Swift Vets, Moveon.org, and 527's

Liberal media? If the media were really liberal, they would dismiss the Swift Boat ads right away. Instead, the CORPORATE news outlets are beating the Swift Boat issue which is changing the way undecided voters are leaning. Polls are showing that the ads are harming Kerry, ad the media coverage is adding to it. If the media were really liberal, the corporate outlets would be talking about the issues of the campaign like social security, health care, education and so on. Every night on MSNBC, CNN and Fox news, there is one of the Swift boat guys going on about how John Kerry doesn't deserve his medals and so on.

As far as the Bush Hitler ad, it was a contest where any person could make an ad and put in on the site, Moveon.org did not make the ad. The reason the media only talked about it for 2 days is because the corporate media put so much pressure on them, moveon.org pulled the ad. It isn't there any more.

I don't believe the mainstream media is liberal or conservative, it's just trying to make money. It was proffitable for them to talk about Iraq during the primaries because it was a sensational issue that brought ratings. It's old now, and there are no more Dean's out there running as anti-war candidates. Kerry has said he still supports the Iraq war, so it is a dead issue.

Never mind the fact that many of the people speaking out against Kerry praised him a couple years earlier........

Moveon.org did not make the ad.

So, if that's true, then just because someone built a oil soaked cross means that I'm not a racist when I put it up and light it on fire.

Sorry, but when most of the Media (except FOX) points out that one lawyer that works for the Bush campaign had given paid legal council (which is legal) to the SBV, but does not say one word about the 12 lawyers that worked, works, or moved between (which is not legal) the Kerry Camp and half dozen 527 against Bush that is not bias?

If you listen to FOX news updates (not the talk shows that are Op-Eds) you will find them posting items slanted both ways.

When the Times put out that chart linking Bush to the SBVs (which is laughable if you look at it), not one Media outlet questioned it on how vague the links where, but they did run it as the truth. The whole article was an Op-Ed piece for god sake. Op-eds are not required to have any facts in it.

As you pointed out the Media is out to make money, which is why FOX news has sucked so much of the rating away from the others. People are tired of a one sided news. I even read an article in a financial magazine saying that the only money CNN is making now is from its international market.

Exley at MoveOn was quoted calling the complaints about the Bush/Hitler ad "Republican Bullshit.". Kerry's people went to work for MoveOn, MoveOn people went to work for Kerry, Kerry has legal counsel that works for both. Not that any of those things matter, since the rules are just for Republicans.

So, if that's true, then just because someone built a oil soaked cross means that I'm not a racist when I put it up and light it on fire.

Kerry did reject this ad, as I'm aware, and he rejected the counter ad to the swift boat ads immediately. Bush has not rejected the Swift boat ads. It wasn't until Monday, or so aftert a few weeks, when he said he rejected all soft money ads. He has not come out directly against these ads as McCain and Kerry asked him to do a few weeks ago. The ad was put in a contest between individual people who don't have millions of dollars to run ads like the swift boat veterans got from Bush supporters. The point is that Moveon.org pulled the ad, and Bush supporters have not pulled theirs.

does not say one word about the 12 lawyers that worked, works, or moved between (which is not legal) the Kerry Camp and half dozen 527 against Bush that is not bias?

Isn't this point conceded pretty much? Just to run for president candidates have to use soft money from supporters. There were conservatives that made the point that these were ordinary veterans just trying to expose the truth, and so it is appropriate to point out who is funding them.

And if Bush is so strong against 527's, why did he sign them into law?

Kerry did reject this ad, as I'm aware, and he rejected the counter ad to the swift boat ads immediately. Bush has not rejected the Swift boat ads. It wasn't until Monday, or so aftert a few weeks, when he said he rejected all soft money ads. He has not come out directly against these ads as McCain and Kerry asked him to do a few weeks ago. The ad was put in a contest between individual people who don't have millions of dollars to run ads like the swift boat veterans got from Bush supporters. The point is that Moveon.org pulled the ad, and Bush supporters have not pulled theirs.

Did Kerry reject all 527 ads as Bush has done? If not, then does that mean that he's all right with every ad that smears Bush except for those two specific ads he mentioned?

Also, Kerry supporters have much more negativity besides that one single ad. What are they planning to do about the rest of it?

"And if Bush is so strong against 527's, why did he sign them into law?"

huh? The only other option would have been to veto McCain's bill. How would that have looked come election time? Instead of just tolerating PAC abuses, he'd have to tolerate claims that he torpedoed campaign finance reform.

Anyway, he didn't create them. Many of these groups, like MoveOn, were alive and well before Bush came into office. The reform bill just left them a loophole.

Which begs the question, if McCain finds these excesses so despicable, why didn't he take care of them when he had the chance. He co-sponsered the bill, right?

"He has not come out directly against these ads as McCain and Kerry asked him to do a few weeks ago."

This has been addressed on other blogs. Bush has no business fighting Kerry's battles for him. I suggest you look at ShadowWar's blog for more in-depth discussion.

"Just to run for president candidates have to use soft money from supporters"

Nope. Bush and Kerry have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate campaign donations. The campaigns don't spend soft money, if they did it wouldn't be "soft", it would be regulated. That, too, has been addressed elsewhere, so I will refrain from saying it all over again...

Which begs the question, if McCain finds these excesses so despicable, why didn't he take care of them when he had the chance. He co-sponsered the bill, right?

The original version of the McCain-Feingold bill was to ban all soft money, but there were senators and reps who were using the excuse that it would violate the first ammendment to ban all forms of soft money. Kerry was pushing for the straight ban as well, but there was not enough support for it.

Bush and Kerry have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate campaign donations. The campaigns don't spend soft money, if they did it wouldn't be "soft", it would be regulated.

Each side has raised almost $300,000,000 in soft money in addition to what each party makes in "legitimate" donations. Neither candidate really bends over backwards to reject this money, they just say they reject it, but they'll take the money anyways. The DNC and RNC clearly have a say as to how this money is going to be spent. I don't know where this has been talked about, but I'll look.

Here's a good article on the situation.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/25/Decision2004/Despite_reforms__grou.shtml

It wasn't until Monday, or so after a few weeks, when he said he rejected all soft money ads.

Naaaa, wrong answer. George W. Bush submitted a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads. His request was denied. http://www.fec.gov/

He has not come out directly against these ads as McCain and Kerry asked him to do a few weeks ago.

One reporter cited the swift boat ads and asked, "When you say that you want to stop all --" "All of them," Bush responded. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s."
http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/

What part of "That means that ad" don't you understand?

The ad was put in a contest between individual people who don't have millions of dollars to run ads like the swift boat veterans got from Bush supporters.

Wrong answer number 2: The organization was started on 23 March 2004. Between that date until 30 July 2004 (about when the ads started) only $158,750.00 was donated. You can check for yourself all 527s must file with the IRS how much and by who is donating too, check the records yourself:

http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=13244&formType=E72

But just for good note I decided to see how much Mr. Soros had donated to Moveon.org: $1,544,285.00

http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=11412&formType=E72
http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/Print.action?formId=12191&formType=E72

And if Bush is so strong against 527's, why did he sign them into law?

I'll let him answer that:

The president said he "thought we'd gotten rid of that" when he signed the McCain-Feingold legislation instituting campaign finance reform.http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/

The man is not a Fortuneteller and even McCain says the there was mistakes in the Bill (that was not seen at the time it was passed).

Next time just the fact please.

That means that ad, every other ad.

God! Each time I read that, it irritates me.

Each OTHER ad means he wants to ban half of entire ads.

Naaaa, wrong answer. George W. Bush submitted a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads. His request was denied. http://www.fec.gov/

If Bush really wanted to kill these ads he would propose legislation to kill them now so they would be dealt with once and for all. Saying you're against these ads and doing something about it are 2 different things. What legislation has Bush proposed to kill this issue? Weren't the republicans using the 1st ammendment excuse as to the reason for trying to kill it in the first place?

What part of "That means that ad" don't you understand?

The Bush administration has said they respect John Kerry's war record, but they have not condemned the ads for personally attacking them. These are two different issues. He was condemning the ad because it was a soft money ad. He has not condemned the ad for attacking Kerry personally, which Kerry and McCain have asked him to do. There was a similar ad attacking Bush for dodging the draft, which Kerry condemned. You don't have to refer to a vague answer, Kerry directly pointed out that ad.

Wrong answer number 2: The organization was started on 23 March 2004. Between that date until 30 July 2004 (about when the ads started) only $158,750.00 was donated.

From what I understand, the Hilter ad was put in from a contest of people who could make their own ads from home or whatever and put them online so that anyone could vote on which ad was the best and they would be put on TV. The Hitler ad was pretty popular, but it was scrapped right away. Many of the submissions were by middle to lower class people who don't have millions in their bank account.

These ads here:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/

The man is not a Fortuneteller

Like I said before, that was 2 years ago and what has he done to fix the issue? Submitt a petition to the FEC knowing it would get killed? Saying you're against these ads and doing something about it are 2 different things.

Many of the submissions were by middle to lower class people who don't have millions in their bank account.

I will use my mediphore again: It does not matter how mush the Oil Soaked Cross cost to make, Moveon.org is the one who put it up and struck the match.

Wood that cost $20 Dollars still burns as bright as wood that cost $100.

Each OTHER ad means he wants to ban half of entire ads.

no, when he says "That ad, every other ad", it's pretty clear that he means all ads...

This is exactly WHY he didn't mention it by name. So many people are waiting to trap him with semantics and twist his words exactly like what you have done on at least two threads. It may not have been perfect English, but the meaning of his statement was rather clear.

Yeesh, tha anti bushies make me feel dirty defensing Bush.

Saying you're against these ads and doing something about it are 2 different things.

Isn't George W. Bush submitting a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads doing something?

There was a similar ad attacking Bush for dodging the draft, which Kerry condemned. You don't have to refer to a vague answer, Kerry directly pointed out that ad.

Has Kerry condemned every ad attacking Bush, including the Hitler ad or just that specific ad?

This is exactly WHY he didn't mention it by name. So many people are waiting to trap him with semantics and twist his words exactly like what you have done on at least two threads. It may not have been perfect English, but the meaning of his statement was rather clear.

I'm sure that even if Bush had said "the Swift Boat ad," there'd be people complaining that he didn't name the SBVs by their names, and if he did that, they'd complain that he didn't include their middle names.

I will use my mediphore again: It does not matter how mush the Oil Soaked Cross cost to make, Moveon.org is the one who put it up and struck the match.

Do you have any brighter ideas of getting lower income citizens involved in politics? Or is it only reserved for those who have millions of dollars. Moveon.org only gave people who wanted to remove Bush from office the avenue to express what they felt. Isn't it better to have people who are harmed by Bush policies get their voices heard? But somehow it's the same as the KKK terrorizing blacks.

Most of the ads put on at moveon.org are attacking Bush's record in office. Isn't it okay to talk about his record in office? Isn't talking about the issues healthy for a political climate? The winning ad is a good one about how the economy might end up for children. I think it's better to talk about Bush and Kerry's plan for the economy and jobs instead of whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia Christmas Eve in the 60's.

Isn't George W. Bush submitting a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads doing something?

No, it's not. It was a politically calculted move to get people to think he's against these ads, because it was unlikely anything would be done about it. If he really wanted to stop them, he would with a stricter bill, not bringing it up to the FEC. Bringing it up to the FEC will do little to stop these ads before Nov. 2. He's also doing this to warm up to McCain who is campaigning for him in Arizona.

Has Kerry condemned every ad attacking Bush, including the Hitler ad or just that specific ad?

The draft dodging ad was condemned by Kerry, but it's possible he was doing it to get Bush to do the same. I believe the DNC denounced the Hitler ad, but the RNC is the one who sent it out to stimulate its base.

I'm sure that even if Bush had said "the Swift Boat ad," there'd be people complaining that he didn't name the SBVs by their names, and if he did that, they'd complain that he didn't include their middle names.

Bush has the chance to squash the SBV issue, but he's not since it is helping him. When the DUI thing came out against Bush in 2000, it was immediately squashed by Gore. I'm was hoping Bush would've done the same.

Do you have any brighter ideas of getting lower income citizens involved in politics?

Tell their friends about their ideas and why they think they're right, tell their co-workers, explain to their family why they are for a certain person, go to a political HQ for the candidate and ask for material to use... theres alot more ways than you think

Actually, a lower income citizen getting involved in politics is incredibly easy.

First, realize that more decisions are made on the state level than the local level. Go to every debate by the candidates for state senate or assembly in your district, introduce yourself to the candidates and tell them what you think. Pick one of the candidates, and campaign for them diligently. If they win, then you have an "in" in the state legislature. This can be used to procure an "in" in the federal House or Senate, particularly if your legislator is of a different party.

An even better way to increase your status is to get on the board of a special interest group (for me it has always been our homeschool groups). Then, when you go to your legislature, you represent yourself as a lobbyist for that special interest. Believe me, when they know you have some influence over 150 or more votes....THEY LISTEN!!! I have had it happen to me on numerous times, and I've never been a person of wealth.

I hope these ideas help you.

"Each side has raised almost $300,000,000 in soft money in addition to what each party makes in "legitimate" donations. Neither candidate really bends over backwards to reject this money, they just say they reject it, but they'll take the money anyways. The DNC and RNC clearly have a say as to how this money is going to be spent. I don't know where this has been talked about, but I'll look."

I am beginning to wonder if you know what soft money actually is. Soft money never, ever touches campaign hands. Campaigns are violating the law if they have any say on how it is spent, ect. People working for 527s can't have contact with campaigns.

This is opposed to legitimate donations that are given to the campaigns themselvest to spend. The last figure I saw for Kerry was about 80 million in soft money being spent by anti-Bush elements, and around $200,000,000 spent by his campaign.

Come on, the Kerry campaign spends two hundred million dollars, but can't survive with out 80 million in smear? Bullshit. The mere fact that 527s are not allowed to tell you who they want you to vote for overcomes the argument that the legitimate campaigns can't do without them. They court them because it helps them to run a "clean" campaign and smear the other party under the table.

As an aside, people on the Bush side invited Kerry to join in the legal effort to stop all soft money electioneering. Kerry's camp replied that "That isn't the issue". No, I suppose as long as only Bush is being targeted it wouldn't be an issue at all...

Do you have any brighter ideas of getting lower income citizens involved in politics? Or is it only reserved for those who have millions of dollars. Moveon.org only gave people who wanted to remove Bush from office the avenue to express what they felt. Isn't it better to have people who are harmed by Bush policies get their voices heard? But somehow it's the same as the KKK terrorizing blacks.

I don't see how that justifies publishing the Bush as Hitler ad. Are you saying that MoveOn.org didn't moderate the entries it received, so if I were to post an ad that that attacked MoveOn.org and Kerry instead of Bush, it would have appeared on the site? If they didn't do any moderation and allowed anything to appear on their site, then I guess MoveOn.org isn't to blame for the ad.

And just because somebody who isn't rich created the ad does not mean that the ad is justified.

The draft dodging ad was condemned by Kerry, but it's possible he was doing it to get Bush to do the same. I believe the DNC denounced the Hitler ad, but the RNC is the one who sent it out to stimulate its base.

Why hasn't Kerry condemned all the ads out there as Bush has? Are you saying that the RNC created the ad?

Bush has the chance to squash the SBV issue, but he's not since it is helping him. When the DUI thing came out against Bush in 2000, it was immediately squashed by Gore. I'm was hoping Bush would've done the same.

How could he squash it? He already condemned that ad, even if some want to pretend they don't know which ad he was talking about when he said "that" ad.

Ignore it. This is "Say what I tell you to say or I will villify you for it" garbage.

Bush wants to end soft money advertising, Kerry doesn't. Kerry has hired people from MoveOn, his people have gone to MoveOn. Kerry doesn't want to end under-the-table smear campaigns, he just wants to dictate what appears in them. That is coordination, and that is illegal.

Either you do away with them, or let them say what they want to say. You can't give people the right to make anti-Kerry ads and then use the office of the President to squash what they are doing legally. If Kerry likes the idea of using his power to crush the legally-expressed opinion of US citizens, all the more reason to keep his sorry ass out of office.

Isn't George W. Bush submitting a request on 4 May 2004 to the FEC (Federal Election Commission) to stop soft money ads doing something? No, it's not. It was a politically calculted move to get people to think he's against these ads, because it was unlikely anything would be done about it. If he really wanted to stop them, he would with a stricter bill, not bringing it up to the FEC.

That is such an asinine statement. You give the impression that you have no idea how the government works and what role the different branches of government have.

So according to you, Bush 'needs' to do this and Bush 'needs' to do that, but, if he does, he didn't really mean it. It was just a trick?

Not to mention the fact that the president doesn't write bills, he suggests legislation for congress to write and pass (What he is currently doing with McCain regarding 527s and disclosure). His best recourse, other than that, is to request for the FEC to change rules regarding 527s (already tried that).

"No, it's not. It was a politically calculted move to get people to think he's against these ads,"

Kind of like Kerry scorning soft money and then getting pantsed by the posturing. Now he doesn't appear to be so sensitive to smear... that isn't directed at him...

I think it's better to talk about Bush and Kerry's plan for the economy and jobs instead of whether or not Kerry was in Cambodia Christmas Eve in the 60's.

Sorry, But for me the issue of this election is how much you can trust a Presidents word.

I look around and don't see all the doom and groom that Kerry says. When he say that jobs have been lost and people are earning less he is lying (we have debunked that multiple times here with the bureau of statistics). This is the same guy that wants to send our pharmaceutical industry to Canada.

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employed in July 2004: 139.7 million

Employed in Dec 2000 (last months of Clinton): 135.8 million

Net increase of 3.9 million jobs

Reference:
http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.01052001.news

Kerry has shown a constant pattern of lying to Congress and the people. The SBVs are just bringing more of them to light. The man constantly shifts sides on issues just to get a political advantage. I may not agree with Bush on half of his issues, but I know what they are. I want to know that when the President sends me into battle that he will back me up. Kerry will send a person into battle, not give him protective armor, call him baby killers, and want to remove the soldiers before the job is done, just because he sees a political gain. That's why Kerry is the man of the year for communist Vietnam in 1971 and if elected President will be the man of the year for the Mullahs in Iran next year.

No, it's not. It was a politically calculated move to get people to think he's against these ads, because it was unlikely anything would be done about it. If he really wanted to stop them, he would with a stricter bill, not bringing it up to the FEC. Bringing it up to the FEC will do little to stop these ads before Nov. 2. He's also doing this to warm up to McCain who is campaigning for him in Arizona.

The latest news is that John McCain and President Bush are going to submit a Bill to stop these ads, but when Kerry was asked to join in, he refused. I believe you reply to this will be: "he should have done it sooner". If he would have done it back in March, when everything was starting to become apparent, your the first person who would have screamed "He is doing it as revenge or a political move to stop only attack ads on him." (Because at the time he was the only one being attacked).

Moveon.org only gave people who wanted to remove Bush from office the avenue to express what they felt.

Again, you mean light the match.

Moveon.org is there to get the voice out for the poor? (Says Mr. Soros) Like Gideon MacLeish said above there are many other more effective ways for the poor express themselves, other then a Billionaires web site. Gideon MacLeish knows what he is taking about because he has worked at a Democratic campaign before.

Actually, a lower income citizen getting involved in politics is incredibly easy.

It depends on what issue your working on. In my state, elected officials have often done their best to keep us out of poliics. The best example of this is when we tried to get the Gov. Davis and the Regents to lower tuition in the UC's. The regents held their meetings in seclusion and kicked us out of the meetings and called the cops. We petitioned, begged and pleaded, by tuition was raised %40. Schwarzenneger did the same thing with the budget excuse. It does work to be activce like this, but we obviously don't have the same power as million dollar lobbiest. Even with local issues, it's not so easy to get involved when you don't agree with the norm.

I am beginning to wonder if you know what soft money actually is.

Yes, I know exactly what it is. I got these facts from the St. Petersburg Times.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/25/Decision2004/Despite_reforms__grou.shtml
It says in one year, almost 300 million were raised. I don't know the figures as to who spends what this year, but Bush and congress had a chance to kill all Soft Money in 2002. There were politicians crying out that the first ammendment would be violated. I also recall Kerry and the writers of McCain-Feingold wanted to restrict what special interests were legally allowed to spend, but that was killed too. It's pretty obvious that they say they are against campaign contribtions, but don't really want to do anything about them.

Are you saying that MoveOn.org didn't moderate the entries it received, so if I were to post an ad that that attacked MoveOn.org and Kerry instead of Bush, it would have appeared on the site?

They removed the ad right away. What else did you want them to do?

Why hasn't Kerry condemned all the ads out there as Bush has? Are you saying that the RNC created the ad?

Why hasn't Bush been active against these ads in the past and do more than condemn the ads? He knew they were coming up this election cycle and he's barely gona put a half-ass effort to stop them. The RNC did not create the ad, they brought up the controversy about them when they sent the ad in a email to their members to get their base upset about it.

How could he squash it?

He's criticizing the ad for using soft money, that's it. He says he says he respects Kerry's war time experience but by remaining neutral on that, he is condoning the ad.

Bush wants to end soft money advertising, Kerry doesn't.

What has he done in the past to stop them?

What has he done in the past to stop them?

Haven't you been reading? You're repeating the same things over and over despite evidence that denies your assertions.