The similarities are[list=a]
[li]Entirely circumstantial[/li][li]Exactly the kind of sleight of hand that Rove has engineered to deflect the attention off the actual issues[/li][/list]
What are you trying to accomplish here? How about I say fine, Sandler is a shady scumbag who should step down as well, what’s the point? I’m talking about the Bush people and their laughable claim that they have nothing to do with these swift boat guys. Whether the guys on Kerry’s side are, or are not a bunch of lying shady assholes has nothing to do with our Bush discussion. You want to get me started on Kerry we can do that to, I think he’s a bumbling fucking idiot, but that’s for another discussion.
You don’t even think Ken Cordier, a member of the Bush/Cheney veteran’s steering committee, who was publicly connected to the Swift guys raises even a little bit of a red flag?
C’mon now.
c. Hack her to death with a kitchen knife
[sub] just trying to give this cliche some legs[/sub]
PP, stop and reflect a moment: you have fallen into the trap that Rove’s strategy has set for you. You are performing to his script just as much as Bush is acting out bin Laden’s script.
Seriously, their whole case deflates when you’re like “ok, so Kerry is an asshole too, do you have a point?”
World, all I’m trying to do is show that their are similarities between Bush’s legal team and Kerry’s, and that similarity is that there is an appearance of impropriety with both candidates legal teams. However, there is no “This just in: Kerry’s lawyer is a slimeball” thread in the pit, and even if there were, I imagine it would be vastly different than this thread.
Ken Cordier being connected raises a red flag, sure. So does Ginsberg stepping down. Maybe I’m being a nitpicker here, but neither of those are proof.
At any rate: I see where you’re coming from, and will not sidetrack the discussion further with this issue.
And lissener, yes, you’ve found me out. I’m really Karl Rove’s puppet. I received my talking points this morning, and ever sense I have been dancing in his sway. Oh, cut my strings so that I could be free to disbelieve everything the president or the GOP says! These critical thinking skills are a curse I tell you, a curse!
Who are you talking to here?
You’re wrong. It’s not the connection that results in an appearance of impropriety, it’s who the connection is with: a liar or a non-liar. And yes, you apparently are pretty susceptible to Rove’s strategy, because you’re going along with the deflection: you’re turning your attention from the lies–which is the real point–to the connection, which is secondary, and wouldn’t be an issue at all if it weren’t for the lies.
Fair enough, I see where you’re coming from as well.
You said
I thought you meant the lame trap where they say, “but Kerry did it too”, to which I was agreeing with you.
World Eater, if Bush’s outside counsel actually wasn’t coordinating any activities between the swifties and the campaign (I realize you believe he was), what action(s) would be reasonable for him to take? I think either way he would be stepping down to avoid controversy, so you shouldn’t infer guilt from his resignation.
Don’t know about him being a genius (he can’t be too smart if he’s in bed with George); but crafty, devious and intuitive…most definitely. Which makes him a sort of political idiot savant.
Yes, I’ll be the first to say he’s damned in my eyes if he stays or he goes. The fact that he allowed himself to end up in in that situation in the first place is what draws my ire.
Don’t confuse intelligence with virtue. Know any number of really smart scumbags, and any number of not-very-bright but fundamentally decent people. Itelligence is like being tall, or left-handed: a characteristic, not a virtue.
The strong are seldom good, the good, seldom strong. Alas.
I assume you’re referring to the fact that Bob Perry contributed money to both the Swift Boat guys and to the Bush campaign. To which I would ask: does taking money from the same donor amount to “coordination”? If a Moveon.org donor gives to the Kerry campaign, does that undo Moveon.org’s status as a 527?
First of all, I dunno: clients don’t always tell their lawyers everything, much to my professional dismay. I’ve thought to myself on many a client phone call “you did what?” Clients do sometimes act first and ask questions later. (Indeed, the Bush campaign claims Cordier did not inform them of his appearance in the ad).
Having said that, again, is merely appearing in an ad “coordination”? If James Earl Jones was on a Kerry steering committee, but provided voiceover work for a Moveon.org ad, would that destroy Moveon.org’s status as a 527?
I can’t say this enough: lawyers provide that kind of advice all the time. I’ve done similar things in a business context. It simply isn’t a conflict (especially if both clients consent).
Psycho Pirate: So what if they’re distorted? So what if they’re misleading? So is every goddamned political ad out there. Unless and until you are willing to pull every political ad that exists (to be replaced with what?), then you get to suck it up and get on with your life. Don’t like 'em? Rebut them.
No, GLW. PP won’t be satisfied until all political ads show both sides of every issue.
No, but then I’ve never been hired by a “plaintiff” or a “defendant,” much less at the same time: I’m not a litigator. Neither is Ginsberg, from what I can gather. He is being hired for his legal advice, not to try a case.
And again, I’ve done this, and so have many other lawyers. If you work in a particular industry with a narrow focus, it’s nearly inevitable. Even if you aren’t, it’s commonplace. I often get asked, for example, about whether a given action is permissible under the provisions of an agreement with a “chinese wall,” even though I ostensibly represent parties on both sides of the wall. When that happens, I’m acting in exactly the capacity Ginsberg was hired for: to ensure that two parties refrain from acting together in some prohibited fashion.
Again, Dewey, not the point.
I think Dewey is a blind pig in this instance — even considering ethics alone, leaving the law aside.