Does he want us to think he was being well-paid to do nothing? Or is that just lawyer-speak for “I was in charge of making sure we didn’t get caught”? You be the judge.
Bah, I’m not the least bit impressed.
So, did you see Bush during the time in question? You could be famous! Didn’t Trudeau offer a reward?
Sure Kerry denouncing the ad was political. So why couldn’t Bush do it, especially when the ad was still running? I’ll tell you why - if Bush started denouncing lies, who knows where it would end?
Actually, Elvis, lawyers often take such preventative roles. I’ve done it in a business context. I assure you, it isn’t “doing nothing” and it isn’t a matter of “not getting caught” – it’s a matter of ensuring compliance with the law.
Ginsberg was just attempting to reinforce the meme that lawyers, being men of honor, would never sully their reputation by engaging in questionable activities. The fact of that particular meme being more tattered than the SBVFT story line on Kerry’s medals is irrelevant. Ginsberg had to say something, and that’s the best he could do.
I should have put a “sarcasm” notation there. Yes, I know. But, if there’d been no coordination, as the law requires, nor the intent to commit coordination, there’d be no need for somebody to make sure of it. I’ll stick with the “not getting caught” assessment, thank you.
And the best he could do was a sad as it gets.
Too many responses for the ‘quote and respond’ method.
All, I’m not trying to defend the Swift Boat campaign. Some of their story is highly suspect if not outright false (ex. 8 veterans to 1 on whether or not they were being fired upon), but some of their story appears to be true (ex. Cambodian Christmas). All those supporting it as 100% truth are coming across as raving loons, but so are all of those dismissing it as 100% lies. The answer, as with most things in life, is probably somewhere in the middle.
World Eater, as for the Bush campaign connection to these ads being “crystal clear”, I guess my burden of proof is higher than yours. I haven’t seen any proof that there has been direct involvement. Their might be some involvement, but I haven’t seen any proven links.
World Eater, on the subject of Kerry questioning Bush’s service record on his site, I am not claiming that the questions aren’t valid (though I believe they aren’t), I am simply claiming that Kerry looks hypocritical for condemning a MoveOn ad calling Bush’s National Guard service into question while doing the exact same thing on his site.
Chefguy, I don’t claim Bush’s remarks were altruistic, but neither were Kerry’s condemnation of the MoveOn ad attacking Bush’s National Guard record. And I believe there is no more “truth” to come out on that situation, as I think it would have been produced by now. Unless that is the October Surprise that the DNC has lined up, as opposed to bringing up an ancient (though admittedly embarrassing) operating under the influence arrest. I think Bush made his remarks to turn the spotlight on Kerry’s heavy support by other 527s.
Uhh…because they are distorted and misleading?
I didn’t see Bush during that time, but I have a good excuse – I had not yet been born. This guy (Bush supporter in Washington Times [I know, I know…Moonie-biased blah blah blah] Op Ed piece) defends Bush’s record.
Why didn’t Bush denounce the ad? Well, because he probably didn’t know if it was true at first. Now that many of the allegations have been proven false, it probably wouldn’t hurt for him to go ahead and denounce it, but if some of their claims are true, he has less of a reason to do this.
Or, per my post above, he could simply be stating the truth: that such preventative activities are a common role for a lawyer to take.
That assertion is categorically untrue. Both I and my professional brethren have fulfilled similar roles (examples that spring to mind are securities law and antitrust law issues and agreements that require “chinese walls”).
It is complete and utter bullshit to suggest that using a lawyer to ensure compliance with the law is tantamount to evidence that you have broken the law. You’re simply speaking from ignorance. Give it up already.
I could almost see this whole thing as brilliant strategy by Rove. The Democratic 527s are telling some painful and harmful truths about Bush? Well, we can’t deny them cause they’re true, and we can’t complain about negative ads because the Bush campaign is built entirely on negative ads. I know! We’ll taint the whole 527 process! We’ll engineer a group of lying liars to spread lies about Kerry. Then we’ll hop on a high horse and condemn the entire 527 process! That way we’ll confuse the issue enough that maybe we can stop Kerry from spreading truth! Plus we’ll get some idiots like duffer to believe the lies, so we’ll be killing two birds with one stone!
Well, OK, then what was he doing? Was he not aware of Mr. Perry’s generous concern with The Truth? Was he entirely unaware that “Kenny Boy” Cordier, member of the Bush/Cheney veteran’s steering committee, was publicly connected to the Swifties? And it never occured to him that advising the Swifties in a legal capacity might not square too well with his position concerned with preventing precisely such connections? Seems he’s making a tidy little pile of money for doing a pretty slackadaisical job.
(Hmmmm…maybe I should have gone to law school…would have broke Mom’s heart, but since I’m probably going to Hell anyway…)
Besides, aren’t you supposed to be getting drunk, homey? The Forces of Darkness can get along without you for a while.
In addition to that, it’s up on CNN right now that Bush has asked McCain to help investigate legal action against 527s. What a dandy way to appear to be doing something. The ads will go on because legal action won’t do shit until well after the election, but the Bush people can say we’re taking a stand <wink wink> against these guys.
Psycho what do you mean there’s no link? Did you just miss the entire Bush’s lawyer quitting the campaign because he was working with the swift guys deal?
Um, yeah. Count on ol **Luc ** to cut to the heart of the matter. Ginsberg was serving *both * the Bush campaign *and * the Swiftees, responsible for making sure they *weren’t * connected??? Dewey, did you ever get hired by both the plaintiff and the defendant to make sure they didn’t have any conflicts of interest with each other in a case?
You just cost yourself a drink the next time I’m in town, ya know.
World, I don’t see that as a link. I see that as removing the appearance of impropriety. His providing legal counsel is not improper per se, but it looks bad. Similar to the aforementioned Joe Sandler, with his MoveOn and DNC connection. To resolve the issue, Ginsberg stepped down. But that does not constitute proof for me.
To me, this is the same thing as Melvin Hollowell stepping down from Kerry’s legal team after being accused of soliciting a prostitute. [cite] He may have solicited the prostitute, but his stepping down does not constitute proof of the offense. He just doesn’t want to bring down Kerry with his own personal mess.
See? They’ve raised a windmill to tilt at, from their very safe pre-convention position. They waited until after the Dem’s convention, when the 527s became much more important to Kerry’s campaign than to their own, then tainted the process in such a way that they could appear noble to **duffer *and DCU by railing against the PROCESS, when it’s not the process that’s wrong but the individuals who are abusing it. Brilliant. Stinky, but brilliant.
*
BTW, I’ve always seen that joke spelled “Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.”
It’d be a sad comment on the legal profession, if a high powered lawyer like Ginsberg could be reduced so quickly to merely speaking the truth. Surely if he spoke the truth, he spoke it in service of some greater goal.
The cited guy seems to admit that Bush disappeared, and that it was common to be excused. Have a cite for the excusal? I haven’t noticed one. I haven’t seen anything to state that Bush ever took his physical - the cite says that it was common to do it late. If Bush had merely gone into the Guard, there would be not such a stink - we’ve already covered this ground with Dan Quayle. Of course, waiting ones turn in line would be nice, but we can’t expect our ruling class to follow the rules the rest of us do, can we? But this guy just says why it was okay for Bush to have vanished, not that he didn’t. So, without a record that he was excused to do the civilian work, it kind of confirms the charges.
I was alive then, and just missed the draft. It doesn’t surprise me a bit that Bush skipped out - no one really gave a crap. The problem is that he’s playing Mr. Macho Warrior now, when he was more like Beetle Bailey Bush in the real service. Maybe, just maybe, he would have been a bit slower to rush into war if he had ever gotten shot at.
As for the ad - if Bush were to run on his record, and on the issues, denouncing attack ads would be good no matter what percentage of truth was in them . But with no record to run on, attack ads and promises are the only way to go. Ever see a performance review form for someone who has goofed off for the period? It basically goes “I went to a few meetings, and blew up a lab, but next quarter I’ll really get something done.” The RNC is going to look just like that, I bet.
So far we have TWO guys connected to both camps, which is a link to most people. As for there not being an obvious link, well, duh, of course their won’t be one. Read between the lines dude.
I see it as homeboy got busted, so he’s stepping down. I somehow doubt he was helping them out of the kindness of his heart, and decided stepping down was the christian thing to do. :rolleyes: No, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and to make silly statements like he made is an insult to our intelligence.
I don’t give a shit, we’re talking about the Bush campaign here.
This has little to do with what we’re talking about here.
It’s the same thing they’re doing on multiple fronts, like the WOT, scaring us with some Al Qaeda boogieman and then “protecting” us from them. Instead of seeing it as brilliant though, I view it as obvious, transparent, and pathetic. My mind is boggled how anyone could view this as anything else.
World, if you can’t see (or are choosing to ignore) my cites about the similarity of Ginsberg’s situation with Joe Sandler and Melvin Hollowell (even though they aren’t specifically about Ginsberg), then I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And obviously, “Read between the lines, dude” is not proof.