Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
Another case of political campaigns pushing the limits of the rules. I don't believe the ad portrays an endorsement of the Bush administration by the USOC and I personally am not offended by this ad. It will be up to some judicial body to determine if the ad violated the rules. I don't believe anyone here is in a position to say for certain that there was a definite violation, it's just opinion at this point.
In terms of opinion on the subject, my feelings would be the same if there was an example of Kerry using the Olympics in an ad. Had there been a terrorist attack at the Olympics and Kerry used that in an ad as an example that the world is not safer from terrorism, I would have no problem with it.
In another corollary, IMO, it's not too unlike Kerry using McCain's words against Bush in his ad. He didn't get McCain's endorsement of it but did it anyway. He went on to pull the ad when McCain came out against it but if he hadn't I would have no problem with him continuing to run it. Of course there is nothing illegal about that ad and no specific rules that it comes close to violating but the principles are about the same.
|
you aren't personally offended, but the people who were used in the ads were. That was my point, not that he violated some obscure congressional rule.
then you went on to point out that when McCain expressed distaste over the use of his words against his will, Kerry pulled ad. Bush, however, refused to pull the add even when the people portrayed in it expressed their distaste (to put it mildly, they actually said they didn't support his position and would be fighting against him if they were back home, which is a hell of a lot stronger than McCain saying don 't use my words) over the ads.
That's a big difference in character, to my mind. Kerry didn't roll back on his heels and proclaim that he was just using facts and has a right to do whatever he wants to McCain--he respected the man's wishes. Why won't Bush do the same for the olympic athletes?