Charlatan

LINK

Bush top adviser resigns over ads
Second official to quit over links to anti-Kerry group

Vietnam veterans stage protest at president's ranch


TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—A top legal adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush's campaign has become the second official to resign because of links to a group attacking Democratic challenger John Kerry's war record.

Hours after Benjamin Ginsberg quit the Bush-Cheney campaign, Vietnam veteran and Kerry presidential campaign official Max Cleland showed up at the gates of Bush's retreat in Crawford, Texas, to demand the president stop his attacks on veterans.

Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan said the arrival of Cleland, a triple amputee confined to a wheelchair, was a "political stunt," but it drew massive media attention and appeared to rock the Bush campaign back on its heels.

Cleland blames Republican attacks on his patriotism for his defeat in a re-election bid to the U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2002.

Ginsberg resigned after he conceded he had provided legal advice to the group known as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a coalition of veterans which has pushed the Kerry campaign off course with the release of two ads, one claiming he had exaggerated his war valour and another condemning his anti-war activities.

The Bush campaign maintains it has no links to the group, but last week it accepted the resignation of Texas backer Ken Cordier, who had been advising the campaign on veterans' affairs. He appears on camera in the second Swift Boat ad.

"I am proud to have given legal advice to American military veterans and others who wish to add their views to the political debate," Ginsberg said in his resignation letter, released by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"It was done so in a manner that is fully appropriate and legal and, in fact, is quite similar to the relationships between my counterparts at the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign."

The Bush campaign released 10 instances in which they allege Kerry operatives were linked with groups airing tough anti-Bush campaigns, including liberal groups Moveon.org, the Media Fund and Americans Coming Together.

It also accused the media of a double standard because they are not pursuing links between Kerry officials and those groups.

Cleland told reporters it was time for the U.S. president to "put up or shut up."

"This president has gone after three Vietnam veterans in four years," Cleland said. "That has got to stop.

"Where is George Bush's honour? Where is his shame?"

The third instance referred to by Cleland was the Bush campaign attack on Arizona Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who challenged him for the 2000 Republican nomination.

Cleland was accompanied by Jim Rassman, Kerry's swift boat comrade who says the Democratic presidential candidate saved his life in Vietnam.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are calling him a liar, Rassman said.

"I am not a liar."

Bush would not meet Cleland and the former senator was halted at the security blockade which surrounds the president's retreat.

The letter carried by Cleland was signed by nine Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are military veterans. A second letter released later in the day was signed by 19 military veterans from the party in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"We who wore the uniform and served in different branches of the military join together today to defend a fellow veteran from attacks we know to be false, and politically motivated slander," the letters said. Cleland was instead met by Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a Vietnam veteran who backs the president. He was bearing a letter of his own to Kerry, put out by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities and, to this day, you have never apologized," it said. "We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honourably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home."

----------------------------------------------------------

This will probably amount to nothing but it appears to be chink in the Republican armour...

In the end, I am just amazed that in this, one of the most important elections of recent history in the US... the focus is on what happened 35 years ago rather than what is happening now...

(yes I know this post doesn't help but then I'm just an interested bystander)

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Scipio

As noted on kos, the correct move for the President would have been to invite Cleland to the ranch privately. A rejection by Cleland would appear ungrateful or partisan, while an acceptance of the offer would make Bush appear fair and confident.

Thankfully, it didn't occur to them to do that.

On the whole resignation issue, it now appears that there were sufficient contacts between Bush2004 and the SBVs to violate laws prohibiting coordination of campaign activities. There's no telling where this will go, though it looks like an issue that might stick around.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

assilem

Or an invitation into the ranch would have been seen as an admission by the Bush camp that he and/or his campaign were involved with the swifties. Either way he was fucked. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

james t kirk

Living in Canada, I have the good fortune i suppose of not seeing these ads.

But one thought keeps running through my mind.

Kerry was there (in Vietnam), Bush was not.

How is it that Bush and company possibly think that they have the right to criticize the man?

If this continues, the democrats should just start insinuating that Bush is a coward. See how he likes that.

smooth

I don't know, James. That's the same thing that keeps running through my head. I bring it up to my wife, too. The really surprising and shameful thing, in my opinion, is that the public goes along with it. I don't know if they are too fscking retarded, callous, or what; but it sure makes me not give a crap about whatever happens to them after bush is re-elected.

There has been a dogpile of posts about 527's this and that, but the truth remians that this whole shebang is just downright shameful and that's how I feel about people who refuse to see it for what it is. Then they come up with all sorts of after the fact justifications for why it's ok for the swiftboaters to be slinging this shit. It's even more amazing that this crap is starting to stick and affect Kerry's polling.

Do you have similar situations up in Canda?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

james t kirk

Well, yes and no.

In the last federal election, the Liberals used negative ads to point out where the conservatives stood on the issues rather than where they (the liberals) stood. Part of it was scare tactics, but part of it was quite real. The conservatives had stated that they were going to lower taxes, raise military spending drastically, and increase health care spending drastically, but didn't say where the money was going to come from. The liberals jumped all over this stating that the conservative were either going to have to deficit finance, or do some major cutting elsewhere. (All of which I believe to be true.)

The thing about the US ads is that they are very PERSONAL it would seem, as opposed to sticking to the issues.

Vietnam is not an issue. But Kerry is suffering for it.

One time I remember the Conservative party in Canada under Kim Campbell launching some ads mocking the way that former liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien spoke and looked (he had a slight paralysis on the one side of his face since birth).

Something to the effect of "would you vote for a guy who looked like this"

Well, the liberals turned it around and said something like, "he can't help how he looks and it's quite cruel to do something like this, blah blah blah"

Anyway the Conservatives were reduced to 2 seats in the House of Commons from a majority of around 200 or so by Chretien and his liberals. (Not saying that the public reacted solely against the conservatives due to those stupid ads but)

The ads definitely backfired though.

Same provincially in Onatario when former premiere earnie eaves launched some negative advertising. He got his ass bounced out too.

Sparhawk

My favorite part about ginsberg quitting would have to be last week's conversation between Blitzer and Marc Racicot, the BC04 campaign manager:
link
ol' wolfie get's lied to all the time, poor guy.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

smooth

Thanks for the response. I suspected that polititics is politics is politics regardless of region. But what I didn't ask quite right was whether the public actually swallows the B.S. like they do down here? Or are they astute enough to vote on issues over shitslinging?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Sparhawk

I don't think the public swallows the BS down here, just the 24-hour media feeding frenzy - scumbag journalists so desperate for something to talk about in the slow month of August that they jumped on a 500,000$ ad buy in 3 states and turned it into a 2 weeklong orgy. Every person I know, republican and democrat, knows this garbage for what it is.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

smooth

I don't know about that, dude. The recent polls show slippage and indicate that Kerry is taking hits for this. People on this board are twisting all over the place to justify it or explain it away--I haven't seen any previous supporters come out and say enough is enough.

While I think that the uptick in Bush's numbers are due to repubs coming out and getting picked up on the radar, and not people being swayed, my point is that those people who previously supported Bush and decried negative campaigning haven't said shit about all his negative tactics. Instead, they present all kinds of reasons as to why it isn't negative or is somehow acceptable regardless.

You get what I'm saying? It's not that I think people are changing their minds about kerry based on bs, but that I'm surprised that people aren't chastising bush for engaging in it. For example, the fact that it's even an issue is ridiculous and shows the shallow mindset of much of the public. They are saying it's an issue to them when polled, it's not something we can just lay at the spinmeisters' feet.

Oh, and Sparhawk, your point that everyone you know realizes it's really BS doesn't console me too much because I suspect that you keep pretty good company

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Scipio

The sickening part is that we're talking about whether or not John Kerry bled enough for his 3 purple hearts, and not about the poor sap that went because George W. Bush was too big of a coward to fight in a war he claimed to support.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

tecoyah

It would be interesting to see a list of desertions "resignations" from this administration. It would likely be relatively extensive, if not record breaking. One might use the sinking ship analogy, and count the Rats.

I wish Powell would get his hoohaws back, and swim away while he can.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

onetime2

Funny, but I've been decrying ALL 527s for many months. Where was your outrage when the Dem leaning 527s were on the warpath?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

smooth

I'm not outraged by 527's, and I stated that earlier. I think that's a cop-out. Both you and Bush Co. know that 527's can't be stopped due to 1st ammendment issues. I wasn't outraged by Republican use of 527's early in the Bush tenure, either. But I can still be left wondering why you would personally eat up the BS they spew, without engaging in your gestapo attitude of banning various levels of speech.

Is that expressed in an easy enough manner for you to understand? I can think that people have a right to express themselves, even if it's a bunch of bullshit, but I can sit there and ask, why would the people who claim to be against negative campaigning support those expressions?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

onetime2

No substance just insults. Typical. Congrats, you're the first TFPer to make it to my Ignore list.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

smooth

I think, and your comment that this is typical of me to insult you without having said anything substantial indicates as much, that you didn't really want to answer the questions I posed and would rather just level an accusation at me.

Evidently, I didn't make my comments easy enough to understand--which I blame partly on the medium we are using and partly on the fact that we are trying to discuss complex issues with one to two line spurts of commentary.

I don't understand your "all or nothing" position in regards to 527's. You seem to be saying that either we accept all messages or we should ban them all.

I don't, and have never, advocated banning types of speech that I find abusive or inappropriate.

I do wonder why people refuse to hold the president accountable to his promise to not engage in negative campaigning.

I don't know if you took exception to the phrase "gestapo attitude," in reference to banning negative speech outright, or if you didn't like me stating that I don't understand why you are willing to eat the BS these adds spew as long as such adds are legal,

...but both seem like silly reasons to ignore someone.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

I just read this article that seems to back up your claim that people aren't particularly affected by the negative commentary.

--http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll27aug27,1,1350122.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I quoted this part because I support the right of someone to feel that Kerry's comments were poor judgement that makes him less fit to be our president.

Looking at your phrasing and crossing it with mine, I feel the need to explain that when I'm referring to eating BS and you are referring to swalloning BS, we aren't likely meaning the same thing. I'm not surprised or opposed to people believing what any particular add says. I am confused how such adds attacking Kerry's character are not called into question, even if they are true given the fact that Bush promised to not engage in such tactics.

Shortly put, Kerry's failings aside, why does this mudslinging translate into support for Bush? I would hope that people would shut Bush off, too. Instead, many seem willing to "eat the BS", that is, give it a pass, let it sit on the table, not give a big Boo to Bush for his participation. Now, as to why some may actually "swallow it", I'll leave that for another time or maybe even roachboy to tackle.

Now my wife, who is a kerry supporter, tells me that kerry was the first candidate to stop leveling bs at his dem opponents during the run-up. Since then, he has denounced ads that personally attacked Bush. She says that he still doesn't personally attack Bush, and rarely even mentions him individually, instead opting to speak about issues. I take her word over any one on here who was already opposed to kerry, and my own opinion of him, because we don't watch him speak all the time--while she watches his speeches in their entirety because she is interested in what her candidate has to say.

My impression is that if he were to start negative campaigning she would ask him to stop. I thought the public was feeling like they wanted all politicians to stop. And my impression and from what others have told me is that kerry made a savvy move by recognizing that and stopping early in the campaign process.

So now I'm left wondering why Bush supporters don't tell him to stop. It doesn't make much sense for me to expect my wife to tell bush to stop or her dad to tell kerry to stop--because each candidate only cares about his constituents and each constituent really likely only cares about his or her candidate.

But when I talk to bush supporters, they seem willing to give bush a pass on his negative campaigning tactics because, after all, everyone is doing it. But I think they should hold bush acccountable to his previous promise to not engage in such tactics. If the public were really turned off negative campaigning like they claim to be, why aren't they supporting someone else, like nader or that conservative michael (is that his name?) dude? So it seems like people are coming up with reasons to support the person they already want to support. rather than holding their own candidate responsible for whatever filth comes out of his mouth. so that indicates to me that nothing much will change--because candidates really only care about their constituents.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman