Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Desperation 57

Journal by pudge

John Kerry is blatantly lying when he says that there is any illegal tie between Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans group that has been attacking Kerry. There is no evidence whatsoever of any such ties. Kerry calls on Bush to condemn the ad. And Kerry says veterans don't have the right to "lie."

So we have three issues: lack of condemnation, ties to the 527 group, and the right to speak.

What Kerry doesn't want you to know is about 30 times more money has been spent by these independent "527" groups on ads for Kerry ($60M to $2M), and that Kerry has only recently (last week, just before calling on Bush to condemn the Swift Boat ad, but months after similar ads attacking Bush went on the air) condemned one of these ads against Bush.

But back in February, Kerry said "The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question." And back in April, his campaign put out a detailed press release questioning the President's service! Did they yet denounce their own press release? No. Kerry condemned the ad only when it suited him to do so.

As to ties to 527s, Kerry's are numerous as well. You want donors? Several of the wealthy donors of the pro-Kerry 527s have given money to Kerry's campaign and the DNC, including George Soros. You want political ties? How about Harold Ickes, who used to work for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and now runs Media Fund? Or how about Ickes recently hiring Jim Jordan, who was running Kerry's Presidential campaign a year ago?

And Kerry says of the vets who attack Bush, "Those are veterans who earned the right to their opinion." But of those who attack Kerry? "They don't have a right to lie."

Kerry is so desperate he is willing to further magnify an ad that makes him look bad by attacking Bush for things he himself is guilty of. I can think of no other rational explanation but desperation: it seems he really thinks he stands more to gain from attacking Bush than he stands to lose from this ad being replayed on the news over and over and being exposed as a hypocrite.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Desperation More

Desperation

Comments Filter:
  • Articles such as this [washingtonpost.com] provide decent evidence that there is at least some evidence that there might have been some collaboration between the Bush campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

    Also, regarding Kerry's charge that the veterans "cannot lie", he does have the law on his side - a minor legal point called slander.

    If the Swift Boat veterans are lying to dirty Kerry's name, that could definitely be seen as slander.

    • Articles such as this [washingtonpost.com] provide decent evidence that there is at least some evidence that there might have been some collaboration between the Bush campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

      Unless you are one of those rare individuals who actually READ the articles -- and not just the headlines and MAYBE the first paragraph. If you dont read the articles, you might miss tidbits like this:

      "Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by

    • Articles such as this provide decent evidence that there is at least some evidence that there might have been some collaboration between the Bush campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

      No more than the evidence linking Kerry to other 527s, which have spent much more money than this one. That's the point.

      Also, regarding Kerry's charge that the veterans "cannot lie", he does have the law on his side - a minor legal point called slander.

      But to Kerry, the distinction between who is lying and who is
      • No more than the evidence linking Kerry to other 527s, which have spent much more money than this one. That's the point.

        Huh? Pudge, at times I have found you to be somewhat open to the idea that the Republican party is not always 100% correct and the Democrats 100% wrong (your take on Kerry's voting record for going to war with Iraq).

        At times like this (and your take on "young and female == ignorant"), I find you to be a blind follower of the Republican line.

        So let me get your argument straight - becaus
        • and your take on "young and female == ignorant"

          I neither said nor implied that. Stop lying. I was very clear about what I meant when people misunderstood it before, and you did not address my clarification before, and if you persist in this lie, you will be banned.

          So let me get your argument straight - because left-leaning 527 organizations have spent a lot more money than right-leaning 527 organizations, then THERE HAS to be evidence of collaboration with the Kerry campaign.

          I neither said nor impl

  • A Bush volunteer campaign adviser was in the most recent ad. He quit over it. Here [cnn.com] is the story. Most relevant parts:

    retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ... Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an election campaign

    I don't know about you, but having a campaign adviser appear in an ad sounds like a coordinating effort to me.

    The difference between one Swift Boat Veterens for Truth and the Kerry press release is th

    • A Bush volunteer campaign adviser was in the most recent ad. He quit over it. Here [cnn.com] is the story. Most relevant parts:

      Interesting choice of "most relevant parts". I would think that these are far more relevant:

      A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

      ...
      Schmidt called Cordier "an American hero" but said he would "no longer participate as a volunteer for Bush-Cheney '04" because of his appearanc

      • I believe you are reading something into my post that I didn't say. Whether or not the Bush campaign organization proper knew about it is beside the point. A member of Bush campaign "collaborated" with the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This violates FEC rules or at the very least their spirit. The extent of SBVT and Bush campaign collaborations are unknown. You believe this is an isolated incident. Kerry's campaign believes SBVT is an attack group actively coordinating with the Bush campaig

        • A member of Bush campaign "collaborated" with the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This violates FEC rules or at the very least their spirit.

          What you said was that it sounds like a coordinating effort. But it doesn't. Nothing at all implies that Cordier coordinated between the two. "Collaboration" does not mean that someone is affiliated with both, but that the two organizations collaborated with each other, and there is nothing showing this. Nothing.

          Kerry's campaign believes SBVT is an atta

          • I think you and I have very different notions of what defines collaboration.

            And I don't believe for a moment that Kerry's campaign "believes" this. They are using it for political purposes. They know damned well Cordier was not coordinating between the two groups.

            I'm very bad at figuring out what other people know and believe. I usually try to worry about myself. But, I agree, this is a bunch of political bickering.

            So you therefore agree that Kerry is full of it when he claims that there IS evidence

            • I think you and I have very different notions of what defines collaboration.

              Since we are talking about an FEC complaint, I am using the notion enumerated in the elections laws, as I understand it.

              You think My Lai was an isolated incident in Vietnam?

              What I said is that My Lai was a single incident that did not prove or otherwise demonstrate any claims of systematic activity that Kerry claimed to exist.

              I guess they are right about people having very different world views... geez.

              Yes, I believe that

              • Since we are talking about an FEC complaint, I am using the notion enumerated in the elections laws, as I understand it.

                I don't know what standard the FEC uses to determine that a campaign is independent of a 527. I'm not a lawyer. I do know what Cordier did is an absolute no-no. It doesn't surprise me that it gets the Bush campaign in hot water. If people file complaints to the FEC that Farenheit 9/11 should be viewed as campaign ad for Kerry and the FEC investigated that. Then, I think this case ha

                • I do know what Cordier did is an absolute no-no.

                  It looks bad, and in that sense is a no-no. But it is not, as best I can tell, illegal, unless Cordier was representing the Bush campaign, which it seems he was not. Here's an excerpt from a summary [brookings.org] of McCain-Feingold:

                  Coordination between a party and a candidate is a payment made in cooperation with, at the suggestion of, or per an understanding with a candidate, candidate's agent or campaign, or party. The FEC is instructed to expand its current definit

          • Pfui. Kerry was claiming a pervasive culture of war crimes, and My Lai -- a single incident -- proves nothing for or against that claim.

            Actually, My Lai, like the current prison abuse scandal, does point to something interesting. What do both of these horrible events have in common? They were both "broken" by the same reporter (boggle!). How did he "break" the stories? By getting ahold of copies of the proceedings wherein the military was investigating and punishing those involved. How did those military p

            • a servicemember in each case saw something that was wrong, and reported it (unlike Kerry...)

              Those who are unfamiliar with history [wordiq.com]....

              The U.S. military command in Vietnam had an established a policy of "free-fire zones" -- areas in which soldiers were to shoot anyone moving around after curfew, without first making sure that they were hostile. Such encounters could result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Kerry has stated that he never thought he or his crew were at fault: "There wasn't anybody in th

        • I have two words for you if you think John Kerry is lying about what happened in Vietnam: My Lai [vietnamwar.com].

          Ok. For the sake of argument, lets assume Kerry was truthful and not grossly exagerating his participation and what he personally witnessed. Now we have a guy who didn't lift a finger to stop these war crimes. Hasn't lifted a finger to bring either himself or those who committed those war crimes to justice. Hasn't help document specifically any of these war crimes for the purposes of crimi

        • I have two words for you if you think John Kerry is lying about what happened in Vietnam: My Lai [vietnamwar.com].

          For the record, you should know that John Kerry himself is lately painting his claims as exagerations. You should read the transcript of his 71 O'neill debate on the Dick Cavett show -- then do the same with his interview with Russert from earlier this year.

          He says things like calling the actions "attrocities" was "inappropriate". And he said "I think some soldiers were angry at me for that

    • A Bush volunteer campaign adviser was in the most recent ad. He quit over it. Here is the story. Most relevant parts ... I don't know about you, but having a campaign adviser appear in an ad sounds like a coordinating effort to me.

      As Jhon notes, that doesn't mean they are linked, any more than it means Kerry is linked to Media Fund just because his former campaign manager works for them now. If the Bush campaign is seen as guilty of collaboration over this, then so is Kerry because of Jim Jordan.

      Look at

      • You believe Jim Jordan + Kerry is analagous to Bush + Ken Cordier. I don't think they are similar enough examples. You've stated your reason why, I've stated my reason why. We'll have to leave it at that. All other subsequent arguments about the 527 collaboration are meaningless.

        That "difference" is not one. You're spinning, not showing an actual difference. The Kerry press release was malicious and misleading, according to me, and most people I know, including Kerry himself who condemned the same typ

        • You believe Jim Jordan + Kerry is analagous to Bush + Ken Cordier. I don't think they are similar enough examples. You've stated your reason why, I've stated my reason why.

          You did? I thought you merely denied that it meant anything. I don't recall you stating why you thought that. Regardless, the Jordan example is far stronger evidence of collaboration, by any objective view of the facts.

          What aspects of the press release do you feel are misleading about Bush? ... Just point out something that you th

  • 527s (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    FWIW, I am absolutely opposed to 527 groups, but not in the way Bush is against it. All of the major people involved here -- Buish, Kerry, and McCain -- have condoned the abridgement of free speech and it's unconscionable. Anyone should be allowed to say any damned thing they want and talk to whomever they want, as long as there is full disclosure of both the claims being made (document the source of claims) and contributors to the organization.
    • Agreed. 527's are whacked they way they are now. Further, what you don't hear right now is the yammering the left was making back in Jan-Mar when the right was trying reign in some of the 527 rules... Here's an example [fec.gov].

      527s are great when they pound on "the other guy". But when the pound on "your guy", they are and evil institution run by devils.

      Funny that...

    • 1) Why should people be required to document the source of their claims? Shouldn't the burden be on the listener to decide what criteria will constitute proof and investigate on their own? Why should the nanny-state have to remind people you can't believe everything you hear? Doesn't it cultivate a more investigative media and public if people are tracking these things down on their own?

      2) Why should the contributors be required to be disclosed? Shouldn't anonymous speech be protected?

      • 1) Why should people be required to document the source of their claims? Shouldn't the burden be on the listener to decide what criteria will constitute proof and investigate on their own?

        Note that I did not say they should "prove" their claims, but document the source of them. For example, if I claim in an ad Bush increased taxes on the middle class (as Dean did), he should document where that comes from (even if it is my own campaign literature), so that people can investigate those claims further.

        Wh

        • Note that I did not say they should "prove" their claims, but document the source of them.

          Understood. In talking about the listener deciding what constitutes proof, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.

          For example, if I claim in an ad Bush increased taxes on the middle class (as Dean did), he should document where that comes from (even if it is my own campaign literature), so that people can investigate those claims further.

          Okay, and I am asking, "Why?" Suppose the claim is made in the ad and the

          • Okay, and I am asking, "Why?"

            So a viewer can investigate the claim if he wishes.

            Suppose the claim is made in the ad and the source is not cited. Now, those who choose to question the claim can, if they choose, contact the organization that made the claim and ask, "Where did you hear that?"

            Most people cannot do that.

            In a decentralized information system like we have, the fact that the claim has not been backed up with any source is going to become attached to the claim when it is reported

            That's imp

            • Please end it. For the last time: this is not about protecting people, but about providing them with tools and information that they can use if they choose. I won't say it again.

              Sorry; I didn't mean to come across as inflammatory at all, nor to repeat my assertion ad-nauseum.

              I think we just have a fundamentally different assumption about the world. Since I'm constantly investigating facts, I come with the axiom that anybody could do that given enough desire and resources. You don't share that axiom,

              • I think we just have a fundamentally different assumption about the world.

                But that has nothing to do with what you said, which was a fundamentally different assumption about my intentions, which were clearly stated by me, the ultimate authority on my intentions.

                Since I'm constantly investigating facts, I come with the axiom that anybody could do that given enough desire and resources. You don't share that axiom, so we've been talking past each other.

                Your axiom assumes that a claim is not too vague to
    • How can McCain possibly be against them? It was his act, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, that created them.

      This is one reason I've grown to despise McCain in the past coupld of years. I almost wish Kerry had asked McCain to be his VP candidate, and McCain accepted. His congressional record is becoming easier to rip apart with every passing day.
  • This whole debate is pretty retarded. I don't see desperation in the Kerry camp's reaction, I see myopia. Don't you people see!!! Everyone is ganging up against us, the people who are here to save America!!!

    Like anybody cares? I think most Americans know that it costs a lot of money to buy TV airtime, and this was no public service announcement. What people care about is whether the allegations are true or not.

    (In general, I think the SBVT thing has been shady, but that's not my point).

    I have to concede
    • Re: the Quebec situation, the Supreme Court has since decided against total bans on third-party advertising.

      The approach these days is to allow freedom for the individual, but parties, corporations, media, trade unions, etc., are heavily regulated [www.sfu.ca].
    • This whole debate is pretty retarded.

      Even if my claim of desperation is retarded, I thinkn in the interest of education it's reasonable for me to point out how Kerry is condemning in Bush the same things he's done before.

      I don't see desperation in the Kerry camp's reaction, I see myopia. Don't you people see!!! Everyone is ganging up against us, the people who are here to save America!!!

      I hear you, but I don't think they are that myopic. I think they are very smart. And I think they realize these at
      • Even if my claim of desperation is retarded,

        I meant the question of who funds the SBVT (and the counter-question of who funds MoveOn.org, etc.) I should have been clearer.

      • And one thing we've not tried -- at least not since the Information Age hit upon us -- is a total LACK of restrictions, as long as there's complete and immediate disclosure.

        Very insightful. The fact of the Internet changes a lot of the dynamics of the past. It's usually possible to find the source and info behind an allegation, if you go looking, whether you're investigating a serious political charge, or the true name for the product variously known as "Duct tape" and "Duck tape." And if the truth i

      • ...restrictions might be acceptable. I got kicked off the Massachusetts Republican Party mailing list for [saying] it

        How amazingly lame of them! Is that discussion archived anywhere where I can read it?
        • No, of course not! Openness, are you crazy?!? :-)

          I have the mails here, though. It was about McCain-Feingold, which I was not supporting, but I was saying there is possibly a role in government of regulating campaigns, in financing and communications. One started off, "Thanks an incredible position for a Republican to take! Doesn't it strike you as rather difficult to reconcile the Republican Party's role as the limited government party with allowing government the incredible power of regulating the
          • Wow. The reaction of the first guy is the most interesting to me. Is McCain no longer a Republican? Or Newt Gingrich [pbs.org], for that matter?

            One of the critiques of the current crop of Republicans is that the more rigid ideologues are taking leading roles, making too many issues into tests of loyalty.

            Maybe this was just a couple of local dimbulbs, but you're not exactly dispelling that image for me here.
      • Frankly, I'd rather have them hash the truth out by slinging mud than remain in the dark with everyone being polite.
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I disagree. People don't believe everything they hear. Lies get called out, and when the dust settles, journalists go back and tally things up based on the credibility of the accusations. People who've read outrageous claims have the easy ability to go back and look up the countrclaims and their evaluations from their favorite news outlet. And they do it, too, especially in this election cycle, where interest and self-reported attention-paying is way up.

            Really, it's always been that way in the U.S., a

            • I take no position on which gets us closer to truth, but mud-slinging in Presidential campaigns goes back to nearly the beginning of our nation. There wasn't any to speak of with Washington, but as soon as he left office, it began. Adams and Jefferson were brutal toward each other (which is a big part of why we today don't have the second place finisher become the Vice President ... Jefferson proved that was a really bad idea, when he spent most of his term as VP actively undermining President Adams, incl
            • I think the point of this thread is that federally tax exempt mud slinging is a dumb idea.

              Let the "527"s continue to do what they do. However, remove their tax exempt status. Imagine all that extra federal money coming in! So far, just for the 2000 election, 527s have raised over $250 million (over $216 mil, iirc for the Dems/Left). Imaging 30% of that coming back as taxes!
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • On the other hand, it does seem to have stamped out some of the worst influences of money on these questions. If there's a third way I don't know it. Is there a way to preserve total economic freedom, where money == speech, and remove the influence of money on public consultations?

      This may seem simplistic, but as the government grows both in power and scope, there will be corruption. Period. There is no way we can try to legislate around the fact that power brings corruption. If you want to clean up

      • Well, this is the libertarian position, which I don't go for, for various reasons.

        Aside from theoretical problems, I know from my own country that it's possible to have a less corrupt system. For most of my lifetime, it has been fairly routine for cabinet ministers to be forced to resign over the mere *appearance* of impropriety. Like, writing a letter to somebody to suggest they consider someone for a job, using their official parliamentary stationery. Or having some home renovations done by a neighbour w

  • Notes (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campai g n/20swift.html [nytimes.com]

    "Records show that the group [Swift Boat Veterans for Truth] received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library."

    http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/0 02519.html#002519 [johnkerry.com]

    "A flyer being distributed at the Alachua County Republican party headqua

    • And most of the initial financing for Media Fund came from high-level Democrats, friends of Kerry's. Big deal.

      As to the Alachua County GOP, jeez, who the hell cares?
      • Does Kerry have the same lawyer [myway.com] as the Media Fund?

        In other news, it seems that SBVFTer John O'Niell has been considerably less than honest. From his appearance on "This Week" last week:

        O'NEILL: The whole country's watching him avoid the question. You asked about Cambodia. How do I know he's not in Cambodia? I was on the same river, George. I was there two months after him. Our patrol area ran to Sedek, it was 50 miles from Cambodia. There isn't any watery border. The Mekong River's like the Mississippi

        • Does Kerry have the same lawyer as the Media Fund?

          I think you mean a same lawyer, not the. And still, Kerry's tie via Jim Jordan is much stronger and more significant than this.
          • It turns out that I actually mean a raving hypocrite laywer:

            Ben Ginsberg, a legal adviser to the Bush campaign, specifically condemned the dual roles played by Democrats Harold Ickes and Bill Richardson, who had official roles at the convention and also within prominent friendly 527s. "They're over the coordination line," Ginsberg said of Ickes and Richardson. "The whole notion of cutting off links between public officeholders and soft-money groups just got exploded." [

            Gi

            • It turns out that I actually mean a raving hypocrite laywer:

              While what he did certainly looks bad, if he only gave both advice concerning campaign finance law, then there's no real conflict here, as opposed to Richardson, whose role in both is inherently political. There is a difference. Of course, we can't know what Richardson and Ginsberg have said and done for each group, which is the real point, which is why the complaint against Media Fund and ACT was dismissed, and why the one against SBVT will be
            • Heh, and now I see on CNN, a guy named Bob Bower, who has been active with the Kerry campaign, has ties to a pro-Kerry 527. Says Kerry spokesperson on TV: "Bob Bower does not work for a 527, Bob Bower's law firm works for a 527." Heh. Riiiiiight.

Slashdot Top Deals

13. ... r-q1

Close