Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jb2000
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?
|
Bush has played the same game as Kerry in the actions of the 527s. I don't seem to recall Kerry disavowing the attacks on Bush's service in the Guard. He simply said that his campaign does not question Bush's service. That is exactly what Bush's campaign is doing.
Let's understand a little about why the "honesty" of the 527 messages and the existence of 527s are so inextricably linked.
The 527s have been used in this campaign as the attack dogs which allow the campaigns to appear above the fray. Not only do they get to make unsubstantiated claims (happening on both sides not just on Bush's) without repercussion to their candidate but they also get to put out messages both in support of their candidate and in more honest opposition to their opponent. This helps the campaign of "their guy" in the traditional sense of advertising but also in trying to eat up opponent campaign resources to rebut them. The Kerry campaign is starting to fall into this trap by trying to directly take on the Swift Boat group. They've obviously decided this message is too powerful to leave out there alone so they must address it. They're trying to make the expense palatable by also tying the Swift Boat actions to Bush and his campaign. Of course there is no evidence of collaboration between Bush and the Swift Boat group but that doesn't stop them from making the claim. It does, however, set a new precedent for combatting 527 claims. For the most part the Bush campaign made the strategic decision not to directly address the claims of the 527s that alligned against him. This kept the focus a little more towards the candidates and the real issues.
This is a dirty path the parties are headed down if they do not reign in the use of 527s. Personally, I agree with Bush's stance that all of these groups should be removed from the process. Otherwise we will continue to see unbelievable spending, (and it will get worse as the parties not only have to ramp up contributions to combat the opposition party but to answer the attacks of the pseudo party 527s) greater and greater opportunity for influence peddling, and the reinforcement of a system where only individuals endorsed by one of the two parties can contend for elected office.