Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Exterminate:
Function: transitive verb: to get rid of completely usually by killing off <exterminate crabgrass from a lawn>

From The Stakeholder, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Weblog:
Exterminate DeLay

Getting a little carried away, aren't they?

TRUTH LAID BEAR EXCLUSIVE!!! MUST CREDIT TTLB!!!

Glenn Reynolds targeted by VRWC, plans to flee country!

DEVELOPING!!!

Although some folks might not believe it, as a blogger, I do exercise judgement in what I publish. And as it turns out, over the weekend, I decided to hold off on publishing a story after having some doubts as to whether it was genuinely newsworthy or not.

Fast forward to this afternoon, and the following story:

WASHINGTON Aug. 24, 2004 — A lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign disclosed Tuesday that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group that is challenging Democratic Sen. John Kerry's account of his Vietnam War service.

Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which Kerry accuses of being a front for the Republican incumbent's re-election effort.

Well, guess what. Mr. Ginsberg isn't the only lawyer who is working for a 527 with another job on the side.

Neil Reiff is listed as the contact person for MoveOn.org's 527 organization, as can be seen on the actual form submitted by MoveOn.org to the IRS here (PDF).

But Mr. Reiff seems to have another job. According to his firm's website, he's also the Deputy General Counsel for the Democratic National Committee:

From June, 1993 until May, 1998, Mr. Reiff served as Deputy General Counsel of the Democratic National Committee, and will retain this title in his new firm. In this capacity, Mr. Reiff has been responsible for assisting the DNC General Counsel in all legal matters affecting the national party. Mr. Reiff's major field of expertise is federal and state campaign finance laws. In that regard, Mr. Reiff advises and represents the DNC in all matters before the Federal Election Commission and state election agencies.

Although it is possible that his firm's website is out-of-date and he no longer holds this position, it seems that as recently as April 2004 he was still representing the Democratic Party (in this case, state party organizations) as can be seen in this June 2004 FEC communication addressed to him (PDF). That puts him working for the party in April 2004 -- and since he also submitted IRS forms for MoveOn in both March 2004 (PDF) and June 2004 (PDF), it's clear that he was working for both the Democratic Party and MoveOn's 527 during the same time period.

The reason I held off on publishing this information originally was that after consulting with some of the legal luminaries of the blogosphere, I did not get a clear answer as to whether Mr. Reiff's dual role was truly a conflict from an ethical, legal, or campaign-finance perspective (the consensus was that it didn't seem to be a conflict). And it honestly seems understandable to me that a lawyer might provide legal services to many groups without crossing the "coordination" line which 527's must honor.

But if Mr. Ginsberg is going to be criticized by Kerry's campaign for his dual role, it is only fair to ask the same questions about Mr. Reiff.

At this point, the Kerry campaign's belief that they can hold their opponents to one set of standards while blissfully ignoring the fact that their own partisans trample upon those same standards has passed being stupid, and is now becoming downright insulting. Did they really think that nobody would bother to check if the Democrats were similarly sharing lawyers with 527's?

That kind of carelessness might have cut it a few years ago, when somnolent Big Media hacks were satisfied to define reporting as getting quotes from both party's spokesmen. But times have changed, friends: there isn't just one new sheriff in town, there's thousands of us. We will fact-check your ass, and we will do it thoroughly and properly, with links and primary sources that let our readers decide where the truth lies. So straighten up and fly right, because we are watching --- and we do this crap for fun.

Update: Beldar points out that the NYT acknowledged a similar conflict in their article on the subject...

So FEC Chairman Bradley Smith just told John Kerry to sit down and shut up:

Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, alleged last week that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth illegally coordinated its activities with President George W. Bush's re-election campaign. Smith, a Republican, said members of the group are exercising their constitutional right to free speech.

"For the Kerry group to be complaining'' when Democratic donor-funded groups have raised much more "seems a little bit absurd,'' said Smith, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

I have no idea what he's talking about.

WaPo editorial, this morning:

Mr. Kerry's conflicting statements about where and when he was in Cambodia remain troubling. He has backed away from repeated claims that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia, a memory that, he said in a 1986 Senate speech, is "seared -- seared -- in me." This does not undermine Mr. Kerry's military bravery, but it does raise an issue of candor. It's fair to ask whether this is an episode of foggy memory, routine political embroidery or something more. Indeed, the Kerry campaign ought to arrange for the full release of all relevant records from the time. Mr. Kerry granted historian Douglas Brinkley exclusive use of his wartime journals and other writings; the campaign should seek to be freed from that agreement and to make all the material public. Though the ads are being underwritten by longtime Bush partisans, the Kerry campaign's claim of illegal coordination between the Swift boat group and the Bush campaign is unconvincing.

With defenders like this, who needs enemies?

By the way, is this a good time to remind y'all of how I got started on this whole issue over two weeks ago? I think it is!

The Truth Laid Bear, Kerry's Swift Demise, 8/8/04:

I'm going to go on record and predict that the Swift Boat Veterans kerfuffle won't just be a major negative for Kerry: it will be a campaign-killer. ..Unless Kerry's campaign manages to completely discredit the Swifties --- which seems increasingly unlikely --- the campaign is over; Kerry is done. And after Election Day has passed, I expect that anyone looking backwards will wonder why in the world the Democrats ever thought making Kerry's Vietnam service a centerpiece was a good idea in the first place.

That wondering seems to be beginning sooner rather than later.

There's been a growing call for Kerry to authorize release of his military records by signing a "form 180", without which the DoD is prohibited from providing them to the public (even in response to a FOIA request, is my understanding).

I've got another, simpler request for the Kerry campaign: post the actual FEC complaint which was filed (or maybe, wasn't -- keep reading) against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush-Cheney campaign last Friday.

I tried to find it over the weekend, with no luck, and as of today, it still doesn't seem to appear anywhere on the Kerry-Edwards site. Oddly, I can find no official statement referring to it, either.

As I mentioned yesterday, the GOP filed an extensive, 67-page complaint (PDF) against the Kerry campaign alleging collusion with Democratic 527's, and provided a bunch of supporting documentation. It's a pretty impressive pile of work (at least from this legal amateur's view), and it sure would be interesting to compare the GOP complaint to Kerry's. But as of now, we can't. The FEC doesn't post matters still under review on their site (or provide status on them, to my knowledge) so it's unclear what the status of that investigation is.

But there may actually be a simple explanation for why the complaint hasn't been posted: maybe it doesn't actually exist yet. Some of the news stories from Friday state that the campaign "will file" a complaint. But then there are others that say clearly that the complaint was filed Friday.

So which is the truth? If the complaint wasn't filed Friday, why not?

And if it was filed, can we see it, please? All together now: "Senator Kerry, Post That Complaint!"

Update: The more I think about this, the more I suspect that the complaint really hasn't been filed yet. The scenario goes like this: Kerry's campaign is still finishing the complaint --- not a trivial task, if they want to match the GOP's in level of detail and thoroughness. Knowing this, the campaign spokesperson carefully said "will file" on Friday (if anyone has a link to a story which directly quotes the spokesperson otherwise, please, speak up). But since then the media has misunderstood and misstated that into "has filed".

So now what does Kerry do? Issue a statement saying "Er, no, we're still working on it?". They'd look like idiots. (Again). But if the complaint was really filed, why isn't there even a press release mentioning it at Kerry's web site?

By the way: Did you know that this is not the first FEC complaint filed against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Democracy21 filed one back on August 10th --- and you can actually read theirs (Word .DOC).

This was a very smart move by Bush:

Bush Denounces Ads by Outside Groups

And Kerry, by his very dumb move of making 527's an issue, has walked right into it. Kerry's falling into the swamp on Vietnam, so let's see, what's an even worse issue where his party is in an even more indefensible position? Soft money by 527's! So bring it on, says Kerry.

Idiot.

More thoughts, not necessarily in agreement with mine, at:
Powerline
Vodkapundit
One Hand Clapping
Instapundit

Another thought from the Dept. of Conspiracies: Ok, now we've all discussed in the past how Bush is extremely good at luring his opponents out onto a limb and then sawing it off. Consider that it is entirely possible that Bush might be able to use this moment to shame the existing 527's into withdrawing, or at least curtailing, their participation in the remainder of the campaign.

Putting on my tinfoil hat for a moment, could neutralizing 527's have been Bush's plan all along? With SBVT out in front showing what an impact a 527 can have on the campaign, that gave Bush the excuse to come out against all of them --- which he has just done. He and the RNC are now perfectly positioned to keep the pressure on the Democratic 527's to shut the hell up.

Is this the Mother-Of-All-Rope-A-Dopes?

Glenn offers an instructive view into a parallel universe.

It's not really an alternate universe, though: just an alternate Kerry. And that's the problem. The Kerry that Glenn envisions is no more real than the Easter Bunny. Imagining Kerry behaving boldly and honestly is interesting, but only as a study in contrast to reality. Glenn's tale isn't one of what-might-be; it isn't even what-could-have-been. It's not imagining what if Lincoln had lived past that night at the theatre --- it's imagining what would have happened if he sprouted wings, tipped his hat to the missus, and flew off to the moon.

Like Glenn, I'd love to see a Democratic candidate genuinely challenge Bush with an alternative vision for the future. But that's not what Kerry wants: he has no such vision, and even if he did, he'd never have the courage to proclaim it for fear of alienating one slice or another of the precarious jumble of interest groups and activists known as the Democratic Party. There is only one line on his résumé which appeals to his entire base: the one right at the top, where it says "John Forbes Kerry", and not "George W. Bush".

So, we got feel-good Vietnam stories instead of a plan for Iraq. (Say the phrase "feel-good Vietnam stories" to yourself a few times and you start to see what a mind-bogglingly, obviously dumb idea that was). And knee-jerk criticisms of Bush policies, regardless of whether or not they might actually make sense even in the context of traditional Democratic priorities.

Bush is no prize. But he's the devil we know, and a devil who, for all his flaws, takes seriously the threat facing our nation and appears to be trying to do something about it. With Bush, I expect I will have four more years to quibble with and argue about his tactics in the conduct of this war. With Kerry, once the campaign was over, I fear I'd have a difficult time convincing him there was a war at all.

"They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know -- he wants them to do his dirty work."
--- John Kerry on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Perhaps the indispensible OpenSecrets.org might show us some perspective on the Swift Boat Veteran's "527":

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Receipts: $ 158,750
OpenSecrets.org Description: "SBVT represents Vietnam Swift boat veterans who are critical of Democrat John Kerry's decision to make his military service a major part of his campaign for president. The group questions Kerry's record in Vietnam and denounces his anti-war activities following his military service. The group's donors include some major Republican contributors."

It sure is a good thing that Kerry doesn't have any 527's doing his dirty work. Except these, of course:

Media Fund
Receipts: $ 28,127,488
OpenSecrets.org Description: "One of the leading Democratic interest groups dedicated to defeating President Bush in November. Plans to raise close to $100 million for a massive issue-ad campaign to support the Democratic presidential nominee. The ads will air in 17 battleground states."

America Coming Together
Receipts: $26,905,450
OpenSecrets.org Description: "One of the leading Democratic interest groups dedicated to defeating President Bush in November. Run by longtime Democratic operatives and financed in part by wealthy Democratic donors, the group plans a massive voter mobilization effort in 17 battleground states."

MoveOn.org
Receipts: $9,086,102
OpenSecrets.org Description: "Begun in 1998 to protest the impeachment of President Clinton, the group has become a powerful political force since then. Its political action committee, the MoveOn PAC, spends millions of dollars to support the election of Democratic candidates. The MoveOn.org Voter Fund is raising soft money, which may be contributed in unlimited amounts, for TV ads in key battleground states that are critical of President Bush."

(Emphasis mine)

And oh yeah, these too:

Service Employees International Union: $ 16,652,296
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees: $ 13,658,207
New Democrat Network: $ 7,172,693
Voices For Working Families: $ 3,668,280
Partnership for America's Families: $ 3,071,211

For a little visual perspective on a few of the top Democratic 527's compared to SBVT, click 'MORE...' below for the full entry.

More on 527's from other fine bloggers:
Mudville Gazette
Alpha Patriot
Baldilocks
Blogs for Bush
Little Green Footballs

Well, in case you haven't noticed, the Swift Boat vets story has gotten a little media attention in the last week. The chart above tracks the progress of the story up through today.

At this point, I doubt I'll keep updating the Meter, as it seems a bit pointless to measure the progress of the visibility of the story now that, well, it's the story. But I figured a final pretty graph was called for before retiring it...

So yesterday, Kerry slams the Swifties. Result: The media swarms over his comments, as evidenced by the 900-point jump on the Swift Boat Meter.

Today, he's decided to file a FEC complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Bush-Cheney campaign. Result: The Swifties are now the lead story on CNN.com.

How's this all working out for you, John?

And now, the Swifties are striking again -- harder -- with a second ad, which commits the horrible slur of actually letting John Kerry speak for himself. In response, the Kerry campaign released a statement that proves that it is actually possible to sputter impotently in a press release.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: it is over. The head has been cut off the Kerry candidacy; the body just hasn't realized it yet.

Also: You would think, given that Kerry is suddenly excited about following the letter of campaign finance law, that somebody in the mainstream press would ask him why he's got such a miserable compliance rate on his own campaign's contribution disclosure.

It has arrived!

Yes, boys and girls, buried on Page 5 of 5 on the web edition of an honest-to-betsy real live New York Times news article on the Swift Boat vets comes the following paragraph:

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry [Any particular reason you didn't mention that four pages ago when you were using him to discredit Swifties? Just askin'. -ed.], said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia on Christmas or Christmas Eve, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

It's like peering into some bizarre parallel universe where news reporters actually report the news! If, that is, by 'report', you mean 'bury', and by 'bury', you mean 'ignore until you can't possibly do so any longer and then stuff it in paragraph 61 of 65'.

'Course, the entire rest of the piece is focused on finding every possible way to discredit the Swifties, but you didn't expect any less than that, did you?

Update: More comments from Roger Simon.

PS: "This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest..." So, according to the Paper of Record, every single other allegation in Unfit for Command has been "put to rest" and bears no further investigation? I feel so much better now!

The New York Times says charter schools suck (I paraphrase):

"The first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools shows charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools.

The findings, buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement, dealt a blow to supporters of the charter school movement, including the Bush administration..."

In response, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige turns to the Gray Lady and delivers a bureaucratic bitchslap:

The New York Times' front-page 'analysis' of charter schools used faulty methodology to come up with a flawed conclusion. In other words, it was wrong...

Who's right? Beats me. But I am very curious about what the data really shows; may do some digging to form my own judgement. As the guy with the flashy light says, 'Developing...'

Update: More from Joanne Jacobs and Eduwonk, who says:

Most importantly, though, when one controls the data for race it turns out there is no statistically significant difference between charter schools and other public schools. But, you'll search in vain in the Times story for that information. In fact, to the contrary, a chart accompanying the story fails to offer readers any significance tests for the numbers they're looking at, inaccurately indicating that there are significant differences by race.

Hat Tip: Pejman

Update Again: Kaus is also jumping ugly on the Times.

Looking for a way to make a difference through your blog? Look no further than Strengthen The Good, a new project from Alan of Command Post fame:

Here’s the idea: Create a network of bloggers who raise awareness of “micro charities”—charitable opportunities that are simple, personal, non-bureaucratic, and, like Susan Tom, inspiring. Charitable opportunities where someone can feel great about giving $1, or even just from reading the story of the charity, it’s sponsors, and it’s beneficiaries...

Last May I registered the domain www.strengthenthegood.com, which now is the home for a blog of the same name. (It’s a placeholder design for now while Sekimori works her magic.) Every third Sunday night I’ll post about a “Susan Tom-esque” micro-charity. I’ll find them, I’ll qualify them, and I’ll post their story with enough detail that people can qualify them for themselves, and feel good (or even inspired) by what the charity stands for and who it benefits.

Sounds like an excellent idea --- and in fact, I can say from experience that it can work. Anybody remember the Weblog Action Center? It used the same pick-a-cause and everyone-links-to-it idea. And it worked: we were able to get visibility on Blogdex or other indicies for the selected causes. (In case you're wondering and/or have forgotten, I eventually dropped the Action Center because I was juggling too many blog projects and something had to go.)

But with the weight and experience of the Command Post's leader and contributors behind it, I suspect Strengthen the Good has a bright future ahead of it. I've signed up to participate, and you should too!

Kerry's Cambodia account challenged by ex-commander

Over the years, Kerry has referred to spending Christmas or Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia and coming under fire. At the time, Cambodia was considered a neutral nation presumably off-limits to U.S. troops...

Does The Seattle Times count as Big Media? I think it does!

The piece is still written in "So-and-so said X is true" style as opposed to "We're telling you X is true" style --- but it presents the Swifties Christmas in Cambodia charge fairly, without any of the "but they're Republicans!!!" subtext of other articles.

This is a syndicated piece (note the Knight Ridder byline). According to Google, it is also running (sometimes in slightly altered form) in:
- The Bradenton Herald
- The Provo Daily Herald
- South Carolina's The State