Bob Perry is not a group.
Moreoever he’s a personal associate of Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg.
And you are obfuscating; I never said private individuals aren’t allowed to help candidates, simply that if they’re intimately connected to a political party that it is ignorant to pretend otherwise.
I don’t follow how this has anything to do with the fact that the SBVfT are connected to Bob Perry who is connected to the GOP in general and Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg in particular.
Joe doesn’t have a problem with it. Nor necessarily does Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics (from the same cite), unless Ginsberg has been giving more than strictly legal advice.
My question: Why won’t Kerry join President Bush and come out against the 527 organizations?
Perhaps because there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with 527 organiisations? Perhaps it’s becausee only wrong when they are set up to spread lies and deception, rather than to promote and discuss serious policy matters, or generally promote the political process. Why should Kerry have to say that MoveOn is wrong, when he believes it is right, and the only thing the other side have against it is the fact that it supports Kerry?
While there may be nothing intrinsically wrong with 527 organizations, I think that they are being used by both parties as political hit men to broadcast largely negative attacks while the candidates themselves get to keep their hands clean. For example, I don’t think MoveOn’s current goal is to “promote and discuss serious policy matters”, as it’s chief backer has stated that it’s main goal is to ensure that Bush is not re-elected.
Also, one man’s “lies and deception” is another man’s “serious policy matters”. The Democrats at MoveOn and elsewhere have made some scathing negative attacks on Bush and the Republicans. I don’t agree with their message, but they have the right to say it. You might not agree with the Swifties, but are you suggesting they don’t have the same right as MoveOn?
See this is a perfect example of the problem and the spin.
The SBVfT are not a problem because they criticize Kerry, but because they are liars.
Utterly untrue.
1+1=2 no matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican.
The SBVfT out and out lie.
What is factually incorrect in democratic 527 positions?
Nobody has said anything about the agreement value, but the truth value. Please do not conflate the two.
It’s not about agreement. The SBVfT are liars, pure and simple. Nobody is saying they don’t have the right to lie, simply that they’re assholes for doing it and Bush should denounce them specifically.
Why are you attempting to obfuscate the issue and make it into a first amendment situation?
I have no problem with the Swifties’ rights to free speech. I think the problem is that, while Bush would have been glad to benefit from their attacks on Kerry, he did not want to be associated with them. I don’t think Kerry has the same problem with MoveOn: having indirect links to them is not as embarrassing to his campaign.
Bush is being disingenuous in called for all 527 ad campaigns to stop: the problem is generally with the attack ads, and particularly with the attacks (like the Swifties’) that are full of fabrications. So he spins it: he has to ask them to stop, but he asks them to stop for other than the real reason, because the real reason is embarrassing to his campaign.
Sure they do. And every time that they lie (which to date has been pretty much every time they release something to the press) people are within their rights to point out those lies. Those who disagree with MoveOn are welcome to do the same.
I am not making it a first amendment issue to obfuscate the issue. I am just saying that just because you disagree with someone’s message, that doesn’t mean that the message is false. I am not going to go as far as saying that the Swift Boat Veterans are 100% correct in their assertions. However, I will also stop short of saying that everything that they say is an out and out lie or a distortion.
MoveOn has put out some distorted and misleading ads. Example 1 and Example 2.
Where is the clamor for their censure?
But it is an out and out lie.
Check this thread. When even Faux news is slamming a republican group, you know there’s trouble.
But those aren’t lies.
How many companies would pay overtime if they legally didn’t have to? I don’t think it’s a huge jump in reasoning at all, nor a distortion.
Moreoever, the idea that being given a contract without bidding is being handed a contract on a silver platter… is that really a point to argue? Seems intuitive…
As well as the fact that every major media outlet was busy reporting on how Halliburton had overcharged and mismanaged…
And, I will note, Kerry has denounced at least one of moveon.org’s ads.
I work for a law firm. I am “outside counsel” to my clients, as opposed to the in-house lawyers they keep on staff as employees. The distinction is basically between independent contractors and employees.
As to the substance of the OP, the issue isn’t the “goodness” or “badness” of any particular 527. The issue is the degree of coordination between the 527 and the candidate’s campaign. Ginsberg isn’t being criticized because he has a sleazy client; he’s being criticized because the critics are claiming his involvement with the Swift Boat guys is tantamount to “coordination” with the Bush campaign.
To that point, Ginsberg is exactly right: if his giving legal advice to the Swift Boat guys means the Swift Boat guys are “coordinating” with the Bush campaign in contravention of the campaign finance laws, then so too does a Kerry’s campaign lawyer’s giving legal advice to MoveOn.org amount to such illegal “coordination” with them. You can’t say one and not the other.
And Excalibre wrong that the resignation means anything other than a desire to avoid unfavorable and unfair media coverage. No matter how carefully Ginsberg’s conduct was crafted to conform to the law’s requirement, no matter how correct his actions may have been, this just isn’t a battle worth fighting. Better to fall on your sword and avoid distracting the campaign.
Yes, Kerry has denounced one of MoveOns ads. However, this appears to me to be purely political on Kerry’s part. He condemns the ad, but he questions Bush’s National Guard record on his own election web site. cite.
What we’re jumping on is how stupid these guys look saying the Bush campaign has nothing to do Swift boat guys, when it’s fucking clear as crystal they do.
If/when Kerry does the same shit, I’ll call him an asshole too.
So you believe that Bush calling for an end to attack ads was an altruistic move? More likely, his handlers don’t want more of the truth coming out closer to election day. Calling for an end to the ads is merely another brilliant move by Karl Rove (the devil himself, by the way) to try to make Bush look like something he’s not.
Another thing that irks the shit out of me, this Karl Rove is a genius shit. I along with plenty of people have been calling his bullshit since day one, so don’t say he’s a genius, just admit you’re fucking stupid.
He managed to get W. Bush, a decidedly mediocre candidate on paper if there ever was one, elected first to a governorship and then to the presidency in less than ten years, after having no experience in politics (or evident interest) in the prior period. Seems like a pretty smart political operator to me.
And you are absolutely right. Of course, the “message” in this case is the standard Swiftie lies. Note that. Not distortions. Not misleading messages. Lies. Big stinky lies in shit sauce with a side of crap.
Oh, sorry. I got carried away. A thousand pardons, please.
Distorted? Sure. Misleading? Perhaps. Lying? No. Absolutely not. So why in hell should they be called on to stop?
