Bush has a magic time machine  

Magical mystery tour

Or at least that is what some here would have us believe with their baseless assertions.

It has been asserted here repeatedly that Bush only criticized Democratic 527's like Moveon.org in an attempt to deflect criticism about SwiftBoat Vets and their attacks on Kerry, which of course Democrats link to Bush.

The reasoning is that Democrats would of course have a problem with SwiftVet's and their actions, so Bush would have a problem with left leaning groups and thus regular folks would just dismiss it as politics. People dismissing it would prove Bush is evil because, hey those SwiftBoat guys are really evil liars. It's not fair to dismiss evil liars as "politics as usual" because the Democratic 527's never lied about Bush and didn't act in kind etc.

Except, the reality is that we can see in the link above, that Bush filed complaints against Democratic leaning 527's in MARCH before SwiftBoat had ever run a single ad.

I like this bit.


Now of course some of us contended that SwiftBoat formed from the Kerry book in January and that Bush had been hit with millions of dollars of critical ads for months by groups that were obviously in collusion.



How can one be progressive and expect someone like me to change their mind about their candidate when they use $60 million of unregulated soft money to illegally influence an election.

Sad... and claiming Bush was only critical to protect SwiftBoat when he had already filed a complaint, absolutely wrong.

Nick

If he denounces all 527's, doesn't that include SBVfT?

When I read something like this for example...


along with what you've posted. It appears that you believe Bush's condemnation of ALL 527's not credible since he didn't have a problem with 527's before being asked to condemn SBVfT.

But the point is, that he has repeatedly had problems with 527's and even filed a complaint about it back in March.

To me it seems very consistant with regard to Bush and his actions. Bush has condemned all 527's, praised Kerry's service and even called it more heroic than his own.

I mean what more do you want from the guy? Especially when NOTHING, repeat NOTHING is expected of Kerry.

Bush opened all his medical records. Kerry did not.

Bush says that WOMD were not the only justification for Iraq and is called a liar. Kerry says that even without the WOMD he still would have authorized and he is called... the truth I suppose.

Kerry questioned the service of Bush and of many of his commanding officers in statements and publications this year. He did so, especially with regard to the commanding officers, completely UNPROVOKED. Yet, them setting the record straight is an "attack", a "lie", etc.

I think the left wants one giant speech code where only one side gets to talk, attack and respond. They can do anything they want by their justification.

Nick

Actually you pretty much showed me you have no idea about campaign finance law, limits, etc. I mean you don't even understand the basic terminology.

Nick

I didn't say it was you alone or you specifically.

But again, Kerry didn't do what was asked either. He was asked if he endorses what 527's are doing and specifically if he would denounce 527 actions and would not address either.

If anyone should be condemned, it should be Kerry who uses the response of a group of people he specifically attacked as a cover for millions of unregulated dirty money.

Vile indeed...

Nick

He's not on because he seems to believe that the Republican advantage in hard money was created by large donations by the rich. Hard money is called that for a reason. It is severely restricted. He implies that having someone like a Donald Trump is favorable. How can this be so when even the Donald was limited to a $1000 donation?

Democrats are just as capable of raising hard money as Republicans. They have shown that in this election with Kerry raising $233 million.

But when I see a comment like this....



That is a fundimental disconnect because the hard money was $1000 then and $2000 now. Donald Trump could give no more than any other person to shape an election.

The Democrats didn't keep their mouth shut about it. They knew they were creating the loophole while voting for it. McCain has declared that the loophole isn't really a loophole. It is Democratic leaning groups basically breaking the law which is why Bush had asked for action back in March. But the reality is that Democrats knew they weren't giving away their soft money, they already knew how they were going to divert it. It is the Republicans who got caught flatfooted because they actually followed the law instead of breaking it. If you look at candidate and party campaign spending the candidates are quite close. If you look at 527 spending, it isn't even close.


No Republicans thought they were following the law. Democrats already knew they were going to break it. It is the Republicans who were blindsided. Again it shows the fundimental disconnect of Aquatic's understanding. He somehow things that the Republican's had some huge advantage because people were writing $5-10 million dollar checks when in reality it is the Democrats who have relied on unlimited soft money.

Also you need to address the fact that the soft money wasn't a problem because it was Democratic or Republican. It was a problem because it is considered to be corrupting and influencing. You make it sound like it was banned simply because Democrats had an advantage there. It was banned because someone writes you a ten million dollar check, and people find it hard to believe you don't owe them a few favors.

Aquatic makes this claim...


Again a disconnect because if you are "for the people" you should be advantaged in a system that requires lots of small donations from everyone instead of allowing a few people to write big soft money checks. Instead it is the Republicans who get loads of small donations "from the people" while Democrats are and were getting their money by having a few peole write big checks.


Wrong, but thanks for saying it since Grove seemed to believe that no one was making that claim.

These groups are breaking the law. Soft money is always supposed to be used for get out the vote efforts and things of that nature. It is not supposed to be used for television commercials.

I mean take the basic nature of the complaint about SwiftVets, it is that a few rich guys (Republican rich guys in this instance) can run some ads (lies as claimed by the left) and affect the entire election. They say this is wrong and they are right not because of what has been said, but because a few people deciding for all of us by outspending us limits speech. That is why Bush condemned all 527's during this election cycle because soft money shouldn't be used to give the very rich a huge voice. That is why all this campaign finance reform happened in the first place.

So Bush was right in filing a complaint in March, and right in condemning all 527's who are spending soft money on television and other ads which specifically mention a candidate. Again it is easy to see the consistancy of reasoning and argument there.

Campaign finance reform is about limited speech so that the little guy doesn't get shouted down by the big guy. It is about not allowing the big guys to buy the election. Aquatic alleges that it is the Republicans who are using their big guys and big donations to shout down the "people" who can only give little donations. The reality is the opposite. It is the Republicans who are best at raising small donation hard money from lots of people. Aquatic calls special interest groups "soft money." That isn't true. Soft money is any large donation that is supposed to be used for non-speech purposes. Voter registration, getting out the vote, driving people to vote, calling them and asking them to vote, that doesn't limit or overwhelm speech. That is actually helpful because spending money to help people exercise their right to vote is considered great.

But again, using soft money for speech, that is not considered to be an advantage to the "people." It is considered to be corrupting. Thus the fact that Democrats seem only capable of getting money via large donations from a few people means they are the ones who are beholden to special interests. They can't get the money any other way and so the alternative is lose. Lose or be under the influence of special interests, it is clear which side of that coin the Democrats have been on for years. Union money, trial lawyer money, etc.

The point is then you adjust your views so the "people" will donate to you. Instead it is the Democrats who allow the super-rich to attempt to buy elections claiming the interests of "the people."

Nick

Umm... you should really try making sense.

Nick

You know, you can claim it wouldn't have gotten off the ground, but the point is it still would have gotten the vote of John Kerry. If you think that an extreme position, then you are entitled to it, but don't complain when the rest of us won't follow you don't that narrow path.

Nick

No dipshit. Stop reframing the question since you don't like the answer.

Here maybe this source will stop you from believing everything Kerry did in October of 2002 is more than just "Republican spin."

CommonDreams.org


Now the next paragraph is the best bit for people like yourself who want to have it both ways... war aggressor and pacifist in one...


Kerry claimed that he would be the first to speak out against the war if he considered it unjust and wrong. Another flip-flop I guess...


There is more of course, but the point is Kerry has tried to portray his vote two ways. The real anti-war supporters expose his record for what it truly is, support for Bush.

Nick

So be done. You tried to spin the question into something else instead of addressing it. I took a left of center source and proved you totally wrong. Kerry is trying to be a war agressor and pacifist at the same time and it doesn't work. Nonsense like "he though he was voting for X, not Y" is just bull as the article I mentioned above illustrates. There were later statements, later votes, and more evidence to show that Kerry fully understood that he was voting for war and that the war may have not even found WOMD's. Anything else you try to toss out to blur that fact is just spin.

Nick