“I can’t be more plain about it,” Bush said. “I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s (political groups that sponsor to ads). I think they’re bad for the system.”
Uggabugga links to a list of 527s and asks, “Why does the Bush campaign object to ads that the Oregon Grocery Association might run? What are they doing that is objectionable?”
Sorry to keep harping on this, but it’s pretty incredible that a serious candidate would talk like this. I doubt that five people in a hundred would agree with Bush’s position if it was presented in a cooler-headed context. The right of people to organize and speak out is right at the heart of the First Amendment.
And yet, this has been Bush’s talking point: ban all the ads from unregulated groups. The Sierra Club. The Club for Growth. The League of Conservation Voters. GOPAC. The National Association of Realtors. They’re all bad for the system, and none of them should be allowed to advertise at all. Bush thinks that the government should have this kind of power; he claims that he thought that he had already banned these groups from speaking.
Incredible.
{ 65 comments }
Kieran Healy 08.23.04 at 8:03 pm
Why does Mr Hooper hate America?
Dick Thompson 08.23.04 at 8:19 pm
The ironical point is that Swift Boat Veterans is a 527 group, which Kerry claims is breaking the law by being so cozy with the Bush campaign.
memer 08.23.04 at 8:29 pm
Not so ironic. It’s all about optics for the ignorant. Giving an appearance of being ‘above the fray.’ “Oh, both sides are being naughty? No supper for either of you!”
Even if this ban also squelches third-party yapping on his behalf, the incumbent still comes out ahead if his opponent’s pitbulls are muzzled as well.
Russkie 08.23.04 at 8:33 pm
The linked article says:
emphasis added. According to MSNBC he meant attack ads.
Additionally, asking them to stop isn’t the same as a “ban”.
Do you really think that he’d object to pro-Kerry greengrocer ads if you asked him?
Ted Barlow 08.23.04 at 8:44 pm
No, asking them to stop is not the same as a ban. But he signed a law, and he thought that that law would ban independent soft-money advertising. That’s a ban- that’s what he said he intended to do.
I’m pretty sure that he wouldn’t object to grocer ads. I’m also pretty sure that he doesn’t actually object to independent political speech; it’s just the soundbite he’s stuck with. I’m making the point that that soundbite, his stated policy, has genuinely scary implications.
Nat Whilk 08.23.04 at 8:45 pm
Ted:
Have you read the FEC complaint about 527s that Bush-Cheney filed in March?
Ted Barlow 08.23.04 at 9:09 pm
No, I haven’t; thanks for pointing it out. I’ll have to read it.
paul 08.23.04 at 9:13 pm
As for Kerry’s “claims” that the swift boat operatives are too cozy with the BC04 campaign, two county GOP offices (in Florida, surprise, surprise) have promoted events for the group under the GOP banner.
I don’t which is worse, that he doesn’t understand what a 527 group is or that he doesn’t understand the law he signed?
Nat Whilk 08.23.04 at 9:16 pm
Ted:
One other thing. As I understand it, the Toner-Thomas proposal would require public communications by 527s that “promote, attack, support or oppose a federal candidate” be 100% financed by hard money. How substantial a difference is there between that proposal and what Bush seems to want?
Soli 08.23.04 at 9:17 pm
Point that’s totally missed … President Bush doesn’t want to ban everything, just the one area of soft money where the Democratic party is winning. The odds on him never saying a word about 501c’s (where, unlike the 527, the donors are not reported) are astronomical. Funny how certain folks really only like free speech when they don’t have to take responsibility for what they say. Of course, the 501c’s aren’t supposed to support specific candidates, just “issues”, but this has been a joke for years.
Micha Ghertner 08.23.04 at 9:19 pm
The right of people to organize and speak out is right at the heart of the First Amendment.
My, how the chickens have come home to roost. I remember how, when libertarians like myself objected to McCain-Feingold on First Amendment grounds, conservatives and modern liberals alike screeched, “Money doesn’t equal speech! Money doesn’t equal speech!”
I take little comfort now when these same people admit that money does, in fact, equal — or at least is a necessary prerequisite for speech.
perianwyr 08.23.04 at 9:25 pm
Yeah, isn’t it funny?
Cold comfort though.
Nat Whilk 08.23.04 at 9:26 pm
Soli wrote: “The odds on [Bush] never saying a word about 501c’s (where, unlike the 527, the donors are not reported) are astronomical.”
Do you think Bush’s dislike for Moveon.org applies only to the 527 part and not at all to the 501c part?
Rob 08.23.04 at 9:41 pm
No, I’m sure he hates it all. But GOPAC is loved more than MoveOn is hated.
JRoth 08.23.04 at 9:50 pm
micha-
Nice misdirection. Bush isn’t talkng about funding curbs on 527s – he’s talking about them being permitted to exist at all. As in, banning speech directly, not trying to regulate the funding of it (note that MoveOn is well-regulated – its funding sources are fully disclosed – more speech!).
Anyway, you’ve also cast yourself as Cassandra, pretending that Ted, and implicitly all those objecting to Bush’s censorship instinct, was a McCain-Feingold absolutist. Atrios, for example, has prefaced every statement on Bush’s bizarre statements with a statement of his own M-F misgivings.
Nat Whilk 08.23.04 at 9:59 pm
Rob wrote: “GOPAC is loved more than MoveOn is hated.”
GOPAC is a 527, not a 501c.
crutan 08.23.04 at 10:09 pm
And MoveOn is a PAC, not a 527. That distinction seems to get missed a lot.
Doctor Memory 08.23.04 at 10:09 pm
(George W. Bush is a serious candidate?)
russkie 08.23.04 at 10:11 pm
Nat Whilk: Careful about quoting facts at people here. They’ll start calling you really nasty names and assail your motivations and loyalties.
Brett Bellmore 08.23.04 at 10:19 pm
Nothing incredible about it: There IS no logical stopping point for the campaign censorship movement, (Let’s call it what it is.) short of silencing everybody but the candidates themselves, and likely, everybody but the incumbants. Either you believe the cure for bad speech is more speech, or you believe the cure for it is a gag. And Bush just joined McCain (And most of the Democratic party.) in the “gag” camp.
ostap 08.23.04 at 10:20 pm
The President really ought to know what he’s signing, but his ignorance isn’t quite as outlandish as you suggest. My understanding is that by signing McCain-Feingold he has banned them from speaking in favor of voting for a particular candidate. They’re allowed to slime the opponent to their heart’s delight, they’re just not allowed to be positive and glowing about their own favorite.
Seems kind of back-asswards, doesn’t it?
Micha Ghertner 08.23.04 at 10:25 pm
jroth,
Nice strawman. I wasn’t only talking about funding curbs, although that is surely included in my general criticism of campaign finance reform. No, my criticism also applies to the actual letter of McCain-Feingold, which specifically bans political ads two months before an election. Were you and Ted as outraged when McCain-Feingold was proposed and passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court as you are now at Bush? Or are you and he just using this to score cheap political points?
Only a tiny minority (and I include the ACLU in this group) raised any objection to campaign finance reform when it was proposed and before it was implemented. Everyone else was a gung-ho supporter. And now the chickens have come home to roost.
As in, banning speech directly, not trying to regulate the funding of it
So if Bush instead said, “These groups are free to exist, but they can only spend $X on political advertisements or collect $X from contributers”, would you be okay with that, because, after all, money doesn’t equal speech?
What kind of gall it takes for all these people to now complain about campaign finance reform and how “the right of people to organize and speak out is right at the heart of the First Amendment”, when people like me were ignored and derided for pointing out that in today’s world, speech costs money, and limiting the amount organizations can collect and spend also limits their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.
Where are all of the apologies and mea culpas?
I guess being a statist means never having to say you’re sorry.
Ted 08.23.04 at 10:27 pm
I don’t understand: have you been condemning Kerry’s calls for Bush to denounce the SwiftVets ads? Other than the target, what is the difference between attack ads run by these guys, versus those run by Soros?
Kerry’s out there tacitly approving all the ads attacking Bush, while crying foul about the ads that attack him. Unimpressive.
ostap 08.23.04 at 10:28 pm
Just to clarify my own position (to the extent that any of you care), I’m not in favor of banning any kind of speech (short of exhortations to murder) by anyone in political races, but if you’re going to ban something, eliminating the positive and accentuating the negative seems odd.
Fiddler's three 08.23.04 at 10:38 pm
They are always yapping about Soros also.
Is there any way to suck back out of our political system the many billions Sun Myung Moon has spent propping up the extremists on the right? Moon, not even a citizen, perverted our political system with billions and you’d think he never existed by watching TV. He’s the biggest player on the right – outspent Scaife and has a much more specific, blatantly anti- American agenda.
The new right, the Bush cult, is the result of years of his efforts. He calls it “the natural subjugation of the American government and population.”
Without Moon funding his brand of conservatism over the last 25 years, 2000 wouldn’t have been close enough to go to court. For that matter, doubtful someone as extreme and ill-prepared as Bush would have ever been given the Repug nomination.
sad truth…
Matt Weiner 08.23.04 at 10:56 pm
I don’t understand: have you been condemning Kerry’s calls for Bush to denounce the SwiftVets ads?
Indeed, you don’t understand. Kerry has been calling for Bush to denounce the SwiftVet ads; he has not, as far as I know, said that Bush should legally ban the SwiftVet ads. There’s a big difference.
Other than the target, what is the difference between attack ads run by these guys, versus those run by Soros?
The SwiftVet ads is that they’re false from beginning to end, and mostly likely libelous. I’m not sure which Soros ads you mean but I don’t think any are as factually dubious as the SwiftVet ads.
Kerry’s out there tacitly approving all the ads attacking Bush, while crying foul about the ads that attack him. Unimpressive.
Actually, Kerry has denounced a MoveOn ad that attacks Bush’s National Guard service or lack thereof. Also, see under the difference between “false” and “perhaps true.”
As for the rest, I think Micha and Brett have a good point–this underlines civil libertarian concerns about McCain-Feingold. The real statist solution is some sort of heavy public financing; Maine and Arizona have pretty good laws IIRC.
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.23.04 at 11:29 pm
“And MoveOn is a PAC, not a 527. That distinction seems to get missed a lot.”
Nope, it has a PAC arm and a 527 arm. It is both.
dak 08.23.04 at 11:30 pm
I don’t understand:
That much is certain.
…have you been condemning Kerry’s calls for Bush to denounce the SwiftVets ads?
There’s nothing even close to equivalent between “calling to denounce a specific ad” and “calling for an end to all advertising by 527s”. Bush is pushing for a ban, he says as much (in fact, he says he thought he’d achieved as much).
Other than the target, what is the difference between attack ads run by these guys, versus those run by Soros?
Uh, well, the SBVT ads are a personal attack against Kerry, with no hard evidence backing up the accusations, with hard evidence directly contradicting their claims, with past statements directly contradicting their own current claims, and with several blatant lies surrounding the group and its members (John O’Neill has lied about his political contributions, about his co-authors role, etc.). The Bush campaign has also repeatedly said it would not question John Kerry’s service to his country; that it, in fact, honors his service. Given that, you’d think Bush would’ve wanted to denounce the ad and distance himself from the claims made in them. But given that opportunity time and again, he did anything but denounce the ad.
In contrast, the TANG ad (even though it has evidence backing it up) was quickly condemned by John Kerry. Aside from that, the attack ads MoveOn has run (we’re not talking about contest entries) have been largely issues-based and backed by hard evidence. Neither have the ads received a lot of free play and media coverage. And the MoveOn guys haven’t been featured all over cable news, to repeat their charges against Bush.
I can’t actually see any similarity beyond how they are legally organized, and the fact that they are both partisan within the context of the campaign. So: since you’re making the claim that these two groups are at all similar, why don’t you say how?
JP 08.24.04 at 12:23 am
A quick summary.
1. 527s running ads in general = GOOD
2. 527s coordinating with campaigns before running ads = BAD
3. 527s lying in their ads = REALLY BAD
McCain-Feingold banned #2. This was a GOOD IDEA, but didn’t work well enough.
Bush wants to ban #1. This is a BAD IDEA.
At the same time that Bush is supporting a ban on #1, he is actually doing #2 and #3. This is DISHONEST, UNETHICAL, and a CANCER on the democratic process.
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 12:38 am
Matt Weiner wrote: “The SwiftVet ads is that they’re false from beginning to end[sic]”
The beginning of the first SwiftVet ad shows John Edwards saying “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him.” I hadn’t realized that that was false.
Brett Bellmore 08.24.04 at 1:36 am
“Only a tiny minority (and I include the ACLU in this group) raised any objection to campaign finance reform when it was proposed and before it was implemented.”
Excuse me, but at 4 million plus members, the NRA might be a minority, but we’re hardly a “tiny” minority.
Thomas 08.24.04 at 1:42 am
“Section 527 groups need to play by the rules that all other political committees are bound by” said Mr. McCain, a Republican from Arizona.
Mr. Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, said, “The F.E.C. must not bless a new circumvention of the election laws.”
“As a matter of policy and constitutional law, Common Cause believes that the Commission should regulate the funding of electoral speech by entities, such as 527s, that are primarily concerned with affecting federal electoral outcomes to assure: (1) that there is full public disclosure of their sources of funding; (2) that rules prohibiting corporations and labor unions from spending treasury funds to affect the outcome of federal elections are fully and effectively enforced; (3) that independent entities do not funnel illegal soft money to federal candidates or national political parties; and (4) that large contributions to organizations formed for the primary purpose of affecting federal elections may not be used to gain undue access to and influence over elected officials. ”
______________
A Disgraceful Performance by a Failed FEC
Democracy 21 , June 8, 2004
A disgraceful performance last month by the Federal Election Commission proved once again that it needs to be replaced with a real enforcement agency.
In failing to adopt new regulations to prevent 527 groups from improperly using soft money in the 2004 federal elections, the FEC repeated the same enormous blunder it made when it misinterpreted the campaign finance laws to create the political-party soft money loophole. That FEC “mistake” resulted in a $1.5 billion national scandal over several federal elections and required the enactment of the McCain-Feingold law to overcome it.
Last month the agency was suppose to take action on new rules concerning 527 groups. The FEC, however, decided not to act and instead voted for “further study” of the matter, a classic bureaucratic abdication of responsibility.
The FEC has no excuses for its latest wrong decision. It flies in the face of the recent Supreme Court decision in the McConnell case that provided a clear message to the FEC that it was misinterpreting the campaign finance laws and strongly admonished the agency for doing so.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the lead sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, described the FEC’s performance as “an absolute and total disgrace,” saying the agency “is behaving like an enabler of special interests rather than an enforcer of the law.”
___________
New York Times, Editorial, May 14, 2004
In a shameful decision that will unleash a fresh torrent of unregulated donations to pollute the presidential election, the Federal Election Commission has declined to control the new “shadow party” attack groups that are evading the campaign finance law. The commission voted on Thursday not to rein in puppet Democratic operations that are already spending scores of millions in big unregulated donations from unions and fat-cat partisans.
The result sadly means that the Republicans will reply in kind with their own sky’s-the-limit attack-ad spending, using the new loophole the F.E.C. has obligingly blessed. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” the Supreme Court cautioned last December in upholding the McCain-Feingold reform law, which restricts the unbridled “soft money” abuses that festered into a national scandal in the 1990’s. The commission voted 4 to 2 on Thursday to reopen the taps and flood the nation once more with politically corrupting soft money.
Partisans have been frustrated by the new campaign spending rules, which limit contributions to a size that cannot buy political influence. So they created shadow groups that brazenly claim tax exemptions for their efforts to do end runs around the law. Each group claims that it does not coordinate its efforts with any campaign, while spending millions on television ads blasting its candidate’s opponent. The commission could not even muster the backbone to impose partial limits on the new big-money marauders. The only thing it did affirm was its own complicity in serving the major parties’ desire to continue raising insane amounts of special interest money.
__________________
Well, at least we know that Ted doesn’t find any of these people or groups to be serious.
More likely, Ted doesn’t know a thing about this subject and is simply spouting off, blissful in his partisan ignorance.
Kimmitt 08.24.04 at 2:10 am
What a stupid, vicious, spiteful little man. I cannot believe that any human being will vote for him.
Detached Observer 08.24.04 at 4:29 am
Isn’t this just the basic argument against McCain-Feingold? I’m guessing Ted and all the other people who agree with him on this post stridently opposed Mccain-Feingold?
After all, everything that is said here can be used for an anti-McCain-Feingold argument: freedom of speech, etc. The distinction about coordinating with the campaigns is a trivial one, as its possible to do everything a campaign wants without formal coordination.
garth 08.24.04 at 9:27 am
Nat: Matt Weiner wrote: “The SwiftVet ads is that they’re false from beginning to end[sic]â€
The beginning of the first SwiftVet ad shows John Edwards saying “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him.†I hadn’t realized that that was false.
Are you stupid? Did you hear the apt comparison made in re: “servined with him” and “slept with Condi Rice” made elsewhere?
To whit, these liars didn’t serve with John Kerry other than being in the same country, or perhaps the same waterway. Next boat over at best. Each has a nice, juicy, contradictory statement in the record somewhere, extolling Kerry’s virtues & service (not mentioned: Texas Air National Guard! Surprise!). The idea that the SBVT ads somehow are deserving of the same speech protections as, say, MoveOn’s factually correct ads calling into question Bush’s never fully answered gaps in his “service” in the TANG is putting a pile of crap next to fine cuisine. It doesn’t match up.
I suppose, on a philosophical level, we’re free to lie all we want. But we’re also free to pay the freaking consequences of that lie, and giving credence to that scurrilous behavior is sad, at best. For instance, I could take out ads in your hometown pointing out how much you enjoy molesting dogs, with no facts or documentation or teary-eyed pups to back up my assertions. Would you stand and say, “I support this idiot’s right to tell baseless, libel-ridden lies about me.”
Don’t get me wrong: Factual ads about candidates or legislature or whatever are good. Philosophical differences should be aired, different goals and visions for our nation should be out there free and in the open. But liars deserve none of this deference.
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 2:38 pm
Garth wrote: “Are you stupid?”
Opinions vary.
“Did you hear the apt comparison made in re: “servined with him†and “slept with Condi Rice†made elsewhere?”
As stupid as I may be, I at least know that “servined” isn’t a word.
“To whit, these liars didn’t serve with John Kerry other than being in the same country, or perhaps the same waterway. Next boat over at best.”
Next boat over doesn’t count, eh? So I guess that means that William B. Rood wasn’t serving with Kerry when the latter won his silver star, eh?
“Each has a nice, juicy, contradictory statement in the record somewhere, extolling Kerry’s virtues & service”
Really? Each? All 200+ members of SwiftVets? Would you care to meet me in Nevada where we could legally place a wager on the veracity of your claim?
“The idea that the SBVT ads somehow are deserving of the same speech protections as, say, MoveOn’s factually correct ads calling into question Bush’s never fully answered gaps in his “service†in the TANG is putting a pile of crap next to fine cuisine.
What about MoveOn’s ads likening Bush to Hitler?
Herostratus 08.24.04 at 2:38 pm
Oh, come on, stop worrying. It’s George Bush. Of course he doesn’t really know what a 527, doesn’t know what’s in the law he signed, and doesn’t understand the implications of what he’s saying.
So don’t worry about it.
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 2:42 pm
Kimmitt wrote: “What a stupid, vicious, spiteful little man. I cannot believe that any human being will vote for him.”
“Can’t you?†the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath and shut your eyes.â€
Keith M Ellis 08.24.04 at 2:58 pm
Well, I’ve wanted to take a generous view and say that most/many people agree that the whole soft-money thing has been a problem and that Bush might honestly and earnestly simply be saying that he thought M-F had solved it and he’d like to solve it.
However, after some consideration, I think BushCo is just being opportunistic and Bush is lying through his teeth.
Ah, well.
Nicolas Bray 08.24.04 at 3:09 pm
What about MoveOn’s ads likening Bush to Hitler?
[brain explodes]
[falls over dead]
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 3:28 pm
Nicholas Bray wrote: “[brain explodes][falls over dead]”
Your point is what? That although the ad made it through MoveOn’s screening process and although MoveOn paid for the bandwidth to host it, it wasn’t their ad? Fair enough, just use the same standard in judging conservative organizations.
Nell 08.24.04 at 4:45 pm
Ted, did you see this comment at Balloonjuice? LOL
Posted by: Window to the Soul on August 24, 2004 01:13 AM
Pitifool 08.24.04 at 5:01 pm
Nat, straining at Gnats, swallowing whales.
Bet you got your head dunked in the toilet by the bigger kids at school, didn’t ya? It shows.
dsquared 08.24.04 at 5:13 pm
Could I register the dissenting opinion that I cannot for the life of me think of any political issue which would command the support of every grocer in Oregon, apart from issues relating to the food retail industry on which I would strongly suspect that the position of the Oregon Grocers’ Committee would be directly inimical to the public interest, and so I for one would support banning their advertisements.
digamma 08.24.04 at 5:17 pm
Excuse me, but at 4 million plus members, the NRA might be a minority, but we’re hardly a “tiny†minority.
I think Ghertner meant a tiny minority of left-leaning groups. Obviously, most of the right-wing establishment was soundly opposed to McCain-Feingold.
Count me in with those who wish we’d heard these protests from Democrats back when McCain-Feingold first became an issue back in the late 1990’s. I spent a lot of that period in college arguing with (self-proclaimed) socialist professors about whether all spending on political speech needed to be centrally controlled.
John Gibson 08.24.04 at 5:32 pm
Hypothetical question…
Say the next SBVT ad features the Christmas in Cambodia Senate Testimony which has unequivically been proven to be false.
Will the countless masses who are complaining about the 1st SBVT ad be out there demanding Bush condemn the ad? Somehow I think they will be, the claim that SBVT ad is lies is just a convenient ploy to be able to continue to attack Bush for not condeming the SBVT while at the same time giving a free pass to the left leaning 527s whose connections to the Democrats are much stronger than the six degrees of separation the NYT put out as the basis for the Bush/SBVT connections.
geeno 08.24.04 at 6:09 pm
* deep sigh *
Okay, one more time. No more that 20 of the 250 SBVT’s even knew John Kerry existed when they in Viet Nam around the same time. If you actually look at what most of them are saying, it’s hearsay; they don’t even claim to have actually witnessed anything they’re talking about, they just imply it heavily in the ad. Of the 20 or so who did actually know John Kerry, none of them have anything bad to say about the man for 35 years. In fact many of them are on the record praising Kerry to the heavens – OK that’s a slight exageration, but they clearly thought well of his military service even when they said they didn’t like him personally. ALL documentation and contemporaneous accounts agree with Kerry’s version of events. Only now, after republican operatives pony up some cash, does any of these guys have something to say.
As for Christmas in Cambodia, It is not “unequivocably proven to be false”. Kerry says only that he doesn’t remember for certain if he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, and may have confused that night with another incident a month or so later. OOOOOOO! He may have confused similar events from 30 years ago! Clearly he’s a lying bastard!
Give me a break.
The problem isn’t 527s. It’s the swifties willingness to lie through their teeth. The Bush=Hitler ad was a likewise an indefensible abuse of the first amendment, perhaps even libelous; that’s why MoveOn yanked it off their site as soon as it was pointed out to them.
geeno 08.24.04 at 6:25 pm
ON TOPIC —
I’ve always been uneasy with the money = speach concept. It seems to imply that the opinions of the should justly carry more weight. A little plutocratic for my tastes. On the other hand, there really isn’t any valid justification for preventing someone from spending their money on purchasing political ads, etc. if that’s what they want to do with it.
I like the 527 much better than the 501c. At least knowing where the money comes from allows you to consider the speaker when evaluating the speach.
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 6:28 pm
Pitifool wrote: “Bet you got your head dunked in the toilet by the bigger kids at school, didn’t ya?”
Um, no. Better dig deeper in your bag of Freudian just-so stories.
John Gibson 08.24.04 at 6:47 pm
Geeno, he is changing his story now, but in the hypo I posed if they use his Senate testimony it is indeed an illustration of an ourtight lie. There is no ambiguity in his statements – the 1979 newspaper article, 1986 Senate speech – until it was exposed as a lie during this whole SBVT controversy.
Nat Whilk 08.24.04 at 7:02 pm
Geeno wrote: “No more that 20 of the 250 SBVT’s even knew John Kerry existed when they in Viet Nam around the same time.”
Once one edits your statement so that it parses, it appears to me that it becomes demonstrably false, or is this another of your “slight exag[g]eration[s]”?
“ALL documentation and contemporaneous accounts agree with Kerry’s version of events.”
Does that include Kerry’s own contemporaneous journal entries that put him outside Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 and that, 9 days after the events that won him his first bronze star, have him saying that he’d yet to come under enemy fire?
“Kerry says only that he doesn’t remember for certain if he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, and may have confused that night with another incident a month or so later.”
The similar event that really did occur on Christmas Eve 1968 being what?
“OOOOOOO! He may have confused similar events from 30 years ago!”
Honey, I’m sorry I’m a month late getting you your present, but I assure you that our anniversary is seared–SEARED–in my memory.
“The Bush=Hitler ad was a likewise an indefensible abuse of the first amendment, perhaps even libelous; that’s why MoveOn yanked it off their site as soon as it was pointed out to them.”
MoveOn’s apology for the Bush-Hitler ads said: “We . . . regret that they slipped through our screening process”. What did this screening process involve that allowed the screeners to be ignorant of the content of the ads? Computation of a checksum?
Russkie 08.24.04 at 7:07 pm
dsquared wrote:
Dsquared, maybe I’m missing some dry sarcasm or something .. but if you are being serious, can you explain how to determine whose speech is inimical to the public interest?
keebler2012 08.24.04 at 9:48 pm
The Real Genius of the SwiftBoat Ad
With help from mainstream Media’s extended remix of the SwiftBoat Vets claim, we watched the Kerry campaign masochistically sustain damage. It is indeed amazing to observe just how contrivingly long the Media let the accusations stew. They escalate others’ spurious claims for them as if they were plausible by virtue, which after awhile are only allowed to degenerate into a he said/she said echo chamber, eternally marring the Kerry record despite the actual service record. And from what I can tell, this was not even the true impetus for the ad.
The effectiveness of the Swiftboat Ad to actually deconstruct Kerry’s heroic status as a War Veteran was just icing between the layers. Just a synergistic benefit. Yes, as far as actually directly attacking Kerry, the BushTeam (connections from which the Ad was funded) probably didn’t bet on doing more than muddying the playing field and perhaps therefore blemish by proximity. Seeing how Kerry is now actually embedded in public consciousness as not only possibly guilty of the claims but somehow as low-down dirty as the motivation that birthed the SwiftBoat Ad Tactics themselves is a bonus pack of Twinkies for Rove. Though Kerry initially tried to take the high road by leaving defense up to McCain and Public Record, his image was effortlessly swept away by the Information Monsoon, a testament to the Media’s powerful Blender of Associations. In addition, BushTeam knew that by not outright denouncing the ad would enable the Media to keep on reporting(accusing) Kerry of it. When this thing is over he will have been so absurdly damaged, people will look back 5 years from now and ask, “Kerry didn’t actually serve in Vietnam did he?” or “Is it true he protested while in Vietnam by refusing to fight and going AWOL?” or “I can’t believe he shot himself for a stupid medal!” or “What was the name of the fellow serviceman he killed and what’s the story on those babies?” Tragically, Kerry’s failure lies in being unable to anticipate the apparent power of Media Inertia to mix separate values into an overall impression.
In retrospect we might say, “Kerry should have fired back immediately and with equal force!” Though desperately logical, this would lead us to see the real genius of the SwiftBoat Ad. I propose the Ad was intentionally constructed to be over the top in order to provoke an equally nasty reaction from the other side, which would’ve induced several effects: 1.) It would allow arguments over the perceived scandal to achieve the state of hyper-drama, more thoroughly filibustering the focus of time/coverage away from the stances/records of the actual election issues. I’ve forgotten (or never knew) what they were, how about you? 2.) It would officially initiate a mud wrestling event in complicity, where both sides become so equally soiled that public perception averages out in overall apathy and disgust, resulting in swiftBoat Vets and the Kerry record both being emotional disqualified ( during which Bush somehow assumes the role of Ref ). 3.) Which brings us to the crowning achievement and arguably the primary objective… That by virtue of an Over-the-Top Ad/Scandal and the following public disdain of everything in its associative fog, there is born a movement/sentiment to cancel out or at least disregard all 527 organizational speech. OF COURSE… 527’s for Kerry far outnumber those that sympathize with Bush and more importantly many of those 527’s that have beef with Bush do so on legitimate grounds such as; fiscal record, corporate cronyism connections, investment/business violations, imperialistic agendas, terrorist sponsorship record, and a range of anti-environmental records to name a few. A panorama of forces that would collectively show the Administration for what they are. BushTeam was doing everything possible to avert these impending hammers and the MultiNationalLobbyInfestedGovernmentSponsoredPoliticallyGearedCorporateOwnedCommerciallyPlaguedMilitaryEntertainmentIndustrialEnergyMediaComplex seems to do ANYTHING it can to help the guy out. You didn’t actually think the public ABCNNBCBS networks were by and for “We the People” did you?
Ah yes, here we have a classic illustration of the PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION method of manipulation. Here, this method is performed out of the BushTeam’s need to discount, disregard, disable by any means the looming cornucopia of grassroots organizations that could cost him the election or worse. So in this case the PROBLEM constructed is not simply the actual SwiftVet Ad, but the nastiness of the accusatory match and general political turmoil that arises from the Ad. The REACTION is naturally the public apathy, disgust, anger over how mired the election has become thanks to mudslinging between political organizations and the candidates. And last but not least the SOLUTION: Bush somehow (after taking his sweet time) “steps in” as the “let’s cut out all the negative campaigning” bi-partisan moral voice, condemning all 527 ads as “Bad for the System” and calling out to stop “these activities of the 527s”. How gracious this was of the man who signed the McCain-Feingold Act, yet loosened the restrictions of religious organizations (in his right pocket) to become more involved in campaigns.
All of this reminds me of a diabolic aspect of BushTeam strategy: the best defense is a seemingly simplistic offense. In other words, put your redneck out there and they will suspect that it’s the neck of a dummy. Dummy or not, people then will tend not to suspect that it is just a tentacle of a much more complicated, desperate beast.
John Gibson 08.24.04 at 10:10 pm
keebler2012, do you belive Media Fund, Moveon.org and Americans Coming Together are fronts for the Kerry campaign?
Brett Bellmore 08.25.04 at 12:39 am
“do you belive Media Fund, Moveon.org and Americans Coming Together are fronts for the Kerry campaign?”
They are, by exactly the “reasoning” that the Swiftboats people are fronts for Bush. Most people understand that folks who donate to a candidate they like, are also liable to donate to groups attacking the candidates they don’t like, without having to be directed to do so by the candidate. In fact, they’ll tend to do so even if the candidate pleads with them to stop…
Which is ironicly how McCain got into the whole campaign finance gig; He didn’t like an advertisement some independent group ran attacking his opponent, and ordered them to pull it. They told him to stick his order where the sun doesn’t shine, and the rest was history.
Claire 08.25.04 at 8:35 pm
I am an independent who spends time reading and listening to both sides of the electon debate. I’m trying to keep an open mind on both major-party candidates. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the candidates so far:
Bush: Good job responding to 9/11 terrorist attacks, and willing to make the hard choices to protect the country. Too involved in social issues (marriage, abortion/birth control, stem cell research) for many Americans’ more libertarian bent. Fiscally too prone to support big government and spending for most conservatives’ tastes. Makes a decision, takes a position, and sticks with it, even if unpopular, due to personal convictions. Tends to deal with data and details, to the point of getting bogged down occasionally. Perceived as an authority figure, either positively or negatively. Personable in an intimate setting, but comes across as stiff, uncomfortable, or bumbling in many political settings.
Kerry: Appeals to many on a personal level. Perceived as patrician or elitist by some. Has taken multiple positions on many issues over time; makes it difficult to predict his response on issues like terrorism and the war in Iraq. Has consistently supported the traditional Democratic position of large government and increasing government support and services. Difficult to judge his leadership abilities, as he hasn’t been in a senior leadership position on the national level yet (Lieutenant Governor of Mass., junior Senator from Mass.). Doesn’t get into facts or details much, preferring to deal with broad concepts and ideas. Often perceived as personable, but also distant and prone to remarks and behavior that makes him appear mean-spirited.
Bush has a tendency to answer questions directly. Kerry, on the other hand, rarely answers the questions asked.
If I were their mommy, I would characterize them as follows:
Bush: a generally good boy, with a tendency toward being mischievous. His manner and behavior would cause you to consider him a slacker and a cut-up unless you’re willing to spend the time getting to know him better.
Kerry: a whiner prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, with a tendency toward lying and showing off in order to achieve his goals. His manner and behavior would lead you to consider him a good boy, but experience will prove he needs significant supervision.
I guess what frustrates me so much about this campaign is the level of anger, invective, and viciousness displayed. And as someone sitting on the fence, I have to say that I see most of it coming from the left. And I can’t help but remember the behavior of the Clintons and the Gores onstage at the Presidential Inaugural ball, where they acted like a bunch of teenagers at the prom instead of the responsible, dignified leaders of the world’s only superpower. I fear the same level of juvenile behavior and attitudes should the Democrats prevail in November. I wish that someone would reassure me that this won’t occur, but based on the level of foaming-at-the-mouth invective that I see whenever Bush is mentioned, I’m afraid that it will.
Brett Bellmore 08.26.04 at 1:16 am
“I guess what frustrates me so much about this campaign is the level of anger, invective, and viciousness displayed.”
Well, yeah; Now that the Supreme court has spiked the 1st amendment, we’re in the endgame for democracy in the US. The next few elections as Congress finishes closing all the “loopholes”, (Mopping up the last remnants of our freedom of speech.) are for all the marbles. Whoever is on top when the job is finished is on top in perpetuity, or at least until the government gets overthrown. Naturally people get nasty when the stakes get THAT high.
Zizka 08.26.04 at 5:31 am
You have some dumb fucking trolls here, but it would be Stalinist and wrong to call them moronic brownshirt fucks.
The swiftboat controversy is a diversion from actual political issues. Point Bush.
The 527 issue is a deft distraction from the swiftboat controversy. The point isn’t shadowy groups, or soft money, or 527’s. It’s lying. The SBV’s are liars. Over 200 of them signed affidavits attesting to hearsay, which would be illegal except that the affidavits were un-notarized and void. Others lied directly. Bush 30-love.
And then, some of the non-MBF trolls here succeeded in changing the subject one more time. I can’t remember what comes next in tennis.
Pursuant my know-nothing man-of-the-people Fascist-Stalinist persona, I’d just like to say that academic training often leads people to miss the main point because they’re zeroing in on an interesting aspect of the question which is responsive to sophisticated analytic approaches.
Kimmitt 08.26.04 at 10:17 pm
Claire, I am honestly baffled by your characterizations of the two candidates. Kerry is patently obviously the more responsible of the two, while Bush is a lying thug. If your attitude is indicative of the swing voters in this country, it means that our media has been even more irresponsible than I had previously imagined.
Bush is hated by the Left because Bush is an amoral lout. Sometimes, the simplest explanation really is the best.
Russkie 08.26.04 at 10:41 pm
Kimmit wrote:
What a marvellously content-free message! Why is Claire wrong? Because Kimmit said so and he’s louder and nastier.
Why is there no such thing as left-wing “fisking”?
Zizka 08.27.04 at 12:47 am
Because fisking is stupid?
John Gibson 08.27.04 at 4:43 am
Kimmit, Regardless of whether you believe the SBVT are credible or not, Kerry has been exposed about lying about his record simply by the number of his Vietnam stories have been modified by the campaign.
Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas? Before SBVT, he says unequivically he was. Afterwards his biographer says he wasn’t and the campaign tries to spin it as he was close to Cambodia.
What about the wound for the 1st Purple Heart. After SBVT charges, the Kerry campaign changes their story and admits that it may have been an accidental self inflicted wound.
Regardless of what you feel about their credibility it’s not like John Kerry is an innocent victim of the SBVT group. He’s been caught in too many lies to play the victim of unfair attacks.
howard 08.27.04 at 4:56 am
Clare, don’t kid yourself: you’re not independent, and you’re not open-minded. You are a republican, and you have your mind made up. There’s nothing wrong with that, but don’t pretend otherwise.
Nat, harping on the moveon bush = hitler is patheric. Their “screening process” was merely a phrase; in fact, if you submitted an ad, it got through the screening process. Then someone called attention to it and that was the end of the story. Why do you think that’s a valid comparison to anything?
As for the rest of your remarks, in brief: a.) when someone says “Christmas,” they don’t have to mean December 25. I had my wisdom teeth out Christmas of my freshman year at college, and no, i don’t mean December 25, i mean early January, during the tail end of the Christmas season; b.) Although i’ve seen various right-wingers making some reference to some diary entry, i haven’t seen it, but given the kinds of arguments right-wingers like, i have little doubt (although i could be proven wrong) that not come under fire yet means at that specific assignment; c.) at a minimum, Kerry was very near Cambodia on Xmas eve, and he went into Cambodia at least in January, which is what Doug Brinkley is sure of. Despite your pathetic attempt at an analogy (the anniversary is SEARED in my memory), it fails the first test, in that it isn’t analogus. (BTW, i’ve conducted a very great deal of oral history research, and I can assure you that there are plenty of people who have events SEARED in their memory who nonetheless have details of calendar, or particpants, or something else wrong.); d.) most of the swifties weren’t one boat over; the vast majority have no direct eyewitness knowledge of john kerry whatsoever. Yes, i would wager on that.
You have anythign to say, nat, that isn’t standard right-wing piffle? Like tell us how you feel about the fact that George Bush claimed that he’d served in the Air Force when he’d actually, of course served in the national guard, or the fact that George bush claimed that he’d been flying all the way through his Guard service when he hasn’t, or the fact that we have yet to see a winner to Garry Trudeau’s challenge to find someone who remembers Bush in Alabama, or the fact that Bush supported a war in which he, condescendingly, wouldn’t be a private? Feel free to share your feelings….
Russkie 08.27.04 at 9:04 am
Zizka wrote:
> Because fisking is stupid?
“Fisking” is taking an argument and responding to it point-by-point.
What could be more sensible than than actually responding to the assertions and arguments of someone who sincerely disagrees you?
John Gibson 08.27.04 at 2:44 pm
Howard, you still consider it to be “Christmas” after the New Year. I understand maybe a few days on either side of the 25th but I’ve never heard anyone still consider a period of time to still be “Christmas” after the New Years demarcation point.
But that is irrelvant as I bring your attention to an Oct 14, 1979 letter to the Boston Herald… John Kerry wrote:
“I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.”
So the question is:
Assuming (big if) it is accurate that Kerry was later in Cambodia and using you explanation would it be possible for somone to consider it to still be Christmas Eve sometime in January?
Note the nice literary license Kerry takes in blaming Nixon who wasn’t even President at the time.
—
Another point on Cambodia… I hear Brinkley defending Kerry by saying that he did end up going into Cambodia later on during his Vietnam duty. Am I missing something? If that can be proven as true then what logical explanation could their possibly be for it’s omission from his book? It doesn’t make any sense.
Comments on this entry are closed.