Bush calls for end of 527 ads. Will Kerry follow suit??

[bsnyder]

What do ya'll think of this:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000871.html

Is this legal, under the current campaign finance laws? (and that's not a rhetorical question - I have no idea)

 

[KarenC]

Funny how now Bush wants to ban 527s--his recount committee was a 527. Without that funding we might be arguing the merits of reelecting President Gore.

Bush also benefits from the funding from a number of other 527s.

The Move-On ads aren't actually funded from a 527--they are funding by the Move On PAC.

And finally, I'm not quite sure how one reconciles Bush's position with the right to free speech guaranteed by the first ammendment.

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

He has done everything BUT debate the issue and release the records.

Um the records were released. And he has called Bush out to say that if Bush really wants to debate the issue then they can do just that (rather then Bush sending his attack dogs to do it for him).

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events. In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

Larry Thurlow in an anti-John Kerry ad. Thurlow said he would consider his own Bronze Star "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. (AP)

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

Here is the remainder of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

I'll also search for the one that shows that the military record shows that the Dr who says in the commerical he treated Kerry for his purple heart injury, was not actually the Dr who signed his medical record.

edited because I accidently submitted when trying to add the quote

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Tink&SquirtsMom
Um the records were released. And he has called Bush out to say that if Bush really wants to debate the issue then they can do just that (rather then Bush sending his attack dogs to do it for him).





Here is the remainder of the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

I'll also search for the one that shows that the military record shows that the Dr who says in the commerical he treated Kerry for his purple heart injury, was not actually the Dr who signed his medical record.

edited because I accidently submitted when trying to add the quote

No, you are wrong about this. John Kerry has not released all his naval records.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
What do ya'll think of this:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000871.html

Is this legal, under the current campaign finance laws? (and that's not a rhetorical question - I have no idea)

I don't think you have to know anything about campaign finance laws to know that grass roots political organizations can't be told what films they can or cannot watch.


We have a family friend who is very active in the Republican party and participates in many of these types of get togethers. Buffets set up with foods named to make fun of Dems, what they consider funny political campaign buttons that are probably a little extreme, films that are probably a little on the fringe of extreme...it's all pretty common stuff.

Of course, here we don't get the "big name" people from either side, but they do from time to time have some of the "higher ups" make surprise visits or calls.

I think it's just a way to keep those who care about our political system motivated. No big deal on either side.

 

[peachgirl]

No, you are wrong about this. John Kerry has not released all his naval records.

And neither has Bush.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I don't think you have to know anything about campaign finance laws to know that grass roots political organizations can't be told what films they can or cannot watch.


We have a family friend who is very active in the Republican party and participates in many of these types of get togethers. Buffets set up with foods named to make fun of Dems, what they consider funny political campaign buttons that are probably a little extreme, films that are probably a little on the fringe of extreme...it's all pretty common stuff.

Of course, here we don't get the "big name" people from either side, but they do from time to time have some of the "higher ups" make surprise visits or calls.

I think it's just a way to keep those who care about our political system motivated. No big deal on either side.

So if the Bush campaign and the Swiftvets had a combined get together for the supporters of both organizations, that would be okay under the laws?

If that's true, I don't see how any political campaign could be credibly accused of collusion with a 527 group?

 

[Laz]

Better sit down Peachgirl after I quote you:

Face it, for a majority on this thread, if the ad says what you want to hear, you're all for it. If it doesn't then you think it ought to be stopped.

I agree with you 100%

 

[bsnyder]

What's the difference between a 527 and the Move-on PAC?

Is there any difference?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by KarenC

And finally, I'm not quite sure how one reconciles Bush's position with the right to free speech guaranteed by the first ammendment.

I agree, he's not taking a principled stand on this, rather a political one.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
So if the Bush campaign and the Swiftvets had a combined get together for the supporters of both organizations, that would be okay under the laws?

If that's true, I don't see how any political campaign could be credibly accused of collusion with a 527 group?

I have no idea if that would be against the law or not.

That's not what happened with the Kerry party nor does it happen with the parties I mentioned on the Republican side.

I agree with you 100%

Wow, 2 in one thread...I must've said something wrong!

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
I have no idea if that would be against the law or not.

That's not what happened with the Kerry party nor does it happen with the parties I mentioned on the Republican side.



Wow, 2 in one thread...I must've said something wrong!

What do you mean by "That's not what happened wtih the Kerry party..."

There was a big hue and cry the other night about the poster from Alachua county having the Bush campaign and the Swiftvets on it. I'm trying to see the difference between that and the Kerry campaign having a get together with moveon.org (a 527).

 

[Bobbles]

What truly amazes me is that if I was so inclined (and possibly paid enough) I could become a 527 organization and simply tell the world that I snorted cocaine with GW the night before he refused to take his physical. "I was there, I saw it. I snorted it!"

That is my impression, right or wrong depending on your political persuasion, of this whole 527 crud.

I will still cast MY vote for Senator Kerry!

 

[peachgirl]

I'm trying to see the difference between that and the Kerry campaign having a get together with moveon.org

Where do you get that they had a get together with moveon.org?

The East Bay for Kerry/MoveOn House party on December 7th combined the forces of two grass-roots organizations based in San Francisco East Bay Area.

The "party" consisted of two groups that supported Kerry. They watched a moveon documentary. Watching a film made by moveon is not "getting together" with them.


<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>

 

[peachgirl]

Talk about flip-flopping!

Asked on Monday about one of the anti-Kerry advertisements, financed largely by Texas supporters of Mr. Bush, the president said that he wanted to stop "all of them.''

"That means that ad, every other ad,'' he said.

His press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush had not intended to single out the Swift boat advertisement as one that should be stopped.

I guess "that ad" doesn't really mean "that ad".

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Where do you get that they had a get together with moveon.org?




The "party" consisted of two groups that supported Kerry. They watched a moveon documentary. Watching a film made by moveon is not "getting together" with them.


<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/colonelpanic/DU_Photos/web-content/IwoBush.jpg"></center>

Which two groups had the party?

 

[bsnyder]

Peachgirl, this is probably the perfect example of two people with opposing political views only seeing what they want to see.

You thought I was focused on the signs, or the movie?

No, I was focused on this:

The East Bay for Kerry/MoveOn House party on December 7th combined the forces of two grass-roots organizations based in San Francisco East Bay Area.

I am reading that to mean that the two groups who had the party were The East Bay for Kerry grass roots organization and the Move On organization, which frequently ( or maybe always) refers to itself as a grass roots organization).

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see what the point is of putting both of those names in the title, if they aren't the two grass roots organizations being referred to.