The latest Bush meme: "the Dem 527s are accusing us of poisining pregnant women"

[RTFirefly]

And it's a huge exaggeration, in order to claim moral equivalence between the basically factual ads of groups like Moveon.org, and the outright lies of the SwiftLiars.

Here's the story, as reported by Josh Marshall:

If you look at the talking points out of the Bush campaign in the last few days one of the key slanders that Democratic 527s have made against the president is the claim that he has been "poisoning pregnant women"

On August 20th Bush campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin said that Democratic 527s had been "accusing President Bush of poisoning pregnant women."

The same day on Wolf Blitzer's show Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya, a Bush surrogate debating Kerry surrogate Retired U.S. Air Force General Tony McPeak, said that Democratic "527 groups [had been] alleging that the president is poisoning pregnant women."

And to top it all off, the same night on Lou Dobbs show, Jill Dougherty decided simply to cut to the chase and repeat the claim on the Republicans' behalf, telling Dobbs: Republicans "say that groups funded by the Democrats have accused President Bush of everything from 'poisoning pregnant women' to complicity to with what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison."

(When you get to the end of this post you might consider contacting Dougherty at CNN and asking whether she made any effort to find out what was behind the charge she repeated.)

Now, I won't force upon you every time this has been said by a Bush campaign surrogate or employee in the last week. But I should add that Chairman Marc Racicot has been saying this repeatedly on shows across the dial all week.

Supporting links in original.

And, as best as Marshall has been able to figure out, here's what they're talking about:

As nearly as I can figure the culprit here is an ad run in March by Moveon.org and the Environmental Working Group Action Fund. Here's a segment from CNN from March 26th, 2004 in which Karenna Gore Schiff -- Al Gore's daughter -- discusses the ad with CNN anchor Heidi Collins (it also includes the text of the ad) ...

Turning now to an important health issue. There's an ongoing debate about how safe it is to eat fish, especially for children and pregnant women. Karenna Gore Schiff, daughter of the former vice president says the Bush administration isn't doing enough to lower the level of dangerous pollutants. I spoke to Karenna Gore about her latest efforts.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Karenna, you paired up with Moveon.org in a campaign that includes an ad that's very critical about pollution and mercury and I want to go ahead and take a listen, for just a minute, to that ad.

AD ANNOUNCER: Mercury is a dangerous poison still be produced by coal-burning power plants. It gets into the air, the water, and then into the fish we eat, causing brain damage in children. President Bush has taken a lot of money from the people who own those power plants and now he wants the EPA to change the law to say that mercury isn't so dangerous. That means our children will go on eating mercury in their tuna, risking brain damage. Tell the EPA not to let this happen.

COLLINS: Are you really suggesting that the Bush administration is putting babies at risk?

KARENNA GORE SCHIFF, AL GORE'S DAUGHTER: I think that this policy does put babies at risk, because mercury is a very potent neuro toxin. We know that it comes from coal-burning power plants and we know that the emissions can be reduced dramatically with available technology. But the Bush administration is preventing the plan that was in place from going forward which would make our children safer.

Obviously the meaning is there, but there's a big difference between laying out what appears to be a rational, fact-based case - which is what MoveOn did - and running an add filled with inflammatory language - which is what MoveOn didn't do, but the Bushies are doing their best to imply that they did, in order to play the victim card, and claim moral equivalance between MoveOn and the SwiftLiars, when no such equivalence exists.

As Marshall adds, "Republicans are having difficulty -- willful or otherwise -- in distinguishing between negative and/or hard-hitting ads and ones that peddle demonstrable falsehoods -- i.e., smears. (You know, it's that old, hard distinction between 'mean' and 'untrue'.)"

Hard to argue with the man there.

[GIGObuster]

In the old country, during the nasty civil war, there was a military general that was made fun on the fact that he virtually saw no action in combat before the civil war. His cavalier attitude in sending many young soldiers to die, gave him the nickname: “Botas Virgo”: Virgin (combat) boots.

Bush deserves to be called something like that and worse now, when one realizes that this misleader is an even bigger coward when he hides behind front groups, that do now his political dirty work for him. This administration is based on the premise that Bush is never responsible for anything bad, and they are counting on the American people to condone all his missteps and tall lies:
of Tax cuts giving jobs to all,
of wars bringing peace,
of secrecy bringing trust,
and of incompetence bringing security. (Chalabi and Iraq and Iran)

And Bush has the impudence of saying that proven lies from swifters against Kerry, have the same value, as ads from groups mentioning the unpleasant truth that Bush is misleading the nation?

Mr. Bush, I mean, Mr. Virgin boots, you are going to far. As a Hispanic-American that votes (large family), I am ready to work even harder to defeat you in November.

[elucidator]

It continually astounds. I see these guys saying these kinds of things, and the jaw drops. Take Hannity, for instance. I don't know how many times I've seen him confronted with contradictory testimony from someone he has to recognize knows his shit, and, like a gentleman, he concedes the point. Then the next time you see him, he re-spews the same nugget of crap as before, as though it never happened!

I don't know how many times I've heard him drop that turd pearl about MoveOn's "Hitler" ads. He lives in an envioronment made up of "cite!?", he can't possibly not know its road apples.

He makes his living not reporting, but reassuring, reassuring people of a set political views that they are right. If he tells them they're wrong (and sooner or later they must be), they will simply change the channel and he's out of a job and worse, off TV.

If Hannity and Combes had gone to school together, Hannity ripped off Combes lunch money. "Fork it over, Ichabod, and maybe I won't kick your butt after all." A running dog jackal of the ruling class, and a dink on top of it.

[Sublight]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

of Tax cuts giving jobs to all,
of wars bringing peace,
of secrecy bringing trust,
and of incompetence bringing security.

"Little Brother" might be a more appropriate nickname, but it lacks a certain something.

[Evil Captor]

There's liars
damn liars
and ... wait for it ....

waaaait for it ....

Republicans!

[rjung]

That's redundant, but you knew that.

[elucidator]

Hey! I coulda stopped waiting? Was someone gonna tell me?

[elucidator]

But seriously folks....and I do mean grimly serious....


A leaked video reveals what Bob Dole really thinks about Bush's tactics.

"...Democrats now have an unlikely ally in their quest to prove that Bush has a history of these kinds of dirty tricks: Bob Dole....But Dole also made another statement that day, one that hasn't been aired until now. Of McCain's charge to President Bush during a 2000 debate—"You should be ashamed"—Dole told Wolf Blitzer, "He was right." Dole made the remark off-air, while CNN broadcast the Kerry ad called "Old Tricks," the one featuring McCain's 2000 debate remarks. The campaign stopped airing it recently at McCain's request...."

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105781&

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

There's liars
damn liars
and ... wait for it ....

waaaait for it ....

Republicans!

Don't make me have to whup ya 'gin, 'k?

[Zoe]

GIGObuster: His cavalier attitude in sending many young soldiers to die, gave him the nickname: “Botas Virgo”: Virgin (combat) boots.

Bush deserves to be called something like that and worse now.

"POTUS Botas Virgo" ?

[Zoe]

The Bush campaign is having to generate their own negative campaign remarks from the Kerry camp apparently. If Kerry won't do negative campaign ads, they'll just pretend he did.

I have an idea. Every time the Bush people accuse Kerry of some nonsense, maybe Kerry should make hay out of it. His next ad should be:

"President Bush's campaign claims that they are not trying to poison pregnant women. What would prompt them to say such a thing? What are they trying to hide? If you or someone you love is pregnant, don't you want to know for sure?"

Oh, I have missed my calling...

BTW, whichever rep from the Bush Campaign was on Wolf Blitzer on Friday night, August 27, he claimed that Michael Moore sat next to Theresa Heinz-Kerry during the Democratic Convention. Wolf had to correct him. He seemed not to want to be corrected, but Wolf Blizter told him that he was there and that MM sat next to the Carters.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Zoe

"POTUS Botas Virgo" ?

Perfect for that "Hijo de POTUS!!"

[Astroboy14]

This election can't be over soon enough.

Seems like everyone has already made up their minds... can't we just all say "Let's do it next Monday!" and get it over with? 'Twould make me most happy.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

And it's a huge exaggeration, in order to claim moral equivalence between the basically factual ads of groups like Moveon.org, and the outright lies of the SwiftLiars.

It's sad that people like you, making statements like that, do more to help the Bush campaign than anything Bush could do. I suppose that at a place like Straight Dope, where you're pretty much preaching to the choir, it's no big deal. But if you're still cross-posting or copying from other boards, you're putting out there the laughable assertion that Moveon.org is "basically factual". It's almost like Nazis claiming the moral high ground by condemning communists. Nobody other than the most partisan hack believes that either party is more honest or less unscrupulous than the other. Nobody other than the most brain-dead thumb-sucker misses the irony of your negative attacks on negativity. But the main thing is, nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares that Bush popped your balloon while you watched in horror from your highchair. Your incessant whining over nothing just reeks of poor loser. When you act like a loser, people assume you're a loser. And when a loser defends Kerry, it paints Kerry as a loser as well. Quite honestly, the best way you can help Kerry at this point is just to shut the fuck up.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Gee, that's a lot of words there Liberal, but no challenge to the idea that Move On is basically factual.

I've seen the video of the little kids working to pay off the debt. Humorous, makes a point, and based in fact. Seen videos of individuals expressing their opinion to the camera. Haven't seen much else that they have done.

I'm ready to believe you, but you need to show me why I should.

The fact that you blather on for a whole paragraph, only to be left holding your dick in your hand at the end makes me lean towards the idea that evidence may not be forthcoming.

[Liberal]

Well, I know that you're lying and wouldn't change your mind no matter what evidence was offered, but for the benefit of people who really want to know, one thing that Moveon.Org is doing is using data more than a year old and taken from a labor union to say that the Bush administration has lost more than 3 million jobs (Cite), when that number has already been cut nearly in half and was for jobs in a particular sector (manufacturing) while jobs in other, higher paying and faster growing sectors, are growing (Cite). Again, I don't believe for an instant that you care about the facts, since you are a partisan hack who sees a post by me and puts his brain in auto-disagreement mode. But the notion that Moveon.org nobly distances itself from anti-Bush attack ads is equally laugable. In fact, they hand out awards for them. (Cite.)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Well, I know that you're lying and wouldn't change your mind no matter what evidence was offered, but for the benefit of people who really want to know, one thing that Moveon.Org is doing is using data more than a year old and taken from a labor union to say that the Bush administration has lost more than 3 million jobs (Cite), when that number has already been cut nearly in half and was for jobs in a particular sector (manufacturing) while jobs in other, higher paying and faster growing sectors, are growing (Cite). Again, I don't believe for an instant that you care about the facts, since you are a partisan hack who sees a post by me and puts his brain in auto-disagreement mode. But the notion that Moveon.org nobly distances itself from anti-Bush attack ads is equally laugable. In fact, they hand out awards for them. (Cite.)

Okay, first of all, you're being a cunt.

Secondly, the information about job losses is apparently erroneous, as far as I know, and should be corrected. They do cite BLS stats through 2003, but it should be sufficient to say that he's lost 1,000,000. However, all of that information appears to be quite dated, so it should be updated or removed. Notice how old the charges against him are, and the Bush in 30 Seconds campaign was so last year.

Secondly, yes I saw your cite that a proportion of a proportion of the jobs being created are high paying. What is the nature of the overall job creation. Why should it be considered a success that some of the jobs are better?

Third, your first and third cites are to the same fucking site, you disingenuous piece of shit. Got any current claims, made this fucking year, by Move On that you want to debunk?

Also, try to stop being a deceitful fuck with your duplicated cites. Really poor form.

[Liberal]

They're two different pages from, um, the fucking organization we're talking about, snotface. Since they're both accessible this fucking year (one being the front fucking page, and the other being a fucking link directly from it), you must be asserting that Moveon.org has abandoned its own fucking website. Here's what they fucking say:

Bush in 30 Seconds is a project of the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 fund affiliated with MoveOn.org, the pre-eminent online advocacy group in the United States. The Voter Fund will create and run powerful political ads in swing states to challenge President Bush's policies and his administration.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by Astroboy14

This election can't be over soon enough.

Seems like everyone has already made up their minds... can't we just all say "Let's do it next Monday!" and get it over with? 'Twould make me most happy.

But.... but....

Then I wouldn't get my October Surprise!

:: pout ::

[Zoe]

Nobody other than the most partisan hack believes that either party is more honest or less unscrupulous than the other.

But I see no reason to believe that certain people within both parties are more honest than other people within those parties. I believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are not trustworthy. I have a lot more confidence in the integrity of Colin Powell and John Warner.

If there has been a thread about "the lies of moveon.org" I haven't seen it. But if there has been a lot of evidence that directly contradicts what they have stated, I would like to know about it.

No "blind cites" please.

[Liberal]

I don't know what a "blind site" is, but I gave a paper by Daniel Aaronson, senior economist and economic advisor, and Sara Christopher, associate economist, writing for the Chicago Federal Reserve as a cite for contradicting Moveon.org's claim about jobs which, as I proved, they gleaned from AFL-CIO propoganda that is more than a year old. Is there something about that that isn't good enough for you?

[RTFirefly]

Nobody other than the most partisan hack believes that either party is more honest or less unscrupulous than the other.

The idea that the two parties would both maintain the same level of duplicity and unscrupulousness at all times is absrdly improbable. They would have a difficult time doing it even if it were their primary reason for existence.

Just as a theoretical exercise, let's look at it this way: does Party A maintain a constant level of dishonesty and unscrupulousness over time, or does its moral behavior fluctuate? The latter, of course. But if that's so, then does Party A's fluctuations in (im)moral behavior always match up with Party B's? Of course not. End of story.

At any rate, let's look at the two real, actual parties. Did John Kerry disavow the MoveOn ad about Bush and the SwiftLiars? He sure did, even though it was pretty mild stuff, and basically fact-based. Did George Bush disavow the SwiftLiars ad, which was nothing but lies from top to bottom? No, he's refused to do so over and over. Did John Kerry take the McCain ad off the air when McCain asked? Yes, despite the fact that McCain's decided to keep on campaigning for Bush, no matter whether Bush condemns the SwiftLiars or not. And in that situation, Kerry had every right to say to McCain, "Look, buddy, if you're not going to stand up for me on this one, why should I do you any favors?" By the standards of today's politics, that's downright gentlemanly. Hell, absurdly gentlemanly.

No, the problem with today's Democrats is not that they're as dirty as the Republicans; the problem is, they're wimps. When the GOP pulls out its switchblades, the Dems still act as if they're playing Putt-Putt Golf or something. But at any rate, if anyone disagrees, I'm sure they can find Democratic attacks as vicious and dishonest as the ones leveled at McCain in 2000, Cleland in 2002, and Kerry just lately. If anyone wants to put evidence on the table, go for it. Otherwise, there ain't nothing to show, here.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Is there something about that that isn't good enough for you?

It was good enough for me--my opinion of moveon.org has fallen quite a bit. I still think they smell better then the Swift Boat vets, though...

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

At any rate, let's look at the two real, actual parties. Did John Kerry disavow the MoveOn ad about Bush and the SwiftLiars? He sure did, even though it was pretty mild stuff, and basically fact-based. Did George Bush disavow the SwiftLiars ad, which was nothing but lies from top to bottom? No, he's refused to do so over and over. Did John Kerry take the McCain ad off the air when McCain asked? Yes, despite the fact that McCain's decided to keep on campaigning for Bush, no matter whether Bush condemns the SwiftLiars or not. And in that situation, Kerry had every right to say to McCain, "Look, buddy, if you're not going to stand up for me on this one, why should I do you any favors?" By the standards of today's politics, that's downright gentlemanly. Hell, absurdly gentlemanly.

No, the problem with today's Democrats is not that they're as dirty as the Republicans; the problem is, they're wimps. When the GOP pulls out its switchblades, the Dems still act as if they're playing Putt-Putt Golf or something. But at any rate, if anyone disagrees, I'm sure they can find Democratic attacks as vicious and dishonest as the ones leveled at McCain in 2000, Cleland in 2002, and Kerry just lately. If anyone wants to put evidence on the table, go for it. Otherwise, there ain't nothing to show, here.

From your lips past the cotton Liberal is vigorously stuffing in his ears.

[MaxTheVool]

First of all, I'm very disappointed in moveon.org that they are using misleading and contextually incorrect statistics, which is certainly not far short of lying, if at all.


But to claim that makes them equivalent to SBVT is nonsense.

If some party produces an ad with a lie in it, there are two possible explanations:
(a) They deliberately set out to lie
(b) They lied accidentally

In my mind, (a) is MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than (b). And I'm 100% certain that SBVT fall into category (a). And I strongly suspect, although I'm not certain of it, that moveon.org falls into category (b). Like I said, that's not GOOD. But there's a huge difference between "well, we have no morals or standards or respect for honesty. Let's find something we can take way out of context and use it to smear Bush, no matter how misleading it is" and "we're rushing to get this ad put together and used the first statistic we found, without really double checking".

(I can't prove that my analysis of moveon.org is correct... and if someone can show a continued and reckless disregard for the truth, feel free.)



And in general, I agree with RTFirefly's most recent post. The fact that that both parties have done, and continue to do, bad things, and the fact that there are dishonest and skeezy people in both parties, does not mean that both parties have always waded precisely the same distance into the Big Pool of Muck. And when the difference in wading-distance is great enough, as I believe it to be here, it becomes relevant.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

The idea that the two parties would both maintain the same level of duplicity and unscrupulousness at all times is absrdly improbable. They would have a difficult time doing it even if it were their primary reason for existence.

Just as a theoretical exercise, let's look at it this way: does Party A maintain a constant level of dishonesty and unscrupulousness over time, or does its moral behavior fluctuate? The latter, of course. But if that's so, then does Party A's fluctuations in (im)moral behavior always match up with Party B's? Of course not. End of story.

At any rate, let's look at the two real, actual parties. Did John Kerry disavow the MoveOn ad about Bush and the SwiftLiars? He sure did, even though it was pretty mild stuff, and basically fact-based. Did George Bush disavow the SwiftLiars ad, which was nothing but lies from top to bottom? No, he's refused to do so over and over. Did John Kerry take the McCain ad off the air when McCain asked? Yes, despite the fact that McCain's decided to keep on campaigning for Bush, no matter whether Bush condemns the SwiftLiars or not. And in that situation, Kerry had every right to say to McCain, "Look, buddy, if you're not going to stand up for me on this one, why should I do you any favors?" By the standards of today's politics, that's downright gentlemanly. Hell, absurdly gentlemanly.

No, the problem with today's Democrats is not that they're as dirty as the Republicans; the problem is, they're wimps. When the GOP pulls out its switchblades, the Dems still act as if they're playing Putt-Putt Golf or something. But at any rate, if anyone disagrees, I'm sure they can find Democratic attacks as vicious and dishonest as the ones leveled at McCain in 2000, Cleland in 2002, and Kerry just lately. If anyone wants to put evidence on the table, go for it. Otherwise, there ain't nothing to show, here.

A thoughtful and compelling post. I agree with you that there is no one-to-one correspondence between lie points on the two hypothetical lie lines. That is, it is not necessarily the case, and obviously was not what I was claiming, that the two parties always lie with equal hubris at correspondingly identical points in space-time. But whether it is Clinton attempting to destroy the reputation of an intern or Bush attempting to destroy the reputation of a political opponent, both sides clearly have equal capability for meanness. If listening to Lyndon Johnson's White House tapes doesn't make your skin crawl, then I don't know what will. Of course, what we find is that lately the Republicans are running the show, and so they have at their disposal the kind of pulpit that Johnson and Clinton had in their heyday. Youngsters, owing to their dearth of life experience, might perceive a heavier weight on the Republican side, but oldsters know better. You're right, though, that the Democrats are wimps, but they have only themselves to blame for that. It stems from their mindset of every possible utterance being somehow offensive to someone somewhere, their bleeding-heart empathy for hurt feelings as a justification to escape social culpability, and their general fear of violent confrontation of enemies. But that is a fairly recent development. It was Democrats who bravely led marches and protests in the 1960s, who took to the streets and risked their lives for what they believed was right. My advice is to expunge your party of its "life owes me" mentality. It makes people lazy and causes them to lose their vigilance.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Youngsters, owing to their dearth of life experience, might perceive a heavier weight on the Republican side, but oldsters know better.

And ultra-right wing libertarian loonies know nothing of any use to anyone at all.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Desmostylus

And ultra-right wing libertarian loonies know nothing of any use to anyone at all.

You didn't actually understand that line you were replying to, did you?

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Brutus

You didn't actually understand that line you were replying to, did you?

I was actually replying to the whole post, but if you think there was some special, hidden meaning in that particular line, please enlighten me.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Brutus

You didn't actually understand that line you were replying to, did you?

The Chihuahua does have a point.

I'm so right-wing that I advocate repealing all laws of prohibition, including laws against drugs, prostitution, and gambling. I favor releasing all federal prisoners who are not convicted for treason. I favor opening the borders to anyone who wants to come in to trade peacefully and honestly. I favor an end to all recognition of corporations as rights-bearing entities. I favor the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from foreign soil, the closing of all American embassies, an end to all foreign aid, and repeal of the Logan act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign states. I favor an end to all government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion. I favor the elimination of all occupational licensure. I favor repeal of the War Powers Act. I favor the unconditional exoneration of all people who have violated selective service laws and the immediate dismantling of all agencies associated with military conscription. I favor a strict separation of church and state, including an end to all government subsidies of faith-based organizations.

As you can see, I'm a regular Jerry Falwell.

[Brutus]

Ya, but you aren't ultra-right wing, see?

[Liberal]

Oh, okay. Got it.

[Apos]

Originally Posted by Liberal

As you can see, I'm a regular Jerry Falwell.

There's a regular Jerry Falwell now?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Yes. The light version (40% less bullshit) wasn't selling, so the shelves are once again being stocked with Falwell Regular.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Apos

There's a regular Jerry Falwell now?

Yeah, he's started including more bran in his diet.

[LordVor]

Originally Posted by Apos

There's a regular Jerry Falwell now?

I prefer mine extra crispy.

Liberal, while you did manage to destroy the moveon ad that you attacked, I believe that the context of the OP was more specifically focussed on the the point-counterpoint of "Bush poisens unborn childred and babies" V. "SWVfT". In that case, moveon did indeed present a factually accurate case for their position, while the swifties lied through their teeth.

And Bush is now, apparently, saying that since certain groups lied (while never coming out and saying "the swifties lied, never mentioning them by name) you, Joe American Voter, can not trust anything that any of these groups say in their ads. And casually dismisses the link between his EPA policy and the potential to increase the amount of mercury in fish.

It's a freaken brilliant manuver to counter a group that just got a bunch of major-name talent to direct and star in new spots. It scares me into thinking that this was the secondary objective of the swifties from the beginning, to diseminate their misinformation and then, when discredited, allow Bush to lump them in with MoveOn.

-lv

[Liberal]

Yes, but the federal government has been possibly the nation's biggest polluter for quite some time now, according to a four-part investigative report by the Boston Globe five years ago. Here's a summary. It is disingenuous to tie slack regulation to George Bush when the the EPA's superfund had already been squandered, and thousands upon thousands of chemical dumps remained untouched. What that has to do with mercury is that it is the same-old same-old. MoveOn could just as easily, if it wished, produce a piece condemning Bill Clinton for pretty much the same thing, including when the EPA building itself was investigated for "sick building syndrom" after 60 of its employees became too sick to work — 10 of them hospitalized. Understanding the public relations disaster that surely would follow, a massive amount of money was spent on litigation to establish basically that those people were mentally and emotionally unstable. Whenever bureaucratic bumbling is tied to a particular president, it means that there is a turtle on the fence post.

[Liberal]

In case you don't review the link, one of the findings by the Globe was that the "Environmental Protection Agency's laboratories in Lexington, Massachusetts were discovered leaking mercury into ground water." Where is MoveOn's ad suggesting that Clinton was responsible for sick babies?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Do you have an alternate cite for that assertion, Liberal? Maybe a link to the actual Boston Globe article so that we can check the characterization you have given us?

[Liberal]

You have the same resources I have. The series was titled THE NATION'S DIRTY, BIG SECRET, was written by David Armstrong, and was published November 14, 1999, and is available from the Boston Globes archives for a nominal fee. But they give you the first few words free:

The United States government, which acts as steward and protector of the nation's environment, is itself the worst polluter in the land.

Federal agencies have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five times the price of similar destruction caused by private companies.

But the real cost is likely tens of billions of dollars more, according to government...

[Desmostylus]

In other words, no.

But Hentor, it's not necessary to examine or refute the story. Liberal's position is still ridiculous even you accept the story 100%.

Originally Posted by Liberal

Where is MoveOn's ad suggesting that Clinton was responsible for sick babies?

I guess it'd be stashed away with their ads attacking Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. You know, the ones they prepared just in case any of those guys happened to be running for President.

Besides which, no matter how good or bad Clinton may have been, the fundamental point is that Bush is actively making things worse.

EPA's Mercury Lingo Altered
CBSNEWS
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2004

The EPA proposal would ease limits envisioned by the Clinton administration, while requiring immediate action in some cases.

In 2001, EPA estimated that mercury could be cut by as much as 90 percent, to 5.5 tons, by 2008 if the best available technology were used as the Clinton EPA had hoped, according to EPA documents obtained by advocacy group National Environmental Trust.

But the White House and EPA want to let utilities meet mercury pollution limits the first six years using the benefits of controls installed for other pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.

The Clinton administration listed mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant." The Bush administration would undo that by placing mercury into a less strict category of the Clean Air Act, which will allow companies to buy and sell pollution rights with other plants under a "cap-and-trade" system.

This approach, EPA says, would eliminate about 14 tons a year of mercury emissions from the currently unregulated 48 tons a year generated by coal-fired power plants. Such plants account for about 40 percent of the nation's mercury pollution.

After that, the pollution-trading proposal would cut an additional 19 tons a year of mercury emissions, EPA says. The result would be a 70 percent reduction — from 48 tons to 15 tons — by 2018, the agency says.

Basically, an extra ten years to achieve a result three times worse. Of course, the solution proposed by fucking idiotic libertarians like Liberal would be to repeal all environmental legislation.

[Apos]

I think the real story is that when people use money to fund ads, Kerry fights back by trying to argue his side and demanding that the authors of the ads apologize and stop doing it. In other words, fights speech with more speech. Bush's response is just to ban speech entirely (althought, it is something he knows will never happen, especially since he opposed it back in the day when he thought it was Republican groups that would benefit!)

[Liberal]

Actually, I think that might be a misrepresentation of Bush's position, at least according to what Senator McCain said yesterday on Face the Nation. He said that what he and Bush want is for the FEC to hold 527's to the same laws they hold everyone else. He said repeatedly that no one is calling for suppression of speech, but merely equitable application of existing law.

Here's the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_082904.pdf

Here's an excerpt, McCain speaking:

Yeah. I say, `Shame on you, Mr. Soros, and shame on all of the people who are funding these, both from the Republican side as well as the Democrat side. And we're not trying to shut you up. We're saying live by the same rules.' In other words, the hard money that funds my campaign.

And the thing that's bad about it, as you mentioned about court, we have a Federal Elections Commission which is disgraceful and despicable in its conduct. And, you know, we talk about a, quote, "commission." I'd like to give you a couple of names and faces. Ellen Weintrob, who has become a Democrat apparatchik, Bradley Smith who is so far right wing, he doesn't believe in campaign finance reform and should resign because he refuses to-- they've refused to enforce the law. We've got to reform the Federal Elections Commission.

[Liberal]

Incidentally, for anyone interested who has read the Chihuahua's post, I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Liberal

He said that what he and Bush want is for the FEC to hold 527's to the same laws they hold everyone else. He said repeatedly that no one is calling for suppression of speech, but merely equitable application of existing law.

What a load of fucking crap.

What is a 527 Organization?

According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office.

Differences from PACs On the face of the above definition, a §527 Organization sounds like a PAC. In effect that is what a §527 organization is—a PAC by another name. However, there is one key difference, a §527 organization does not fall within the regulator realm of the Federal Election Commission and therefore it is not subject to the same limits as FEC regulated PACs.

Often called “soft money” PACs or organizations, a §527 organization is permitted to accept contributions in any amount from any source. However, the organization is required to make regular reports to the Internal Revenue Service of its funding and expenditures.

Regulatory Structure Unlike PACs regulated by the Federal Election Commission, a §527 organization is governed by the rule in §527 of the Internal Revenue Code (hence the name). This section of the Internal Revenue Code has many of the same basic requirements as the FEC regulations, including registration and regular filing schedules.

A clue for the cluess. SBVFT is a 527. It's not regulated by the FEC. The FEC can't regulate it, the FEC isn't allowed to. MoveOn is a PAC. The FEC does regulate it.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Incidentally, for anyone interested who has read the Chihuahua's post, I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

Do you think that the government should be prevented from requiring corporations that pollute to clean up after themselves? Should businesses be required to fund the Superfund, or should taxpayers dollars be used to clean up the messes left behind by corporate polluters?

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

What a weasel. You only favor the transfer of the polluting function to something that isn't called "government". You aren't really in favor of anything that would reduce pollution, just some nebulous concept of the enforcement of property rights. Voodoo.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Do you think that the government should be prevented from requiring corporations that pollute to clean up after themselves? Should businesses be required to fund the Superfund, or should taxpayers dollars be used to clean up the messes left behind by corporate polluters?

Those who pollute should be forced to clean up their own messes. After all, they made them.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Desmostylus

What a weasel. You only favor the transfer of the polluting function to something that isn't called "government". You aren't really in favor of anything that would reduce pollution, just some nebulous concept of the enforcement of property rights. Voodoo.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=273736

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Those who pollute should be forced to clean up their own messes. After all, they made them.

Excellent! I completely agree - even when it is the government that did the polluting.