|
Posted on 08/21/2004 8:38:46 AM PDT by Sabertooth
Not a flame, just a thought.
If McCain-Feingold prohibits coordination between independent 527 organizations, like Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, and candidates and campaigns, then how can John Kerry expect President Bush to ask that the Swift Vets stop running their ads?
If President Bush affects a 527 organizations's activity in any way, isn't that "coordination?"
Doesn't CFR, as things currently stand, legally prohibit President Bush from doing anything but stand on the sidelines, with regard to the Swift Vets?
|
Good catch
Brit Hume brought this up Thursday on Special Report, and the panel agreed!
|
|
I believe you are correct on that aspect, and Kerry knows it.. and is hoping to make President Bush look bad, as the majority of Americans do not know, that the President cannot interfer....I believe McCain is sitting himself up to run in '08, some of his actions lately especially with this election cycle is begging to make me like him less than I do now..
No! They are an independent group...he cannot in anyway influence them.
What the 527 pro-Kerry ad says..."Mr. Bush takes these ads off the air" is impossible. In a way, it's a trap.
The President didn't put them on and he can't take them off or even influence their airing.
You'll notice the Kerry campaign is not appealing to Bush to take them off (at least they're clued in on that) but they are appealing to him to "denounce" them.
Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, & Jeff Birnbaum IIRC.
Mr. Bush might be able to legally "call" in the press for the Swift Boat Vets for Truth to stand down. He could not legally call them up and ask them personally to stand down.
But of course if they did stand down, the Dims would see this as more evidence that Bush and the Swift Boat Vets had coordinated all along and the claim the ads must have been hurting Bush in the polls. And if they did not stand down, they Dims would see evidence that Mr. Bush was only calling for them to stand down publically but was encouraging them through back channel communications. And in each case they would likely file and FEC complain.
So Mr. Bush is best off not commenting further than he has.
We support the veterans' right to free speech, and we will not ask them to withdraw it, since that would be a violation of their constitutional rights.
Simply put, sKerry's (Cheney'd) for the time being.
Yet Kerry is. Is Kerry in violation of McCain Feingold by trying to stop the ads?
Bush has been bombarded with anti-Bush ads from 527s, the movie Farenheit 911, and a zillion books. Kerry has a tizzy over one ad and one book. He's such a LOSER!
Brit Hume raised this issue with his "panel" the other night. It remained unanswered, except for Hume's observation to the effect that it would seem that there could be no legal positive or negative connection between the two.
Certainly, Chris Matthews merciless pushing of the ridiculous point with Thurlow as to whether, in Thurlow's opinion, Mr. Bush should use their charges in debates with Kerry raises the question:
Wouldn't the Democrats just love to goad the President into "denouncing" the ads just so that they could then accuse him of illegally interacting with it? Further, was that what Matthews was trying to get Thurlow to endorse? It was hard to understand why he would try to force the issue so vehemently with Thurlow without an underlying agenda. The Swift Boat Veterans would be wise to refuse absolutely to answer such inane questions.
Their hands are tied. The Swift Boat Vets organization is NOT a Republican Party body. Its an independent 527 campaign group. The President can't ask them to stand down cause that would be "illegal." Oh, perfect deniability. CFR is just the most wonderful thing to happen in the service of putting truthful ads since the invention of retail politics. Of course it was not intended to empower the little guy, but its turned out to be one of the law's unforeseen consequences.
I laugh everytime I see that graph...in 9.
Even if he did, O'Neill said this is between Swift Vets and Kerry and they cannot in good conscience allow Kerry to be the US Commander-in-Chief.
GRIDLEY Crew members (67-68) say Kerry exaggerated in TOUR OF DUTY
"...John Kerry and I were shipmates in the guided missile cruiser USS
Gridley (CG-21) in 1967 and 1968. He served as First Lieutenant, the
officer in charge of the deck division, and I was Executive Officer,
or second in command..."
"...But there is also no doubt in my mind that his anti-war
activities while our troops were still fighting, dying and being
tortured in filthy Vietnam prisons were despicable.
For that reason, even aside from his anti-defense voting record in
the Senate, he is one ex-shipmate that I could never support as
commander-in-chief of the armed forces."
J. F. Kelly, Jr.
USS Gridley (CG-21) Executive Officer in 1967 and 1968.
GRIDLEY Website page on John Kerry
http://home.nycap.rr.com/pwcarter/the%20kerry%20page.html
Other crew members speak about John Kerry
(Looks like Kerry's shipmates, who did serve with him,
say he lied and told whoopers about his time on the GRIDLEY.
Remember these are not Swift Boat Vets,
BUT Kerry's crewmates who served with him on the GRIDLEY)
Examples follow:
"As everyone must surely know by now, John F. Kerry came on board
GRIDLEY as a boot Ensign when we returned from our 1967 Westpac
Cruise. He remained on GRIDLEY through the 1968 cruise. Politics
aside, shipmates of the time who have read TOUR OF DUTY, the
authorized campaign biography, will have something to say about the
chapter on GRIDLEY. "
1. Kerry never talked about his time on GRIDLEY. He says on page
74 that it is because “nothing much of note” happened while
he was
onboard. He uses words like monotony and tedious, when, despite
being a boot ensign he was given every opportunity for responsibility
by Captain Slifer and Commander Kelly (XO). He came aboard
designated for Electrical Officer (80100), a grunt position in the
Engineering Department and spent four months in that position. He
was assigned duty as First Lieutenant, as Commander Kelly recalls,
because of his knowledge of seamanship and his experiences with small
boats and sailing. Besides being responsible for the decks of the
ship, the First Lieutenant is also responsible for the ship’s
small
boats. He also was assigned collateral duties as Public Affairs
Officer. Despite all the responsibilities he was given, he gives the
impression that serving on GRIDLEY was somehow beneath him. He
certainly had less of an opportunity to collect “gongs” there.
2. Page 78 – “motivate 400 swabbies” – The First
Lieutenant is
responsible only for the personnel of 1st Division, not the entire
crew. 1st Division had a roster of about 30 in 1968. To the extent
that other divisions had responsibility for deck space, their
officers would have been responsible for motivating them.
3. Page 87 has Kerry “shuttling sailors and provisions”
between
GRIDLEY and KITTY HAWK in a small motor whaleboat out in the Gulf of
Tonkin. The regular method of travel between the two ships was via
helo. That is how I went over to the KITTY HAWK. If such an event
did occur, it would have been unusual and hardly a shuttle.
4. Later on page 87 Kerry talks about Olongapo in the Philippines.
He talks about bloated corpses floating in the river and starving
women with babies dying of malnutrition. Now Olongapo was a wild and
wooly town that existed solely for the entertainment of the US Navy,
but in over three years of calling there, I never saw a single
instance of either thing happening. Kerry uncovered this in his
first visit. If this was from his letters home then he was certainly
writing for dramatic effect. Balderdash.
5. The trip to Danang – GRIDLEY went into Danang for briefings
before going to Northern SAR. This section is so full of hyperbole
that the urge to giggle is almost uncontrollable. “The panic and
pressure onboard GRIDLEY, strapping on a .45, wondering if I would
have to use it, B-52’s howling overhead”. A B-52 over Danang
would
have been so high that only contrails would have been visible, cloud
cover permitting. David Simons confirmed my recollection that during
our brief stay in Danang Harbor, the sky was overcast to the point of
being ominous.
More seriously, no one can remember John Kerry going ashore. I was
part of the shore party that went to Monkey Mountain. We were taken
in a screened in truck (to protect against grenades being tossed in)
and made to unload our .45’s. The driver said that he did not
want
us newbies to shoot anyone by accident.
Neither Commander Kelly nor LCDR Rueckert (Kerry’s immediate
boss)
can recall approving a trip ashore for Ensign Kerry. The author uses
remarks of David Simons IC2 as a lead in to the Danang section. I
spoke to David and he has no personal knowledge of Kerry going ashore
at all. He did talk to a researcher and made some generic remarks
about Danang but had never discussed Danang with Kerry. He recalls
arguing with the researcher because he tried to put the
words “cowboy” in his mouth, which ended up in the book.
There is no mystery about the “gruesome site of a pile of dead
VC.”
We saw no sign of anything like this. However, our escort to Monkey
Mountain did tell us how the VC bodies were stacked up on the
LZ’s
after the TET Offensive, which had been several months before.
Ensign Kerry would have been told this story by members of the shore
party.
If, indeed, he got to the pier, because he was in charge of the
motor whaleboat, it certainly would not have been within his purview
to wander Danang, eating dog meat and drinking beer in a bar (under
arms). It also seems amazing that he had all these observations on
Vietnam in such a brief visit.
6. In command – Again with the hyperbole. Kerry makes much
about
being “in charge” of the ship after the Captain and XO. The
OOD is
in charge of the operation of the ship during his four hour watch but
hardly in charge of the ship. Kerry qualified almost immediately as
OOD(P), in port OOD but that is a given. For much of his time
onboard he would have been Junior Officer of the Deck when underway.
Although his fitness report as of 22 March says "he is qualified as
OOD(I) now" (Independent steaming – with no ships or land
anywhere
near) , only OOD(P) is listed under duties. His Fitness Report from
July 1968 lists two months as OOD(I) which would mean he qualified
after leaving the war zone.
Here's democratic loonies for anybody but bush graph; note john keery thinks elizabeth hurley is hot!
This McCain-Feingold is a travesty and unworthy of the term "law". Even crazed monkeys would recognize that it is unconstitutional. Every single representative who voted for it should be thrown out of office, for failing up uphold their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.
You mentioned: "the law's unforeseen consequences."
Isn't that what the Far Left and its hangers-on never have the foresight or intellectual ability to see--the "unforeseen consequences" of their programs and policies?
The "unforeseen" or "unintended" CONSEQUENCES for WE, THE PEOPLE include a return to the tyranny of oppressive government power, despite their promises of goodies from the hand of government.
In this ONE case, it has backfired, to a degree on them. Their attempt to subvert free political speech through the much-publicized Campaign Finance Reform, has actually opened a conduit that they can't shut down fast enough, especially in light of the fact that George Soros and Michael Moore et al discovered it before the measley $200,000 contribution by the "wealthy Texas Republican" they're screaming about.
Too bad! McCain and the Democrats will just have to live with it.
> the Bush Administration and campaign should just point to CFR and say "our hands are tied."
Gorgeous irony. And make sure there's just a hint of smirk with it.
Did Kerry denounce that movie F-911 which falsely classified itself as a documentary.What hypocrits
The Bush campaign has denounced all 527 ads something the Kerry campaign won't do.
|
It is a very good question and one which will probably be fought in the courts for some time. It certain makes a mockery of so-called campaign finance reform when George Soros can spend tens of millions of dollars coordinating with the DemocRATs and it allowed to get away with it.
|
|
The RNC back in March, had a stronger case for collusion against the DNC, but the FEC has either ruled in favor of the DNC and MoveOn.org, or has refused to hear the case for now.
Now, we have the Kerry Cabal complaining of collusion, and from what I see, it's totally baseless.
-snip-
Article 1.
RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads GOP committee says MoveOn.org's spots are illegally financed
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.
"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.
"Now that you have been apprised of the law, to prevent further violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation."
But MoveOn.org's lawyer, Joseph Sandler, said in a statement that the ads were funded legally, calling the RNC's letter "a complete misrepresentation of the law."....
[Flashback to: March 7, 2004] RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads
Article 2.
Kerry hires online chief from MoveOn
Bush camp cries foul
-Snip-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Kerry has hired an Internet-savvy Democrat to run his presidential campaign's online communications, a move that raises new questions about the link between his campaign and the independent groups that run TV ads on his behalf. Zach Exley, the director of special projects for the MoveOn PAC, is going to the Kerry campaign to become its director of online communications and organization.
Exley also worked during the Democratic presidential primary for Howard Dean, helping Dean set up his web-based organization. Since Kerry became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in early March, the MoveOn PAC has spent more than $2.5 million on TV ads that attack President Bush. But under the new campaign-finance law, those efforts cannot be coordinated with the Kerry campaign.
A MoveOn statement said Exley and the staff of all MoveOn entities have agreed that they will not be in contact through the election period to avoid the appearance of coordination, "even though federal election rules permit some forms of communication." ....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/07/kerry.exley/index.html
I doubt president Bush has even entertained the thought of calling off Swifties because the charges are baseless. And as you have pointed out, it may be illegal under campaign finance laws.
Swifties wouldn't listen to him anyway.
No it wouldn't. It would be an infringement on free speech. But then, that's what CFR is anyway. The biggest shocker to me in all this is O'Connor's convoluted contortions allowing the ban of issue ads in a political campaign as well as banning soft money contributions to political parties. CFR should have been shot down by the SCOTUS and all this nonsense would be avoided. Unfortunately, for all of us, O'Connor decided to bow to what she thought were the "political winds" and allow these parts of CFR to stand. She, and the other justices that went along, are the real culprits in this whole mess. Not to mention John McCain.
I'm going to the RNC convention and McCain is hosting a party one of the nights. I RSVPd and got a message back saying "thank you for supporting John McCain." Say what? I'm just going to this party - I AM NOT SUPPORTING JOHN McCAIN! I may have to reneg on my RSVP.
They especially love to try and trip up a Republican incumbent by making it appear he/she is doing the very thing they skillfully do behind the scenes. If they can somehow pressure the Republican Incumbent to blurt out even one statement to influence the "independent expenditure committee" to do ANYTHING AT ALL, then they've GOTCHA!!!
They usually do this to draw attention away from them doing the very same illegal influencing, or even out-right crossing of this clear legal line with contributions, or even worse, exchanges of contribution funds, or "in kind contributions," between organizations!!!
Their strategery is kinda like football. They commit the foul, then yell at the referee when the otherside is in the act of striking back. The only difference in that analogy is that by the time the political referees get involved in investigating, the game is over and they've completely gotten away with making the spectator/voter think the big bad influential incumbent is the bad person breaking a law to protect the process!
They did it to me when my committee made every effort to be like Ceaser's wife and avoided even the appearance of evil. Some independent committee's treasurer checked one wrong box by mistake on their campaign funding report and the challenger's committee seized on this and got the local paper's reporter to think she had discovered her own "Watergate" right here in River City! Any attempt to get her to see it was a mistake was in her mind, "undue influence!"
So a headline story sat in all the newsracks all weekend of violation of this legal wall of seperation. The unsuspecting public was influenced quite wrongly because the Dems didn't even need a goof by the candidate or the candidat's committee to screw up everything.
Independent Committees are great, but they can blow a candidate's entire campaign. An example you may remember of this is what happened to Bill Simon's campaign when the independents tried to help him with than picture fiasco. Like I said... It's the oldest dirty trick in their playbook and believe you me... They've perfected it!!!
Excellent!
Absosmurfly.
And you can bet that they would immediately say that his ability to influence them shows they are in cahoots.
Liberals. I hate 'em all. ;-)
Exactly.
They are desperately trying to "smoke" Bush out, dragging him into this and making it about HIM, and not Kerry.
Edwards went so far as to say today that this is Bush's "moment of truth."
I agree with Saber though; as the law is written, he cannot start OR stop them.
And they've already said that even if he asked them to, they won't.
All I can say is that there must be something REALLY bad in those records he hasn't releasted yet -- and he knows he's going to have to; why else go nuclear?
Can President Bush even legally ask
the Swift Vets to stand down? No. "The Panel" on FOX News (Brit Hume Special Report) discussed this issue this week (yesterday, I think). They were all agreed that he can't direct any 527 to run or NOT to run an ad. That that would constitute coordination. The panel has Libs and Conservatives on it. Usually it is Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke and Mara Liasson or Cici Connelly. Sometimes they have Charles Krauthammer too.The panel when they discussed this issue had Krauthammer on it. I can't recall who the other two were right now. (One guy I do recall, but I can't recall his name). It was three men.
Contribute to and support the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php
Just sent them $25.
Susan Estrogen tried to trick Oneil into saying that he would stop airing the ads if the president asked so that she could claim that the president "controlled" the SwiftVets and therefore they were "illegally" operating outside the 527 laws. Oneil saw thorugh it immediately and said simply "No".
I posted this earlier:
While I have all of your attention, I'll relay what Lawrence O'Donnell said on Hardball tonight.
Andrea Mitchell asked him why Kerry just replied to these ads.
He said that things had to be perfect for Kerry.
1) The Swift boat ad/book had to come out.
2) He had to get John McCain to denounce the ad.
3) He had to get John McCain to call on Bush to denounce the ad.
4) Bush had to NOT denounce the add.
5) He had to get MoveOn.org to run a Bush bashing ad
6) He had to demand that MoveOn.org pull the ad
7) MoveOn.org
8) Then Kerry could attack Bush and go on the offensive.
There may have been more to it, but that's what I remember.
Good plan, huh?
I wonder why one of the options wasn't just COME OUT AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS!
(As an aside, in Virginia today, John Edwards questioned Bush's "manhood" because he wouldn't denounce the ads.)
If Pres. Bush DID ask them to "stand down" it would be admitting he had control over them.....sheesh.
AND, if Kerry is telling Moveon.org to "stand down" on anything....that means the Dems have control over Moveon.org....LOL....which we KNOW they do....so, in telling them to "stand down" they have Just ADMITTED IT!!!
I wonder why one of the options wasn't just COME OUT AND ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS!
And tell the truth too! ...which we all know he's incapable of doing.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it have been great if, when McCain called Bush to condemn the ad, Bush had said, "No can do, amigo, thanks to *your* law!"
I heave heard that the rats have outspent the pubs on these 527 ads like 87% to 13%.
But the President deserves a box on the ears for having signed this damn-fool legislation when he had the power to veto it. If he had done so, and not punted it to the Supremes, the entire issue would be dead now.
Characteristically, the pubbies are very good leaders when it comes to defending the country, but sometimes bunglers when it comes to domestic political stuff.
That's the only way to put the ball back in their court and thank God there's time to do it at the convention. The only screw-up in there repeatedly successful play on this strategy is that they pulled it off TOO SOON!!!
They usually pull this on the eve of the election!!! Again, see my previous reply of anecdotal evidence of personal experience...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.