to the opposite end of the base for parts. Their jeep was hit; one was wounded; one died. The wounded guy caught a tiny piece of shrapnel in his butt. A minor wound. Simply pull the fragment out, slap some mercurochrome on it and cover it with a band-aid. I filed an incident report (the soldiers drove away; one died; one didn’t); a medic filed the medical report. Per your logic, David doesn’t deserve the Purple Heart he received. The episode of having his dead buddy die while he lived freaked him out permanently. He committed suicide in 1972 and his name is not on the Wall; although it should be. In war, we don’t have control over living and dieing; nor do we have control over how bad the wounds are. Kerry was wounded three times. Severity is often a millimeter between minor and severe.

  12. “Every charge against Kerry is refuted.”

    Why don’t you provide us with an example of one. I have been asking this question for days with NO response!

  13. Michael Says: June 7th, 2006 at 11:19 am

    Michael

    Here you go:

    Kerry Attacker Retracted Criticism; Agreed Kerry Deserved Silver Star
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3208

    Los Angles Times Found Attacks on Kerry to Be False
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3207

    FactCheck Exposed Many Examples of Dishonesty in Swift Boat Lies
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3214

    Washington Post Reporter Exposed Swift Boat Lies
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3215

    Eye Witness Verified Kerry’s Account of Mission Leading to Silver Star
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3217

    Boston Globe Found Charges Against Kerry Laughable
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3218

  14. Michael,

    The response on profanity was a general policy, not linked to you specifically.

    I suspect the deletions were from Ron who had warned you before about repeately posting the ‘not finding’ the facts in the sources you were linked to.

    Those sources include, most importantly, the US Navy.

    The OFFICIAL action reports, the OFFICIAL medal recommendations (NO, Kerry could not have written his own).

    So again, your comments continue to dismiss, sidestep and ignore the facts that have been laid out. No surprise that you acused us of this in the first response.

    You can’t even work with the logic. Nixon combed Kerry’s service at the time. If anyone could have created an issue of it then, Dick would have been the one. 33 years later these guys who were not present for most of the instances, served very marginally with Kerry, come forward with accusations that are questionable while his crew and the Navy support him. The stress of war does not do memory much good. I absolutely can’t believe those claims over the official action reports.

    If you read many of the SBVT comments, they have more to do with the resentment of Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Testimony. Which they completly misquote and insist was not true. Despite the mountains of evidence that has surfaced since: the actions that the Winter Soldier’s group reported as having been a part of and witnessed, were the tip of the iceberg. Of course not all the Vietnam soldiers were involved or saw it. They have to accept that those who DID live with the nightmares- except the ones who committed suicide.

    Yes, I believe the US Navy on this ‘nonsense’. And JL’s crew. I married into a military family and have spent 30 years in nursing. I have taken care of a lot of vets and heard a lot of first hand stories.

    I also have a son who was a senior, varsity wrestler, headed to college, that graduated from Green Mountain HS in May of ’99. He had wrestled at Columbine, it is about 5 miles from GM. His name is Daniel. So were two of the kids killed.

    I was a Home Care field supervisor. My psychiatric nurse was dealing with the kids who had wounds, and their families. She almost fell apart.

    As Battlebob explained, the wound may be small and insignificant. But even the ones that you feel and hear go by you, will remain with you the rest of your life. Especially when you saw other people wounded and killed around you.

  15. “I suspect the deletions were from Ron who had warned you before about repeately posting the ‘not finding’ the facts in the sources you were linked to.”

    I wasn’t linked to any source! I was merely quoting from Brinkley’s article and listing the same source he used only I didn’t conveniently exclude the letter H which applied to Kerry.

  16. Michael,

    I am not going to take that one out of the mod cue. I already told you the reasons you can ultimatley get censored.

    If you can ask who Kerry saved his crew members from, you have not read the referenced articles or after action reports.

    Time to leave Michael.

  17. Michael Says: June 7th, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Michael

    Any recent deletions of your posts have come from me.

    Let me make something clear, while others here have been bantering back and forth with you, I’ve been busy taking care of other matters but have followed the conservations.

    Ultimately I have the last word on who gets banned from the Dem Daily and as Ginny said above “Time to leave Michael.”

    I will have no problem what so ever at this point with sending any subsequent comments from you into the black hole of the internet. You will be permanently banned from this blog.

  18. Dammit, are you guys letting the riff raff in? :)

    The mod que was packed yesterday with posts from Michael. The contained garbage such as accusations that Democrats hate veterans or soldiers. In fact it is Michael who is spreading lies about a vet who has been proven to have earned his medals.

    There was no word from Michael about the fact that Pamela showed his dates in a post trying to support the Swift Boat Lies were incorrect. There is no point in “debating” someone who makes up “facts” or cuts and pastes stuff from right wing sites which have been disputed.

    The major accusation against Kerry in Michael’s deleted posts was that Kerry’s wounds in the case of one medal were self-inflected and therefore the medal was not deserved. The documents I posted (and there are still more to come) show that 1) there was no evidence that the wound came from Kerry or another US source as the Swift Boat Liars claim and 2) even if it was an accidental wound or the result of friendly fire it still would qualify him for the medal.

    One of Michael’s silliest arguments was that old articles from 2004 don’t mean anything. Articles from the time which dispute attacks from the time sure are meaningful. In return I’d say that long disputed attacks from the Swifties from 2004 are the articles which do not mean anything.

    As I put thru in one of the theads, Michael also resonded to Brinkley’s account by saying Brinkley is a liar. If Michael is just going to dismiss a historian who has researched the issue by reviewing the actual record, and speaking with the actual witnesses, as a liar there really isn’t room to discuss this with him. Will he next say that all the eye witnesses who back Kerry are liars as well?

  19. Regarding the Liscomb controversy, reviewing the right wing claims the most that can be said is that maybe Liscomb had an article which at some low level was submitted for consideration for a Pulitzer. However by the criteria the conservative sites site for being a Pullitzer nominee any journalist could submit articles in a similar fashion and claim to be a nominee. In this case, claims of being a Pulitzer Prize nominee are rather meaningless and do nothing to give Liscomb’s work.

  20. Michael,

    “And just what links am I supposed to believe? All of the links you people provide are extremely liberal and don’t deal with facts.”

    Our links are based upon eye witnesses, the official record, and several non-partisan sources.

    The Swift Boat links come from:

    1) People who often weren’t even at the site

    2) People who have given contradictory accounts, many of whom supported Kerry in the past (and in one case someone who retracted their attacks)

    3) People who were known GOP partisans or who received money from GOP partisans

    Under the circumstances there really shouldn’t be any question as to who to believe.

  21. Sorry Ron,

    I hadn’t had time to go through it all again and figured it out after he started up again.

    Thank you Pamel for the permanent solution.

    Now another word on “censorship”

    One of the biggest beefs we have over this whole debate is that it got all the media attention it did – long after the facts were thoroughly vetted. The initial campaign before the DNC was smacked down – put it should never have made it into the MSM then. Several journalists have commented that not so long ago, anyone coming into a newsroom with that bunch of garbage would have been told to leave.

    We now have an entire book on this issue : Lapdogs There is no reason the discussion has to continue with someone who is using a GOP tactic we have seen too many times:

    “There’s no evidence to support [global warming, evolution, etc]”

    Scientific evidence presented.

    “There’s no evidence to support [global warming, evolution, etc]”

    Further scientific evidence presented.

    “There’s no evidence to support [global warming, evolution, etc]”

    Overwhelming scientific evidence presented.

    “If someone would just show me the scientific evidence or the facts”

    There is nothing to be gained from the discussion.

  22. BTW,

    Has Darth Malice been absent for some time or is it just me not paying attention?

  23. Ginny,

    The point is that whether or not we allow someone here to post is not a matter of censorship.

    Newspapers and magazines do not post every article or every letter to the editor submitted.

    This is a private blog. One goal is to have posts, and a comments section, which is enjoyable to read and informative.

    Right wingers commonly cut and paste the same lies all over the blogosphere. If every liberal blog just allowed them to do this and wasted space refuting the same garbage the comments sections of liberal blogs would all appear the same, would not be enjoyable to read, and would not be providing meaningful information.

    Once it became clear that Michael was only repeating right wing smears, continually claiming that no proof to the contrary had been offere when it fact it had, and presented “facts” which were found to be untrue there was no point in allowing him to post here.

  24. Ginny,

    I didn’t see anything from his yesterday but I believe Darth Malice was posting here on Monday.

  25. It’s amazing how none of you have been able to explain the timeline for Kerry’s first PH which I have posted numerous times only to have it deleted hoping that the inconsistencies would just go away!

  26. michael is a moron of the highest level. I have asked more than once, about who he is with. There is a reason I have asked this. I knew I recognized that name from somewhere. Here it is, mike the troll in the past. Are you this same one?
    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=474#comment-2838

  27. Michael,

    Your dates were shown to be incorrect after you posted your claims.

    We’ve also posted several correct accounts.

    The diary entry you “quote” is misquoted to falsely claim Kerry had not faced enemy fire on the date when he received the medal. Other sources verify that there was enemy fire on that date. Whether or not there was enemy fire on Kerry’s birthday is irrelevant as to whether there was enemy fire when Kerry was injured.

    Good bye!

  28. Ron

    Pesky little critter isn’t he. :roll:

  29. Let him hang around here and make more entries to our mod que. At least its better than all that other spam.

    The more time he spends here, the less time he has to spread his lies to other blogs.

    To think that he really believes that just because Kerry might not have faced enemy fire on his birthday (if there is any validity at all to his claims of such a diary entry) is proof that he never faced enemy fire on other days is just incredible. It shows how gullible people have to be to believe the Swift Boat Lies.

  30. Pamela,

    Now the fool is posting that 1) we are practicing censorship and 2) that we can’t refute his arguments.

    I don’t even think he reads most of our replies. The censorship argument is discussed above, and we have refuted his argument many times.

    I see you beat me to deleteing that comment from him.

  31. Ron,

    I thought that was what I was trying to say about ‘censorship’ -as used by people who think that just because they can ask a question it should be published somewhere.

    The liberals only make the government provide legal defense for those who can’t afford it.

    Of all the odd ball ideas that have been tossed out, I don’t remember anyone suggesting that the right to freedom of speech means anything except;
    anywhere you can legally stand and disseminate your views is protected.
    anytime YOU, find someone who will publish, air or otherwise distribute your views, they are protected.

    Further anecdotal comments on coffee opening the mind and being liberal. Having now had at least 50% of the two cups, it would appear that my mind is closing rather than opening. I have become more intolerant of someone than less.

    I offer this as a point that there are limits to being open minded, regardless of liberal values or coffee. The judgement and reasoning centers of the upper cortexes are not disabled by the coffee.

    My tolerance is limited when someone starts throwing out patently stupid questions.

    YES, THERE ARE STUPID QUESTIONS

    Some people use them intentionally to distract, waste time and disorient. I watched a supervisor do this at a meeting with three executives – and they let her get away with it. Mentally ballparking the cost of an hour of salaries for all those at the meeting, I picked my jaw up to leave.

  32. Ginny,

    We were both saying the same thing. I just wanted to be more explicit in saying that for us to decline to post someone’s comments is not censorship.

    In his last deleted comment Michael compared us to the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union to censor all publications is in no way related to whether we post a comment.

  33. Donnie,

    You are amazing!!!! I can only remember the last WEEK :razz:

    I sort of agree with Ron about keeping him here, except that his comments are so limited, he has plenty of time to make rounds at several blogs and do the same.

    I really prefer ignore. It is incredibly effective.

  34. Michael,

    I agree that BushCO uses censorship to hide being unable to answer questions or hide their inability to defend the position. Doesn’t mean everyone does.

    You are in what the Judges tell lawyers badgering a witness”

    Asked and answered.

    Whether you heard, understand or accept the answers is not our problem.

    You just can’t keep asking the same stupid questions over and over. And get them put on the blog.

  35. This reminds of the ’04 incident with THK. Around the time the Dick :twisted: told a Senator on the floor to “go F**K yourself.

    THK was in PA somewhere and was meeting with the press at the event. An editor from a Pittsburg paper that she knew from years of having dealt with him as Mrs John Heinz, asked her the same baited question 7 times. She replied 6 times, apparently modifying the answer so that he might understand one of them. On the 7th, he also grabbed her elbow to stop her from walking away.

    Her comment to that: “Shove it”, was reported in the press in 3 times as many articles as Cheney’s – per Media Matters.

    I just found a bunch of codes for other smileys. Gotta see if it works.
    [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Grandmastergeno/SMILEY/doghouse.gif[/IMG]

  36. :cry: Darn, no smiley in the doghouse means all the others probably wont work. No smiley hitting head against wall, drinking beer, smoking, mooning, hammer whacking, shaking finger, falling down….

    How can we really fight the GOP without having visual images to support our arguments?

    :idea: More coffee….

  37. 8) Ohhh a smiley drinking coffee !!!! Please, anyone??

  38. michael,

    You shameful lil critter. I asked you more than once to admit as to who you are with, and you have denied it. So without any further ado, I give you the truth about mikey!! Notice, I have been nice enough to leave out the IP address.

    ISP : AT&T WorldNet Services
    Organization : Blue Shield of California
    Location : US, United States
    City : San Jose, CA 95199
    Latitude : 37°30’73″ North
    Longitude : 121°85’69″ West

    You silly lil goose.

  39. Donny,

    Actually he did deny being the same Michael after we stopped putting his posts thru.

    The earlier Michael troll post came before we were set up to track IP addresses of all commenters so I can’t say if he is the same person.

  40. Ginny,

    “I sort of agree with Ron about keeping him here, except that his comments are so limited, he has plenty of time to make rounds at several blogs and do the same.”

    True. He doesn’t really read the rebuttals (or he is awfully stupid if he has read them and still claims his arguments haven’t been disputed). It doesn’t take long to cut and paste.

    It’s up to him if he wants to keep putting stuff in our mod que. Now he’s claiming that for us to not answer his questions is censorship. As we’ve noted, first of all we’ve answered everything and refuted all his arguments. Secondly, even if we hadn’t allowed him to say a thing and if we hadn’t responded to all his claims this would still not be censorship.

    The New York Times refuses to put something I wrote on the front page. Should I accuse them of censorship?

  41. Donnie,

    I hadn’t noticed. Blue Shield of California.

    The schmuck is probably spending time which should be spent paying claims to write his nonsense. I don’t know about California, but BCBS here is taking a lot longer to get claims paid recently.

  42. So these threads have been all about this alleged person Michael and nothing much about issues. And this is how it’s done. How easily people are suckered and distracted. It’s up to you to stay on course. Censoring, deleting, or allowing these people to hijack will never cut it. The discipline to resist these actions and continue to stay focused on the important things is the lesson here and I don’t see it mastered yet. Why are there 40+ posts of nonsense here and 1 or 2 on the other threads?

  43. BTW, the Republican extremists are now in power because of this tactic. Can you see why?

  44. Teresa,
    What is the distraction?
    We had a chance to dig up more referances that were forgotten about.
    Never miss a chance to articulate your position.
    The more we do it, the better we get.

    The guy is a moron. As we all know..we ain’t seen nothing yet.

    The issue was Lipscomb and the smearvet lies.
    And we found out the activity in the moderation queue.

    I think it was a pretty good topic.

  45. Maybe you’re right, bob.

  46. Teresa,

    #43 Exactly, what I was trying to get at in #21 and a few others.
    #7 also is to make clear I don’t write this stuff to convince the Michaels.

     ”We don’t censor comments like yours.
    We’d much rather have them in here so we can expose and answer them for the readers who come by looking for the truth.”

    We have enough return traffic and first time traffic that are folks who are just reading and don’t comment. I write for them as much as anyone. I hope they get the impression that we will listen to their questions – and give them the benefit of the doubt on uninformed versus being obstinately ignorant- with the detailed answers we respond to the Michaels on.

    Which is why I totally agree with Bob’s comment:

    “Never miss a chance to articulate your position.
    The more we do it, the better we get.”

    That said, it would really be nice to move on to the problems of voting machines and getting Dems out to vote. Maybe the Busby race will clue others in to how close we really are in strong GOP districts and
    IF THEY DON’T VOTE, WE ALL LOSE.

  47. Ginny in CO Says:
    June 7th, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    LOL Ginny, I wouldn’t go that far. ;)

    Ron Chusid Says:
    June 7th, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    That makes it even more sick. Jeez, what a rodent.

    Teresa Says:
    June 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Teresa, If you check out all the comments, you will notice how much info was given out. Practice makes perfect. I think battlebob is correct about his “we ain’t seen nothing yet” comment.

    What makes this even more bizzare, is the Blue Shield of California location that he using for his rabid rantings.

    PS {{{Teresa}}}

  48. OK. Maybe I’m convinced. I’ll see after the “ain’t seen nothin yet”.

    Hey {{{Sweetie}}}!

  49. At the poetry review, we often receive submissions with cover letters stating the poet had been nominated for a Pushcart prize. Same as with the “nominated for a Pulitzer,” it don’t mean nuthin’. Since self-nominations for a Pushcart are common, the cover letter actually says more about the poet than I think they realize… anyway, now I don’t read the cover letters unless I’m interested in editing or buying the poem.

    As for the Michaels of the blogosphere, sigh. While I agree with battlebob in theory, I come down with Teresa in practice. But, the list of Swiftboat stories Ron put up is something I wish the campaign had done at the time. Bravo, Ron, what a resource! And bravo everyone for their comments!

  50. KJ,
    I had no idea the amount of anti-smearvet material that came out of the Kerry camp. I also didn’t know about the MSM that defended Kerry.
    Kudos to Ron for this great info.

  51. If you haven’t checked out the responses at the Widow of Swift Boat Captain Defends Kerry, I posted a copy and paste list of all of the links broken down by general subject and source.

    http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3230

    If you put it somewhere you can access it easily, anywhere you are blogging that the misinformation comes up, the links are easier to figure out and put in a response.

  52. BTW did Kerry spend Christmas in Cambodia while RMN was president and did he ever release his full military record to the public. Give Michael some slack then rather than censoring him. If we know that Kerry has mistated the truth his record should be examined.

  53. Any explaination on why Kerry would be on a skimmer with 2 enginemen and no machine gunner?

  54. Paul V –

    Here is some quips from blog post that I wrote on 06/07/05, for a blog that is no longer online. Kerry released his Form 180 a year ago – that’s something all your right wingers know.

    Kerry Calls Swift Boat Liars Bluff, Will They Come Clean?

    John Kerry’s newly released Form 180 records revealed yesterday that there were no deep, dark secrets hiding in Kerry’s previously unreleased military records as the Swift Boat Liars had claimed. The Boston Globe noted that these newly released records prove what the Kerry campaign ascertained all along, that all of Kerry’s records were made available in April 2004. It does appear that the conspiracy theories have been disproved, yet again.

    Of course, the vitriol from the right-wing continues in wake of the release of Kerry’s records, including a call from one blog for the Boston Globe to release all the records on their website as a PDF and another who has written the Globe’s ombudsman asking for verification of what is in the records. What we have not seen from the right-wing or the Swift Boat Liars is any sort of acknowledgement that they were wrong. Not that we expected that we would.

    The right-wing The Disinformation Society is hard at work spinning more spew over this issue.

    Aside from the media’s attention yesterday on the “grades” story further examples of the right-wing spin can be found here (including a statement from Kerry nemesis John O’Neill), here, here, here and here.

    So tight is the Republican hold on the spin that the reality is, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in his Vanity Fair article in May 2005 – The Disinformation Society, “No matter who the Democratic nominee was, this machinery had the capacity to discredit and destroy him.”

    The Swift Boat Liars have never had anything solid on John Kerry, nor has the right-wing for that matter. In lieu of real dirt, the next best alternative of course is to sling synthetic mud. And when that does not stick, sling more synthetic mud. Now they are slipping and sliding in their own nasty mess, like a bunch of sorry mud wrestlers and they cannot come clean on this with out a whole mess of lye soap. Not even lye soap will wash away the fact that a few men saw fit to besmirch the military record of American war hero, a candidate for president, a seated senator of the United States. It is the Swift Boat Liars, who are covered in dirt here, not John Kerry.

    As a Kerry spokesperson pointed out yesterday morning, off the record, now Kerry has “called the Swift Boat Liars’ bluff and let’s see if they will come clean about THEIR records.”

    And, for that matter, when will Bush be releasing all of his records?

    So what brings you here today Paul V, could it be that your pal Tom Maguire is up to attacking me today for exposing Lipscomb’s phony “Pulitizer nomination”.

    We know that you right wingnut’s keep mistating the truth about Kerry’s record – I wonder have you or Tom Maguire ever served – or are you a couple of chicken hawks too, simply clucking the Rovian talking points?

  55. PaulV Says: June 30th, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Paul V

    Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Wade Sanders debunked that here.

    Oh, and yes, Sanders did campaign for Kerry, and yes they are life long friends.

    There’s something sick in the minds of men who seek to attack other men for their service to this country. You evidently have no shame.

  56. Pamela
    Where can I find kerry form 180 if it has been released? You know it has only been released to Kerry’s tame stenographers and not to the public. Whar do you think Kerry is afraid of to not release the 180?
    We would be able to evaluate the Skimmer story better if Kerry would release his form 180, but neither you ar I have seen it. Or have you? I thought not.

  57. PaulV

    What do you get from this charade?

    Does questioning a man’s service to his country give you some sense of empowerment?

    Do you think you’re going to save the world, with this mission to smear a good man who has served his country honorably not only in the military but in the Senate also?

    WAKE UP PAUL V!

    You and the rest of the fools spreading these lies and perpetuating this ugliness have been used! That’s right – you’ve all been used – by a lying, cheating, corrupt administration that is taking this country to hell in a friggin handbasket.

    WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO EVALUTE THE “SKIMMER STORY?”

    Every piece of crap thrown out by the Swift Liars has been debunked over and over again and you morons play along with their sick game, while this country is going down the tubes!

    Let me fill you in on this FOOL — John Kerry is 100 times the man and the leader than the idiot lame duck in residency is!

  58. Just saying that the swift boat veterans for truth have been debunked does not make in true. Even repeating that claim again and again does not make it true. Your failure to address the question of why Kerry has not release his form 180 tell me there how gullible you are. Just join with me in requesting that Kerry release his form to the public and when he does you will not need to yell at me anymore. Is full disclosure too much to ask of Kerry?

  59. I just noticed you lack of toleration of free speech in your rules. It saddens me to read them:
    “Bashing or attacking members of The Democratic Daily or Democratic leaders in office or candidates will not be tolerated.”

  60. PaulV Says: June 30th, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    Why not join us here in denouncing the Swift Boat Liars?

    Kerry has released his records. The lies have been debunked.

    And please, don’t even go there with the “lack of toleration of free speech in your rules” routine. Your comments were posted here unedited.

    But, since you seem to want to push an uissue that has long since been put to rest, I have no problem with moderating your comments from here.

    Go spew amongst your like-minded pals who obviously have no sense of morals or ethics.

  61. If Kerry has released his form 180 to the public please tell me where I can see it. The truthfulness of the SBVFT cannot be fairly evaluated without full disclosure of Kerry’s 180. Without seeing it neither you or I can evaluate the truthfulness of SBVFT, can we. If you can please explain how you can. I am waiting to see Kerry’s form 180. Can you help me with that or not?

  62. PaulV

    I suggest you contact the Dept of Navy, or file a request through the Freedom of Information Act.

    No I can’t help you with that – nor quite honestly would I. I don’t support the partisan attacks on John Kerry.

    The SBVFT claims have been refuted by the Dept of Navy and many other sources.

    You have no clue it seems how ridiculous you appear in posting this here.

  63. Pamela,
    So you think that a release of Kerry Form 180 would be an attack on his record. I am not as sure that his Form 180 would be as damaging as you suggest but perhaps you know better whu |Kerry is scared to publically release his full record to the public.
    Thank you for your support of complete information for the voting public

  64. PaulV

    This entire smear routine from the swift liars and folks like you is an attack on his record.

    Kerry made his records available during the campaign. Only a handful of twisted liars who were shilling for the Bush campaign doubted his military record. Everything has been debunked over and over again.

    You know that full well.

    I’d like to see the voting public have full access to Bush’s records – before he ran for office and since he has been in office. That man has lied through his teeth for decades…

    His DUI records… where are they? Daddy sealed them.

    His Air Guard records – we never did see all of them did we?

    Let’s take a look at all the constitution abuses that Bush has taken while in office – Now that is really somehting the voting public should see.

    Take it somewhere else PaulV.

  65. Vermin everywhere I look. Pamela, Who is responsible for putting out the rat traps and roach motels? Someone is falling behind on their duties ;)

  66. Donnie

    Sometimes the rats get into remind us all what idiots they are! ;)

  67. Pamela,

    If we needed reminding, we only have to go as far as to listen to Rush Limp-baugh

  68. Donnie

    I think fools like PaulV must a get a rise out perpetuating these lies. Some sort of twisted pleasure. Otherwise they’re like the Limp-baugh with out their fix.

    ***Limp-baugh*** LMAO!

  69. OMG, Pamela I just had an eye opening moment. I now think I understand Rush Limp-baugh, PaulV, O’Reilly, and Ann-imal Coultergeist. The viagra has left their cranial cavities blood and oxygen depleted. Now I understand! But some like Ann-imal are obviously taking more than the recommended daily dose!