rukkyg

A savings plan wouldn't help me now. The tax free tuition income would. I'd imagine that's the way with most people currently in high school or starting college this year.

onetime2

Yes, for your specific case there is a significant difference but in the grand scheme of things they are not massively different and each has a plan. They just each but a slightly different focus within them.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Paq

ouch........what a vid...

and yeah, bush has a history of this...actually, i believe it's been said before, it has the smell of rove...

You'd think he could come up with a new strategy

__________________
Live.

Chris

onetime2

So, will Kerry do the same? Or will he continue down the hypocritical path of criticizing the Swift Boat group while supporting the efforts of Move On and ACT?

http://members.home.nl/koz/flabber/L...jungle_015.jpg

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

onetime--after all that has been said on the thread about the distance that seperates rove from move on, you would think that you would stop trying to make the linkage.
anyway, this does not seem like a discussion, so onto other things:

to show that in a pr cesspit run by karl rove, there really is no bottom:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...288686,00.html

so after the iraqi footbal team told him to fuck off,
after the usoc expressed outrage at this,
cowboy george---in high emperor mode---will try to exploit the next iraqi football match.

what a yahoo.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Yeah, Bush denounces, as Dole (who is well respected) decides to say Kerry never bled and has no idea what he's talking about on national television.

Every piece of lit. I've gotten in the mail from ACT has been accurate and not divisive. They have simply dealt with Bush allowing jobs to go overseas and what is happening to the economy today in Canton Ohio. They honestly show what Bush and his policies have done. I have yet to see ACT be negative and talk about Bush's private or before elected office life.

Move On was negative but haven't seen or heard much from them for awhile and last I did see they were keeping to issues, just pointing out things like how Bush will say one thing then show him saying and doing the exact opposite. Potent, but public record fact based commercials.

Have a feeling Swift boat group isn't going to stop and will now get worse because Bush denounced them so now they can be more negative and claim Bush wants them to stop but their "truth" must be put out there.

I think if we have these 527's then the election committee must ask these groups for proof in advertising. That would change a lot.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Journeyman

How about, instead of calling for an end to SBV and ACT and MoveOn, he start by telling his own friends and associates to stop funding SBV, and then play it by ear after that.

irateplatypus

Thanks for the warm welcome back everyone, it's good to be back on TFP among friends...

Bush came out today and denounced ad's by 527s in entirety, not just the ones that attack his opponent.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L4DI80.html

Here are some selected quotes from the article, follow the link for the whole thing.

In Texas at his ranch, Bush said, "I don't think we ought to have 527s," a reference to the outside groups that have poured millions of dollars over the past year into attack ads. Bush himself has been a main target of ads costing some $60 million. Bush said all of the ads should be stopped.

"That means that ad," he said, referring to the anti-Kerry ad, "and every other ad."

Ok, fine w/me... sounds good so far...

Kerry's vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said Bush's comments on Monday fell short of what was needed.

"The moment of truth came and went, and the president still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," Edwards said. "Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air."

that is what gets me. what exactly does edwards want? the President denounces all adds, including those that are visibly damaging his opponent... yet edwards says that is not enough and furthur spreads the false notion that the President is responsible for those ads. this tactic preys on those who aren't involved enough in the process to realize that neither Kerry or Bush has a hand in the content of the ads by any 527 group.

This is frustrating because the already dangerous issue (in the sense that it could damage our electoral process) of Kerry's Vietnam service is being taken from level of conflicting accounts from seemingly genuinely sincere soldiers on both sides to out and out falsehoods by politicians.

In all seriousness, I have considered myself a civically aware citizen for a long time... but I don't think I've ever been more disillusioned with or frustrated by politics as I am now.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

jb2000

527's really aren't the issue. They are a fine topic of discussion, and I'd gladly like to see a seperate debate on whether or not their existance and operation is appropriate.

Kerry did not denounce all 527's that support the President or oppose Kerry.

The strategy Bush is using is to denounce all 527's as a way of saying that he is therefore denouncing the specific ad, and so technically meeting what has been asked of him, but yet hiding it in a general attack on 527's as if it were the fact that it was a 527 that was the problem, not the specific content of the ad.

527's are legal and part of the landscape. If we come to the conclusion that they are not healthy for our process, we should definitely take action legislatively to deal with them.

SBVFT is under attack for their content not their organizational makeup. What Bush has yet to do is specifically decry the content of the SBVFT attack. He has said he will not attack Kerry's war record. He has said he's against the 527 concept. But he has not yet come out and said that the SBVFT ad's content was not appropriate and did not reflect his own sentiments.

irateplatypus

why should the President denounce the swiftvets and specifically state that he disagrees with them fundamentally? isn't it a bit arrogant for someone to demand the President to say exactly what they want to hear about the issue? the President may personally think much of what the swiftvets is true, but still considers the matter an unsuitable topic for the election. i think when many people consider this matter they assume the swiftvets have nothing pertinent to say about Kerry's Vietnam record and base the candidates responses to the matter on that assumption. that has not been proven true.

the fact is that there are many respected men of many political perspectives who have put their reputations on the line with the swiftvets organization. you must surely agree that they would expect the firestorm of scrutiny they would have to endure, but put their integrity into full public view anyway. i think that kind of commitment to a cause deserves a serious, respectful evaluation.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

james t kirk

I haven't seen the ads in question.

On of the benefits of living in Toronto I guess.

A couple of things come to mind...

1. Kerry was in Vietnam. Bush was not. Kerry did his duty, and no-one can say he didn't. I find it incredible that the democrats don't put Bush more on the defensive if this is the way that Bush wants to play. (This is certainly a very dirty and personal campaign.)

If Bush wants to get personal, the Democrats could get even more personal against Bush. So far, they seem to be taking the high road.

2. I think Kerry did this (make his Vietnam record part of the campaign) to attract middle America voters. A large number of Americans seem to mistakenly believe that the democrats are somehow less patriotic than the Republicans. It's absurd, but perception is that the Republicans are somehow tougher and more adapt at protecting America.

Ralvek

The difference between this crap and Move On is that this is all lies. How dare the right make spread lies and slander about a man who actually served, and killed, for his country.

__________________
Ban country music, it promotes inbreeding.

irateplatypus

james t. kirk - the democrats did in fact try to make political hay out of Bush's service but it ended up being a dead end. you're kidding yourself if you think Bush personally is making any sort of political statement about senator kerry's service. he has repeatedly stated that he honors and respects kerry's service in vietnam. this isn't debatable... it's a matter of public record. if the democrats are taking the high road (now) then they are taking the same road that Bush is.

Ralvek - that is speculation. it may be your personal opinion that every one of the hundreds of swiftvets who put their integrity on the line for their cause is an outright liar... but that is your interpretation of the issue and not fact. if it were as cut and dry as you seem to think it is... it wouldn't be worth having the discussion we are engaged in.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

pan6467

Irate I love ya man (in a brotherly, cousin, cross country way), but come on.

Bush's fingerprints may not be on Swift but his people are (one just had to resign from his re-election committee). It's easy to say I respect you while I have my donors and henchmen find people with axes to grind and pay for them to be heard.

I don't believe all the Swiftvets are evil. I'm sure many are men who served very honorably and were hurt by Kerry's '71 testimony and therefore see this as a way to get back. The very few that are VOCAL have books to sell, are getting paid for their spots on news programs and/or have been shown to be liars or not have facts straight (as reports in the US Navy records show).

This BS that Kerry fudged on reports to make himself look better are BS also, first as shown in another post the ones on the day in question are signed not with his initials. Secondly, if he had filed a false report (and supposedly these Swiftboat commanders say they knew he falsified) then he ran the risk of being court martialed and at the very least reduced in rank. Those that say they knew he fudged and in one case got a bronze star, then they are just as guilty as he, if not moreso because they accepted awards on his "falsified reports". That in my eyes makes them worse in character than Kerry.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

I wish I could say I was amazed at your double standards but, of course, I am not.

The groups are shadow organizations created to do the dirty work of the political parties and yet the one 527 making a case against Kerry is somehow different than the multiple 527s created and funded to attack Bush at every turn.

As for the change in subject, feel free to start a new thread and ignore this one if the topic is not to your liking.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Fine will Kerry do the same with ACT and Move On? Denouncing the Swift boat group which received a whopping $100k or so from an individual while ignoring the fact that Move On et al has received millions upon millions for their messages is disingenuous at best.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

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

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

So, you were on the boat that day and can without a doubt say that there was enemy fire? You saw the wounds on Kerry?

If not, then you have simply made a choice on who to believe.

The left has been slandering Bush in the same way and to be disgusted by this and not the other is partisan hypocrisy at its worst.

You want to believe that everything Kerry got was legitimate because it went through the proper channels then fine. So do I. But I also give the same credit to Bush because everything he got with regard to his military service and discharge went through proper military channels.

For those in this thread claiming that Move On and others have reported nothing but "truth" let me remind you of the questions they threw around about Bush's military service. They questioned every aspect of his service. They demanded records, they trotted out people who claimed "well I don't remember meeting him" as evidence that he didn't serve. Every scrap of paper the military released and Bush himself released was shot down as "inconclusive".

Well, as stated before, you can't have it both ways. Either the military knew what it was doing when they authorized Kerry's medals and Bush's discharge or they didn't. They both went through the approval processes and as far as the military is concerned they are equally valid.

The 527 groups hold no accountability to accuracy and have no limits on what can be spent by individuals. If you want to criticize the Swift Boat group because they're supported by a couple of Republican stalwarts then stand up and hold the other 527s equally accountable because they're supported by long time Democratic forces.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

Truth be told I blame the media for pushing this more than anyone. Here's a great article that talks about how stations will air 527 ads regardless of truth.

The media is the big winner making HUGE amounts of money on these ads. Probably enough to push their 1/4 and yearly profits up into double digit percentiles. So why should they care what is truth, what is fiction and what the outcome is? They're making millions on the ads and money talks baby.
=====
GOP, Democrats Seek to Pull Campaign Ads
By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - When a Republican-funded group of Vietnam veterans sought to run a blistering television ad accusing John Kerry of lying about his decorated war record, Democrats quickly fired off a letter to broadcasters imploring them not to air the ``inflammatory, outrageous lie.''

The goal: to get as many stations as possible to reject the ad and stymie potential damage from it.

It's a dance that happens often in political advertising. Republicans and Democrats try to get broadcasters to block each other's commercials by providing evidence countering claims in the spots. Sometimes they succeed and ads get pulled or changed. More often they don't and commercials are run even with questionable material.

Unlike ads by outside groups, candidates can say whatever they want to in ads and stations must run them.

That's the case with a new spot Kerry rolled out that says Bush's campaign ``supports a front group attacking John Kerry's military record,'' a reference to a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Bush's campaign complained that the Kerry ad contained a ``false and libelous charge.'' Stations didn't have to run the veterans' ad; they do have to run the Kerry campaign's ad responding to it, despite the Bush campaign's objections.

Broadcasters have a right to turn down other political ads that don't meet truth-telling standards followed by commercial advertisers like Pepsi, Toyota and Nike. Stations leave themselves open to lawsuits if non-candidate political ads contain potentially libelous content.

``It's basically up to the individual broadcaster to decide whether that third-party advocacy ad is appropriate for their audience,'' said Dennis Wharton, a National Association of Broadcasters spokesman.

Still, stations rarely reject commercials - even ones with fuzzy claims. They have little incentive to: they don't get paid for ads that don't run, and they very rarely are sued.

``If the system worked, the sleaze wouldn't get on the air,'' said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a political ad expert at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.

Lawsuits take time and money, neither of which the campaigns have to spare. And, proving defamation of character, slander or libel is extremely difficult when the person attacked is a public figure.

So, campaigns often settle on urging stations to reject an ad - while publicly objecting to the content.

``There are incidents where candidates object every cycle and stations do pull ads,'' said Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. ``But there aren't a huge number of them pulled.''

Still, stations require political parties and interest groups to back up statements in ads. The opposing side often sends its own documents rejecting the charges and reminding TV stations of their overriding duty as broadcast license holders ``to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.''

Often, documentation from the ad sponsors, whether accurate or not, is all a station needs to put an ad on the air. Sometimes, the station has its lawyers review the material before going forward.

Anticipating a challenge to its first ad, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sent 28 stations in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia a 12-page background document and 64 pages of material supporting the ad's claims, including affidavits.

Lawyers for Kerry and the Democratic National Committee quickly faxed an objection letter to the stations, pointing out that questions were being raised publicly about claims made by veterans.

The group says two stations didn't run the ad. A couple of others hesitated.

Jeff Armstrong, a station manager for Wisconsin's WLAX and WEUX said the publicity about potential problems with the ad prompted them to initially refuse the commercial. But, he said, they ``had a change of heart'' after other stations aired it.

Another station, WEAU, an NBC affiliate, waited a day for its lawyers to sign off on the ad, said Steve Lavin, the station's general sales manager.

Sometimes, one side can get stations to force the other side to change an ad.

In January, the Republican National Committee challenged an ad by an arm of MoveOn.org. It said: ``Bush sided with the drug companies who had given him huge contributions.'' Attorney Charles Spies said in a letter to stations in Ohio, Florida and other states that the ad ``falsely and maliciously'' accused Bush of ``committing a federal crime.''

``No drug company has ever given a contribution'' to Bush because ``corporate contributions to federal political campaigns have been legally prohibited for close to 100 years now,'' Spies wrote.

The RNC says MoveOn had to change the spot before several stations would air it.
=======

link: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...20.htm&sc=1131
=================

PS: Onetime, I respect you man but to say that SBVT are not getting BIG money from a select group of donors while MoveON is.... is very partisan and accusatory, and IMO foolish. I read the statements on their website the vast majority sound pissed because of Kerry's anti-war speeches. Others have been shown to be downright liars, one has signed the affadavit, then said he didn't know what he was doing, then signed again changing his original story (O'Neill), selling books or as I said above making big bucks on TV shows as "spokesmen".

As I have stated, in my opinion there is a HUGE difference between this group and ACT. ACT challeneges Bush's issues and how they affect people they do not personally attack him or his family or his past. ACT has done nothing, I have seen, but stick to issues.

MoveOn, it, in the past had questionable material, and some personal attacks, but has pretty much gotten away from that and has gone to the issues. While some of the ads may be very "out"there, I have seen very few on tv. And the ones I have are issue driven. Their website is something else, but for the love of God they can put anything they want on their website and if a person goes there, they know what to expect so to act all pissy is BS.

Same with Swift's homepage. They can put anything they want on their website and I could careless, but to run total fictious lies and divisive ads meant to hurt an individual (not for his politics) and in the process open wounds of veterans, is pathetic.

The GOP cannot win on issues they have to destroy the character and the man running against them.

Let the issues determine the vote and let this bullshit die, because all the Swift group is truly doing is damaging the 'Nam memory more and re-opening seriously deep wounds for the vets that have tried to move on.

Any man or woman that served in Vietnam deserves respect and to try to tarnish ANY man's medals or valor 35 years after the fact and 29 years after the war is pathetic. These men on their homepage don't just attack Kerry but the men who support him also. It's divisive to a huge group of people who truly have moved on.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

As pointed out by others in this thread, some weight needs to be given to the shear number of "Swifties" coming out against Kerry. Certainly you can write off some as being questionable but not all of them. You want to attribute it to their anger over Kerry's stance when he got home? Fine, I'll buy that. But that's not the message coming out in the media. The Kerry campaign is painting them all as liars or puppets because they don't want Kerry's statments as head of his Veterans against the War group to become a focus.

As far as my comments about the Swift Boat group not receiving big money, I think you're misreading my position (or I have not stated it clearly). I am saying it's downright disgusting for people to come out and say the Swift Boat group is partisan because it's received big checks from Bush supporters while not making the same claims against the other 527s. The biggest single contributor to the Swift Boat group gave like $100k and he is (or was) by far the biggest single contributor. The other 527s have seen checks for millions from individual contributors yet their messages are not being charged with being biased by those on the Kerry side.

It's just another one of those hypocrisies that bug me. The Dems are claiming the Swifties are being used as attack dogs yet the other 527s have been used in that manner for a year or more but that's ok.

Until we start holding our own party up to the same standards we attempt to hold the "others" to the process will remain corrupt and partisan. The parties will continue to play off the fears of the partisans and we will never see any sort of focus on issues.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

irateplatypus

hmm... i think if you'll draw this conclusion from a swiftvet having to stop being a volunteer in Bush's campaign, then the same measure should be applied to MoveOn and ACT if there are any Kerry volunteers among their ranks. I have not read of any examples... but I'm speculating that there are probably many. You may already go as far as this... I'm just saying that the first conclusion seems to necessitate the second.

But are we really surprised that the swiftvets are (perhaps zealously so) Bush supporters? I mean seriously, it's basically a two-party system in national elections. It's not as if they have a whole slew of candidates to support if they are against Kerry as commander-in-chief. In almost all cases, a person not thinking Kerry is the man for the job will most likely support Bush.

If these same people decide to donate to their candidate of choice, if they decide to partake in the political process, it does not make them right-wing henchman... their donations do not impune their truthfulness.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

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?

onetime2

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.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Journeyman

Miami Herald Article

As the list of connection points grows, the plot thickens.

Mojo_PeiPei

So I guess to the majority of you here, Bush's public remarks yesterday mean squat? I thought he was very straight forward when saying A) he was bothered the ad's B) upset that SBVT amongst other 527's and soft money groups were able to operate after legislation he passed C) The fact that he said Kerry's service was noble and he should be proud. But on the other hand Bush is the anti-christ....

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

Were you equally outspoken against this?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/07/kerry.exley/

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

Anyone still questioning Bush's involvement? You can say what you want about Move On and ACT, but I don't see anyone having to be fired or have to resign in Kerry's camp. As for hiring someone from MoveOn, big deal as long as he has cut his professional ties to them. IF he hasn't then yes, Kerry needs to let the man go.

Doesn't sound like Bush is wanting Swift to go away too soon. This is going to blow up in his face and hopefully, not only will he lose the election it'll teach the next candidates to run cleaner campaigns that stick to issues.

I mean after all if Bush were the better man on issues and if he truly was this upright honorable man and true follower of Christ, he wouldn't have to step down to this level now would he? He'd win on his merits, wouldn't he? I mean, someone who has principles and believes firmly in his views wouldn't have to rely on slinging mud. (This goes for Kerry also, BUT from what I have seen he HAS and ACT have stuck to ISSUES. MoveOn has been also. But then again no one has been claiming Kerry to be this great noble, fundamentalist, righteous, moral man like we hear Bush is from everyone that supports the man.)

One thing I can say is this shows us that maybe when Kerry IS elected, the GOP won't have anything to hound him over and spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of taxpayer money trying to impeach him like they did Clinton. After all the GOP had to dig back 35 years to find some kind of mud on the man. And all they are doing is spreading hate, dividing the country more and being shown as the non issue muckrakers they are.


===============

Bush Campaign Lawyer Quits Over Ties to Ads Group

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday after disclosing he has been providing legal advice to a group that accuses Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) of lying about his Vietnam War record.

Benjamin Ginsberg was the second person to quit the Bush campaign over ties to the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been attacking Kerry's record through television commercials and a book.


Dispatched by Kerry to defend his service, former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia and other Vietnam veterans were turned away from Bush's secluded Crawford ranch on Wednesday when they attempted to deliver a letter asking the president to condemn the Swift Boat ads. White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed it as a "political stunt."


Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot had insisted just last week that "there is no connection of any kind whatsoever" between the campaign and the Swift Boat group, and McClellan stood by that assessment despite the Ginsberg revelations.


The Bush campaign has denied Kerry's charge the president's re-election team is using such "front groups." Bush on Monday called for a halt to the ads, along with others run by independent groups, but he did not condemn the group or its allegations.


Ginsberg, who served as the Bush campaign's chief outside counsel for five years, informed the campaign on Tuesday that he has been giving legal advice to the Swift Boat group.


In his letter of resignation to Bush, Ginsberg defended his actions as legal and said he was proud to have advised the veterans. "I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," he wrote.


Ginsberg later told CNN, "Nobody at the Bush campaign or the White House knew of my dual representation," though he did raise the broad issue of representing such groups to the campaign. Ginsberg said he "assumed" the Swift Boat group knew he was working for Bush.


Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) to launch a criminal investigation into the "significant ties" between the Bush campaign and the group.


KERRY RECORD


The fierce dispute over Kerry's record in Vietnam, where he was decorated for bravery, has dominated recent campaigning in the neck-and-neck race for the Nov. 2 presidential election. Both candidates are trying to portray themselves as the best man to lead the United States in its war on terrorism.


Federal election rules bar organizations that take unrestricted donations from coordinating their activities with campaigns or political parties.


Stanzel said the law does not impose restrictions on lawyers, adding: "There has been no coordination at any time" between the campaign and the Swift Boat group.


Likewise, Mike Russell, spokesman for the Swift Boat group, denied any coordination with the Bush campaign, and said Ginsberg had agreed to continue advising the group.


"I was at the nexus of making sure (coordination) didn't happen. To suggest otherwise is flat wrong," Ginsberg said.


But Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill countered: "The sudden resignation of Bush's top lawyer doesn't end the extensive web of connections between George Bush (news - web sites) and the group trying to smear John Kerry's military record. In fact, it only confirms the extent of those connections."


In his resignation letter, Ginsberg added that his work for Swift Boat was "quite similar" to ties between lawyers affiliated with the Kerry campaign and several left-leaning groups attacking Bush, including Moveon.org, the Media Fund and Americans Coming Together.


Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman accused the Kerry campaign of "hypocrisy," citing attorney Bob Bauer's ties to both the Kerry campaign and America Coming Together. The Kerry campaign said it received election advise from Bauer during the primaries, but that he now works with the DNC.

The Massachusetts senator has called the Swift Boat ads inaccurate and has asked the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) to force them to be withdrawn. After the Swift Boat ads, support for Kerry among the country's veterans declined, according to a CBS News poll.

As a Navy lieutenant commanding a gunboat in Vietnam, Kerry was decorated five times for valor and sustaining combat wounds. He has shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds.

Records show the Swift Boat group received some of its funding from long-time Bush supporters. Its new commercial also features one veteran, Ken Cordier, who was on a Bush campaign committee until last week, when he was forced to quit.

==========
LINK: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gn_bush_ads_dc
=============

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

And people in '73 and '74 thought watergate was big.... by the time this election is over both sides will make Watergate look like jaywalking.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Paq

here here pan, goodshow, wish i could have said it better

__________________
Live.

Chris

Zeld2.0

After all this crap, they should make a DVD about it

onetime2

Having a lawyer with multiple clients does not mean coordination with the Bush campaign. Evidence people. Where's the evidence of coordination? You scream for evidence about WMDs but don't care one lick about it when it's in support of "your" guy. I would have no problem with these claims of wrong doing if you were consistent in your wanting proof in all situations. Of course that doesn't quite seem to matter to most.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

pan6467

Tken from Art. above: "In his resignation letter, Ginsberg added that his work for Swift Boat was "quite similar" to ties between lawyers affiliated with the Kerry campaign and several left-leaning groups attacking Bush, including Moveon.org, the Media Fund and Americans Coming Together."

If Ginsberg has proof then he should come forth with it and I WILL be as hard on Kerry. However just sating it as he resigns, IMO, shows sour grapes and that he is a bitter man who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And he should just shut up, because him saying shit like that and not bringing proof forward adds more fuel to the fire that is burning Bush's ass right now.

Still say Kerry looks far better to me because he tries to stick to the issues, and ACT and MoveOn are also. We're in the homestretch and they're not flinging mud at Bush for actions 35 years ago, or at his family. They are sticking to issues and solely because Swift is full of innuendo, proven lies and opinions that are objective and calling them fact, Kerry does have the right to defend himself. Especially, when some of these Swiftees, supported Kerry or have been quoted in the past to have said good things about Kerry's service.

I just find it very funny they can't get anything on Kerry's present so they have to dredge up 35 years ago and hope something starts selling.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"