But all of a sudden he’s everywhere talking about how we can’t drill our way out of this energy shortage and we need to hook up a wind power grid pronto.

I suppose it’s an attractive man-bites-dog news hook: here’s an oil guy advocating wind and natural gas. Yet I’m really surprised at the degree of media saturation Pickens has achieved. I’m not very knowledgeable of such matters but I strongly suspect the operation of a PR firm getting all these op-eds placed in major publications and all this airtime.

Frankly it seems more than a little heavy-handed. I think the goal of a PR firm is to be subtle enough to where you don’t start wondering “who is getting this guy into every media outlet I read this week? Is he just buying this time to lobby me?”

I’m kind of agnostic on wind power; if it’s really a good thing, some entrepreneur like T. Boone Pickens ought to step up and build a wind farm. (I would support federal legislation requiring all such new wind farm construction to be sited so that it ruins the view of some prominent liberal.) I’m mainly puzzled as to why John Q. Public is suddenly being lobbied about how great this wind power thing is. Whaddaya want, a subsidy or something?

Anyway, it’s quite possible Pickens is being civic-minded and just really believes in this cause and wants to step up and use his money to change public opinion. Nothing wrong with that, and if you’re curious his website is here. There’s also some criticism of the “Pickens plan” at Townhall here–but their editors lose points for not incorporating “Boone-doggle” into the column title.

Of course, the other rather chilling aspect of the Pickens media blitz is this: here’s a prominent conservative who put up money and got personally involved on the Republican side in the 2004 election, who’s now not putting his time and money into getting Republicans elected this cycle but instead is advocating for a single issue. He’s not even pushing that issue from a partisan standpoint. That’s got to lead to an uptick in Maalox consumption at RNC HQ.

____________________
{Post by See-Dubya, in case Mr. Pickens’ PR firm was wondering whom to make the check out to.}

Democrats and the media have used the term so much that it’s almost an article of faith. But the so-called “Republican attack machine” waiting with piles of unregulated cash to chew up Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is anything but.

Obama cited the threat of unregulated attack groups — called “527s” because they’re authorized to raise unlimited cash under that section of the Internal Revenue Service code — to justify dropping his pledge to take public financing — along with its spending limits — for the general election campaign.

Yet there’s no 2008 equivalent to the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which spent $22 million attacking Democrat John Kerry. Prominent groups and donors that played key roles in independent conservative 527 groups four years ago say they’re sitting out this election. And while they’ve raised more than they did at this point four years ago, the independent pro-Republican groups still lag more than $50 million behind pro-Democratic groups.

Why?

This sums up the top reason:

“Why stick your neck out for him?” said one Republican operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely criticize his party’s presumptive nominee.

No need for anonymity. It’s the truth.

***

R.S. McCain offers his explanation.

Hi Michelle — I just saw the post you had on me about SBVT and I deserved the ding. Bad use of term on my part — I was trying to make the point that they still had it out for Republicans given how sour they still are over their view that the Swift Boat Vets prevented the Presidency from them and John Kerry. I was trying to say that they were doing their version — i.e. “trying” to do what they consider to be “Swift Boating.” After I said it, I realized it was not comunicating that way and dropped it in subsequent interviews.

Obviously, the difference is stark — SBVT were heroes once again coming forward to tell the truth and blow the whistle on Kerry. The New York Times used anonymous sources to have yet another “Jason Blair moment,” no evidence, no truth, just, as Rush would say, a drive by hit job.

We were so proud and honored to have played a role in the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, working side by side so many true American heroes. John O’Neill, Bill Franke and I have grown to be terrific friends as I have with the other true heroes that were involved in the effort.

Very poor communication on my part. I made the comment to my friend Jonathan Martin at The Politico early in the AM and realized it was not reading as I meant it. He did not misquote me. He is a very good reporter and always quotes me accurately. In subsequent interviews throughout the day the following statement was distributed and used in a number of stories.

Link

“I think this story backfires because, put simply, this is a bad gossip column. There is no evidence of anything in it.

“It was a poor and revealing attempt by the New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as an inexperienced liberal, so the New York Times takes up for Obama’s defense. If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain’s aide in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal media outlets.

“Rather than coming from MoveOn.org or some other Soros bankrolled liberal group, The New York Times has launched the first real negative attack of the general election phase of the campaign. Certainly, the Times cannot complain about a negative general election campaign in upcoming articles and editorials since they have fired the first shot.”

Greg Mueller

Thanks, Greg.

A reminder to conservatives: “Swift-Boating” does not equal smearing.

Swift-Boating means exposing hard truths about corrupt Democrats.

By using “Swift-Boating” in the context of the John McCain/NYT story, you are doing a grave disservice to the Swift Boat Veterans who courageously told the untold truths about John Kerry that the mainstream media wanted buried.

This is a no-no–made all the more surprising by the fact that the conservative quoted in the article spearheaded communications for the Swift Boat Vets:

Greg Mueller, a veteran Republican strategist, said conservatives would side with McCain against the paper they love to hate.

“The New York Times is trying to swift-boat McCain,” Mueller said. “This is the first real salvo of the general election. Certainly, the Times cannot complain about a negative general election campaign since they fired the first shot.

“It was a poor and revealing attempt by The New York Times to try and smear McCain at a time when he is starting to define Obama as a inexperienced liberal, so The New York Time takes up for Obama’s defense. If anything, this helps energize conservatives to come to McCain’s aide in beating back attacks by The New York Times and other liberal MSM outlets.”

I hope this was a misquote.

***

Make sure you order a copy of To Set The Record Straight. Send one to your local newspaper editor–or to the next commentator or political operative whom you spot distorting the Swift Boat Veterans’ legacy.

Update: Via TVNewser, CBS responds… “These complaints are old news and this lawsuit is without merit.” Rather will dredge up his bygones on the Larry King Live show tomorrow.

Charles at LGF takes you down animated memory lane. Let’s see that on CNN.

***
Yes, my friends, Gunga Dan is suing Viacom and CBS for $70 million over the loss of his network career after the Rathergate debacle:

Dan Rather, whose career at CBS News ground to an inglorious end 15 months ago over his role in an unsubstantiated report questioning President Bush’s Vietnam-era National Guard service, filed a $70 million lawsuit this afternoon against the network, its corporate parent and three of his former superiors.

Mr. Rather, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.” As plaintiffs, the suit names CBS and its chief executive, Leslie Moonves; Viacom and its executive chairman, Sumner Redstone; and Andrew Heyward, the former president of CBS News.

In the suit, filed this afternoon in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr. Rather charges that CBS and its executives made him “a scapegoat” in an attempt “to pacify the White House,” though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr. Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio, telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of “pressure from ‘the right wing.’ ”

He also continues to take vehement issue with the appointment by CBS of Richard Thornburgh, an attorney general in the administration of the elder President Bush, as one of the two outside panelists given the job of reviewing how the disputed broadcast had been prepared.

That’s right. He’s still battling the thorough investigative review by the Thornburgh panel. Hey, thanks for bringing it up again, Dan. It’s well worth re-reading the whole, damning indictment.

Hat tip – Lawhawk , who offers some free professional advice:

Here’s a memo for Dan Rather. When you produce a story based on bogus documents and then use nonexistent sources to verify said bogus documents, don’t expect your employer to give you choice assignments or air time. Indeed, count your blessings that you’ve got a job at all.

You should have been resigned to the ash heap of history for your stunt to manipulate the outcome of the US Presidential elections with just days to go, but instead, you still manage to get air time.

Going back to the Thornburgh report, I remind you of two telling, key phrases: “Myopic zeal.” “Rigid and blind.”

And a refresher on the top 10 news-gathering and news-vetting failures identified by the panel:

1. The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;

2. The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;

3. The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

4. The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

5. The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents “were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files”;

6. The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

7. The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

8. The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

9. The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

10. The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry – a clear conflict of interest – that created the appearance of a political bias.

Myopic zeal. Rigid and blind.

The more things change, the more Dan Rather stays the same.

Topics covered: illegal and legal immigration, the Diversity Visa Lottery (he’d kill it), Visa Express and Saudi visas, the matricula consular card (he said he doesn’t know about it), the war, and defeating Hillary Clinton. My biggest regret in the interview is that I didn’t immediately respond to Newt’s dissing of the Swift Boat Vets. If he thinks he can win conservative hearts and minds by trashing their honor and their accomplishments during the last presidential campaign, he isn’t as smart as so many think he is.

First, Russert asked Kerry about the impact the Swift Vets had on the campaign. Kerry said he “should have responded faster and more forcefully” and blamed his inability to combat “the new communication structure in America.”

Next, Russert showed a clip from the Swift Vets ad featuring Steve Gardner that exposed Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia tall tale.

(Flashback: “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”)

Russert then read from an August 2004 N.Y. Daily News editorial slamming Kerry’s penchant for exaggeration.

“Were you in Cambodia in Christmas in 1968?” Russert asked Kerry directly.

Answer: “We were right on the border…ambushed there as a matter of fact, it’s a matter of record…”

Kerry explained that he “jumbled” two different days together and asserted that he was in Cambodia on another day with CIA agents–”er, I believe they were CIA agents, special ops” he quickly amended his assertion. He said there are “photographs” that he would be willing to release.

Russert also asked if he would sign Form 180.

“Yes I will,” Kerry said–if his critics would sign theirs.

Update: A reader comments, “Good for Tim Russert but about 3 months late! The MSM is willing to address tough questions to Democrats as long as there is no election in the balance.”

Good point. But to be fair, Russert did raise the Christmas in Cambodia issue with Tad Devine in August.

Update II: Newsmax covers Kerry kvetching about the Iraq elections.

And more on the Kerry/Swift Vets at Powerline.

Don Imus takes aim at the war veterans who made an incredible impact on this election, despite the ULM’s (unhinged liberal media’s) worst efforts to stifle their voices. Freepers are reporting on Imus’ rant here. Check back. I’ll try and have more after get off my column deadline at 10am-ish.

“…the scariest proposition that I can think of at this point in time is John Kerry being President of these here United States.”

- Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner, in an interview with blogger Dean Esmay

Read the whole interview, one of a series Esmay conducted with the Swift Boat Vets, here.

Something unbelievable just went down on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country. Lawrence O’Donnell screamed at John O’Neill for two segments as substitute host Pat Buchanan hopelessly tried to moderate. O’Donnell interrupted O’Neill every few seconds, repeatedly called the Vietnam veteran a “liar” and a “creep,” and sneered, scowled, and shouted at the top of his lungs about how O’Neill did nothing to stop the war.

O’Neill was his usual calm, dignified self–trying civilly to inject facts into the hate-filled O’Donnell’s tirades. I swear O’Donnell acted like he was on something. He looked and sounded absolutely crazed. The scene was eerily reminiscent of this.

By the way, I spoke with a former MSNBC employee recently who noted that Chris Matthews STILL hasn’t read Unfit for Command and has no plans to do so. O’Donnell cited the hate-filled New York Times book review of O’Neill’s book during his harangue tonight. How much you wanna bet he has never actually read the book either?

I’m paraphrasing here, but John O’Neill noted that O’Donnell demonstrated the choice we face on Nov. 2–Kerry-supporting screamers like O’Donnell or an administration that can deal with the threats we face rationally.

I wonder if MSNBC will have the guts to put up an unedited transcript. Stay tuned. And if anybody has video of the show that I can link to, let me know.

More on O’Donnell’s recent rantings against “simpleminded” people of faith at David M and Betsy’s Page.

And here’s O’Donnell on the McLaughlin Group last week sharing his thoughts on troop morale:

MR. O’DONNELL: Look, it’s not our job to lie about war to make troops feel good. And I don’t care what they feel.

MR. BLANKLEY: I don’t –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me finish.

MR. O’DONNELL: I don’t care what they feel about the truth of this war. If John Kerry thinks this war is a mistake and if the United States of America elects him president, the troops are going to have to live with that. And they know better than anyone else whether it was a mistake or not.

MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief should not undermine the troops –

MR. O’DONNELL: He’s not undermining anything.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want to make a point here?

MR. BUCHANAN: He’d demoralize them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, the human –

MR. O’DONNELL: I don’t care if they’re demoralized. They have to go to war and be prepared –

MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief does care.

MR. O’DONNELL: — to live with the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it’s right or wrong.

MR. BUCHANAN: But if you’re going to be commander-in-chief, you cannot be demoralizing the troops in wartime, even if you think the war is a mistake.

***
Drive them madder: Donate to the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth here.

Update: SwiftVets has the audio.

Update II: Polipundit weighs in…and has started a contest to nominate the Worst Liberal Meltdown.
(The winner, er, loser, is here.)

Update III: The indispensible Daily Recycler has a video excerpt. They also include a hilarious comment from Frank Luntz, who followed John O’Neill and said he was afraid to say anything because O’Donnell would probably call him a liar five times.

God bless John O’Neill and all the Swift Boat Vets for putting up with such desperate, disgraceful abuse.

Update IV: A commenter at SwiftVets.com tallied up O’Donnell’s raging insults. Here’s the count…

I was curious, so I did a count of how many times Lawrence O’Donnell said “lies” “liar” or “lying.”

46 total times in 10 min. 45 seconds (much of which he was not talking)

First 5:10 O’Donnell didn’t speak
5:10-9:39: 6 times
10:55-12:25: 24 times
00:01-1:38: 7 times (beginning of second MP3 after break)
1:55-3:30: 9 times
(And I may have missed some due to crosstalk)
46 TIMES

Update V: Transcript is up.

Maj. Bud Day (Bert V. Goulait, Washington Times)

The Washington Times and RedState have previews of the latest devastating ads from the Swift Boat Vets, which will feature 90 veterans who oppose John Kerry, including Medal of Honor recipient Bud Day.

I wonder if Newsweek writer Susannah Meadows will smear these noble war heroes as “curdled with hate?”

Two quick comments–one about the reviewer and one about the book review section:

1) The reviewer is Susannah Meadows, who is covering the Kerry campaign for Newsweek. In the second paragraph of her screed against the Swift Boat vets, she writes:

The problem is that John O’Neill, who is the driving force and public face of the book, is so curdled with hatred for Kerry that, as though he were an unreliable narrator in a Nabokov novel, you can’t trust what he says.

Now, I have never met John O’Neill. But I’ve seen him speak on TV numerous times, mostly in hostile situations. The singular thing that has struck me about John O’Neill is his ramrod integrity. Only the most unreconstructed Kerry apologist can view O’Neill as “curdled with hatred.” Unlike most of the combative TV hosts who have verbally abused him on TV, O’Neill never raises his voice. Never spits invective. He is calm, collected, and consumed not by hatred, but by dedication to the honor of his fellow soldiers.

Honor is a concept that Meadows fails to grasp. Which is why she is able to treat O’Neill and the Swift Boat Vets’ book with such blind contempt. It is appalling that someone who is such an abysmal judge of character can be entrusted to deliver “objective” political coverage.

2) Even more appalling, of course, is that anyone would assign Meadows to write such an embarrassing hit piece. And yet NY Times book reviewer Sam Tanenhaus did just that. No one ever expected a rave review of Unfit for Command to see the light of day at the Times, but many observers had high hopes that Tanenhaus, who wrote an acclaimed biography of Whittaker Chambers, would give conservatives a fair shake. It is not to be.

***
Winfield Myers has more on disappointment with Tanenhaus’ editorial judgment here. Powerline reprints a letter to the editor about the review from two Swift Boat vets. And Beldar has a terrific takedown of Meadows’ superficiality here.

* O’Neill voted for Al Gore in 2000;
* he has described President Bush to several friends as an “empty suit;”
* of the leading candidates for national office, regardless of party, his favorite is Sen. John Edwards.

More on O’Neill in this morning’s Washington Post.