I’ve been in the woods for the past three days without cable or radio. When I came out, same old thing as before I went in.
Dubya, who didn’t want to sign the Campaign Finance Reform bill in the first place (after originally supporting it) — the one that paved the way for the 527’s — because it would supposedly take away “free speech” from those who wanted to band together to make political statements (presumably like the NRA, and other Right Wing groups), is still calling for the end to all those “shadowy groups”. Even after he flip-flopped a second time and signed the legislation under pressure to do so.
So he supported those “shadowy groups” before, but now that it turns out most of the folks supporting their “free speech” rights through such groups are freely speaking against Bush, well, now it turns out he’s against those groups. Another flip-flop. Follow all of that?
To make matters more appalling, he’s against “all” the 527’s only now that everyone, including Senator John McCain, has called on him to condemn the despicable smear campaign of the Swifties for Bush in which they’ve out and out said he lied about his record in Vietnam, including self-inflicting two wounds to win two of his three purple hearts. (Anything to win.)
Will Bush condemn the ads now that the group has been discredited? Now that two members of Bush’s own campaign have had to resign because they broke the law and coordinated with the Swifties? Apparently not. Instead, he hides behind his new found distaste for the groups that he had so feared would lose their right to free speech in the past.
Yo, Dubya, you like to tell us about your moral conviction. So do your surrogates. And yet, where is it?
Let’s see some, Mr. “President”. CONDEMN THE ADS!
Or continue to be the flip-flopping, misleading, lying puppet you’ve been for the last four years. No suprises there. Just continued disappointment.
That said, some Americans may prefer to choose their President based on things like what they will do about the worst unemployment record since Herbert Hoover, what they will do about more Americans than ever without health insurance, what they will do about losing all credibility throughout the world, and becoming more vulnerable to terrorism than ever before.
Then there’s the trouble with oil, a deteriorating environment, and…ya know…actual issues. I guess the Bushies would rather not discuss that.
Never mind. Shoulda stayed in the woods.
Brad,
i think in terms of Ginsberg the question of whether the law was broken or not will turn around his admission that he did not take payment for the advise he gave to the swiftees. Theoretically he could be a lawyer for both groups as long as he wasn’t offering both groups info for coordination and not break the law. However, because he did not charge the swiftees for the advise or apparently draw up a document to say he was doing the work pro bono (he said he hadnt decided to charge them or not) there is the suggestion that the campaign was paying for the swift ads. The question will come down to whom he was billing when he was doing swift work.
I watched Max Cleland yesterday during lunch. He made an absolute fool out of himself – saying that Bush is behind the ads. He has no proof of that. Half of the Swift Boat guys are registered Democrats and Neil voted for Gore in the last election. I actually agree with John above, although, I think nothing illegal was done.
Paul,
First, i think the ties between Bush and the swiftees is beyond question. Hell, Bush appointed Mr. O’Neill’s wife (his wife at the time) to the Texas Court of Appeals. His late law partner ran as lt governor on a ticket with Bush. That guys wife just happens to be the spokeperson for both the swiftees and the people who attacked McCain, etc. There is a prima facie case for collusion. This case is made worse by the fact that Ginsberg did not bill the swiftees for the work he did. Whether anything illegal was done is not for me to decide but i think the evidence thus far more than warrants an investigation into the matter by the controling legal authority in the matter.
I don’t think payment enters into it at all. As long as there is a connection between the two, then the law has been violated. And it’s pretty obvious that there is a connection.
Personally, I think this whole law is a crock. Precisely b/c of issues like these 527 groups. A true reform would be this: unlimited soft money, but you have to print a list of EVERY donor to your campaign in the major US papers. It’ll never happen b/c then we’d find out who really drives the two-party system.
As for this whole Swift Boat b.s., it’s doing a nice job for Bush of distracting us from real issues. Such as the report that poverty is up for the third year straight. 32 million Americans. That’s over 10% of the population of the richest country in the world. THAT’S a news-worthy story.
Once again, Teddy gets it right in almost every regard. Continually proving that there are still sane and responsible Republicans in the country if you look hard enough.
I haven’t read the specific law, but only "collusion" is necessary as I understand. Not if they were paid or not. In other words, if Karl Rove called the Swifties and told them (for free) to do such and such, that would clearly be a violation of the rule of law.
So payment is not necessary as I understand it.
Don’t forget, this is the *second* person to resign from the Bush Campaign. Another advisor to them actually *appeared* in one of the spots!
To folks have had to resign from Bush/Cheney over these spots, while we’re still waiting for *anybody* to resign over the unwarranted death of thousands in Iraq and at the WTC. Go figure.
As to "Neill" having voted for Gore as Paul tried to suggest. Once again, he’s full of shit. In lieu of any evidence for that suggestion. But evidence and/or truth is not important to BushCo and the loyal Manchurian Voters like Paul on the Right, apparently.
The O’Neill lies ("I haven’t had anything to do with politics for 30 years", etc) are all well documented. They’ll still lie to the contrary because most folks don’t bother to check ’em out and/or look through their smoke screen. Mission Accomplished.
Giys,
i didnt say that payment or non payment was part of the law. i simply think that non-payment is strongly in favor of collusion. Collusion, not simple connection, is the issue.
As for disclosure, i said on malloy’s show several years ago that candidates should have to wear the corporate logos of their sponsors like nascar drivers.
> A true reform would be this: unlimited soft money, but you have to print a list of EVERY donor to your campaign in the major US papers.
That is exactly what Bush wanted in 2000 – full disclosure. I also agree with that. I think the Campaign Finance Reform law is bad because it limits free speech. Democrats wanted it because most of the money went to Republicans. Now with 527s, more money is going to the Democrat 527s, by a few rich guys like Soros.
I did not want Bush to sign the bill and really thought that the SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional.
Paul said:
"I think the Campaign Finance Reform law is bad because it limits free speech."
Um, but you stand behind your "President’s" call to shut down all the 527’s???
Pick a position, Paul. Any position.
As to the "few rich guys" supporting the 527’s. As usual, you’re either uninformed or misinformed. Go check the staggering number of small, citizen donors to MoveOn.org — then compare it with the "few rich guys" that are *truly* the bulk of the RNC financing and especially the Swifties (funded, ironically enough by a Texas millionaire friend of Dubya’s…what a shock!)
Nope – I am not behind Bush on shutting down the 527s. I never said that. Can’t you read? I say, shut down no one – full disclosure for all.
No one is giving more money than George Soros and you have not complained about him at all.
It’s lies (remember? Truth in advertising? Equal time? etc.) that’s the problem. Not George Soros’ or anybody else’s money.
(Well, money is actually a *big* prob in politics, but not the one we’re talking about here. Here we’re talking about Bush flip-flopping twice to suit his political needs, the Rule of Law as two members of the Bush campaign (so far) were coordinating with the Swifties (which I know you don’t care about it, since it was *your* guy who messed with the "Rule of Law") and lies and personal attacks used in lieu of discussing the Bush Record, which would kill him.
Paul,
You need to stop accusing people of being illiterate and actually post your position CLEARLY. Then people wouldn’t "accuse" you of things or "twist your words".
Try it. Try being clear & concise. Try stating your position honestly and openly. Minus the bullshit.