Election 2008: The Return of the SwiftBoaters

The shadowy group that smeared John Kerry in 2004 is ready to do its dirty work again. Full Story »

Posted by Melva Hackney

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Silhouette_sml
3.1
by Veronica Barlee - Jan. 6, 2008

An important topic, the hijacking of American elections by vested interests, but the article fails to investigate and expose Swiftboating tactics. Instead it mostly focusses on funders.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
3.9
by Seabury Lyon - Jan. 5, 2008

Good story, well researched and presented. We need more of this kind of investigative reporting in addition to the fact check type we're so fortunate to have. Our American political process benefits greatly by illuminating the outrageous lies and smears committed by "Swift Boater" -type cancers of all persuasions in our body politic. Keep up the good work.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Fred_gatlin_thumb
4.6
by Fred Gatlin - Jan. 5, 2008

As long as it takes so much money to be elected to any public office we must be dilegent about groups like these. This is an excellent article.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.3
by Dennis A. Abbott - Jan. 5, 2008

Hayes' message: The Swiftboaters have enough money to buy America (again), and intend to. Note that he and this reviewer are both Bush-bashing lefties.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Mmonday_thumb
3.6
by Mark Monday - Jan. 5, 2008

As journalism, it rates above average because of the research involved. There is no question, however, that the writer promotes one viewpoint -- and for that, as journalism -- it loses points.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
3.5
by Cynthia Gilbert - Jan. 5, 2008
See Full Review » (2 answers)
Jack_dinkmeyer_thumb
4.1
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Jan. 5, 2008
See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.1
by Sheila Evans - Jan. 6, 2008

For those that haven't had access to anything but the hype about Ron Paul, it is important to look beyond the surface. Here is some information from NH columnist Susan Bruce: The dark side of Dr. Paul goes largely unreported. He has ties to neo-Nazis and white nationalists. He’s the only Congressman with a 100% rating from the John Birch Society. Paul received the coveted David Duke endorsement. One of his biggest internet organizers from Tennessee is a neo-Nazi. Will Williams ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Silhouette_sml
5.0
by Melva Hackney - Jan. 5, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Silhouette_sml
4.5
by David Dresser - Jan. 5, 2008

The reason there are shadowy groups manipulating politics and economics is because they seem to appear from nowhere and that is caused by lack of coverage from most of our media. This is good journalism whether it comes from the left or not. It is not necessary to be from a point of view to know dirty tricks when they occur.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.1
by Roland F. Hirsch - Jan. 5, 2008

This smear job does not deserve the dignity of a NewsTrust review, and should never have been submitted. The Swift Boat Verterans were not a "shadowy group", they were very public about themselves. They did not "smear" John Kerry but pointed out his lies and distortions about his military experience. They were and are not a "conservative" group, but most of the members had no political affiliations at all until Senator Kerry's false statements smeared them and caused them to respond. ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.5
by JP Cohen - Jan. 5, 2008

Groups such as this should, if they are allowed to say whatever they please, slander and sloth included, should be examined carefully and displayed prominently in the press for what they are; lies, half-truths, and innuendo funded by the same criminal bunch that brought you these last eight years of "government"

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 12 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
3.0
Fairness
3.5
Information
3.9
Sourcing
3.7
Style
3.0
Accuracy
3.2
Balance
2.5
Context
3.8
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.6
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
3.6
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!