Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
There already was one. There is still a question as to the legality of 527s as outlined in the below thread. They are being allowed to operate right now as the FEC has pushed back any decision on their status to after the election. Bush has been attacked with regularity by the Democratic leaning 527s with little to no recourse to their distortions.
As pointed out in the below thread the ugliness of these ads is not surprising to me. It was a foregone conclusion that this course would be set when the Dems chose to use 527s, allegedly to even the ad spending playing field, and the FEC passed on making a decision about them with regard to campaign finance reform laws already in existence.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&highlight=527 |
Onetime, I understand and agree, my point being that it seems this thread has become a debate on 527's instead of the specific ad(s) in question, which I believe is in fact the focus of the Bush strategy for this one as well--to broaden the field, so to speak, to avoid having to specifically disavow the specific ad/group in question.
The question that needs to be answered is this: Regardless of what anyone may think of 527s, is it appropriate for Bush, obviously fully aware of the content of the SBVFT ads, to not specifically disavow that content and its promulgation? If he does decline such action, then is it wrong for us to infer that he, while maybe not willing to make such statements himself, none-the-less agrees with the SBVFT, or at least considers their content legitimate?