Bush lawyer resigns

[captin fink]

by Abracadabra
The fact that Ginsburg felt it was necessary to resign begs the question of how far did he go. Was he tip-toeing on the ragged edge of coordination or not?

Or maybe he decided that it was easier to resign than be a drag on the Bush campaign. I believe that Sandy Berger took one for the Kerry team,

by faithinkarma
There is one significant difference. Move on has been around since the Clinton years. The SBVs were formed specifically to smear one man, and they have been proven to be liars.

Move on re-chartered as 527 to take advantage of a financing loophole after campaign finance reform. They have also financed 19 negative ads against Bush or people in his administration compared to the two SBVT have against Kerry. So I guess you are Correct. Move on was formed to smear more than one man.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=41

by peachgirl
Actually, there are at least two...the one that you mentioned and the fact that moveon and the swift liars are not the same type organizations.

Since SBVT and Move On are 527 ‘s, To me that makes them both the same types of organizations The only differences I can see is one is much better funded. One is set up to smear republican presidential candidate and one and one is set up to smear a democratic presidential candidate.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by captin fink
Since SBVT and Move On are 527 ‘s, To me that makes them both the same types of organizations The only differences I can see is one is much better funded. One is set up to smear republican presidential candidate and one and one is set up to smear a democratic presidential candidate.

You'll never convince anyone with the whole truth. The blinders are on and open minds are in short supply this season.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[kbeverina]

What a freakin' double standard! A lawyer advising the Bush campaign and a 527 making Kerry attack ads is somehow not the same as lawyers advising the Kerry campaign and 527s making Bush attack ads.

 

[WillyJ]

After 12+ years of Limbaugh and his clones spinning, lying, attacking,. . the Democrats are FINALLY fighting back. .


And what do we see from the Linthead crowd?

 

[captin fink]

A lawyer advising the Bush campaign and a 527 making Kerry attack ads is somehow not the same as lawyers advising the Kerry campaign and 527s making Bush attack ads

I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored

 

[peachgirl]

Move on re-chartered as 527 to take advantage of a financing loophole after campaign finance reform

Would this be the same "loophole" the swift liars are using?


It would seem to me from your link, that moveon.org is indeed a 527 but MoveOn is a PAC. I would guess this is the reorganization you speak of.

What I find really interesting is what spurred the creation of MoveOn....

"Begun in 1998 to protest the impeachment of President Clinton"

I guess you reap what you sow, huh? For years the Republicans have been pulling this kind of garbage and the Dem's sat back, wrung their hands and, as Republicans love to tell us....whined about it.

It didn't work. People love negative campaigning and it's very effective. The Republicans have been smarter in this area for a long time, it's why Bush is President today.

Even now, while out of one side of the Republican mouth you hear that the swift liars have every right to say whatever they want, out the other side they're screaming like babies because the Dem's are fighting fire with fire.

Basically, tough cookies. You get what you give. The days of Republican spin machines hanging Democrats out to dry while we do nothing is over.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

 

[captin fink]

Would this be the same "loophole" the swift liars are using?

Yes it is. This makes SBVT and Move on the same type of group, free to raise as much soft money as they can and use it to air attack ads against whom ever they see fit.

 

[peachgirl]

No, MoveOn is a PAC. Moveon.org is a 527.

Not all the negative ads you see are from moveon.org. It's a fine point, but an important one.

 

[faithinkarma]

Everyone seems to be ignoring one rather important detail here. The Kerry lawyer connections have always been out there. The Bush campaign lied and said there was absolutely no connection between them and the SBVs.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Everyone seems to be ignoring one rather important detail here. The Kerry lawyer connections have always been out there. The Bush campaign lied and said there was absolutely no connection between them and the SBVs.

How is it you're that sharp this early in the morning?

You're right though. Why did they lie about their connections? I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps the lawyer falling on his sword is an attempt to satisfy those who are digging into this.

 

[bsnyder]

No, MoveOn is a PAC. Moveon.org is a 527.

Not all the negative ads you see are from moveon.org. It's a fine point, but an important one.

Interesting comment that's almost completely devoid of any factual information.


Why is it an important point and which ads specifically are moveon.org, and which belong to the PAC?

 

[faithinkarma]

and yet another tie between the SBVs and the Republicans, despite their continued assertions there are no ties:

"He spoke on the same day that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth acknowledged that a woman who helped set it up and works for it is an officer of the Majority Leader's Fund, a political action committee affiliated with the former House majority leader Richard Armey of Texas.

Susan Arceneaux is named as the contact person on the post office box that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lists as its address. She is also treasurer of the Majority Leaders Fund. Records show that like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group receives significant financing from Bob Perry, a Texan who has long supported Bush, and his company, as well as Sam and Charles Wyly, prominent Texas Republican donors. Sam Wyly, under the name Republicans for Clean Air, took out ads in 2000 criticizing the environmental record of Sen. John McCain."

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2354383,00.html

"The Swift boat group, meanwhile, was explaining a connection between it and Ms. Arceneaux. Records obtained by The New York Times also list Ms. Arceneaux as an officer of a political strategy company headed by William Dal Col, who has managed Republican campaigns.

She has also been an officer of several conservative organizations, whose other officers include Deborah Steelman, a Bush adviser on health care in 2000, and Sally Atwater, whose late husband, Lee, was an architect of the famous "Willie Horton'' attack advertisement against Michael S. Dukakis when he ran against President Bush's father in 1988.

Reached at her home in Virginia, Ms. Arceneaux would say only, "I'm just a vendor,'' and referred all other questions to a spokesman for the Swift boat group, Sean McCabe.

Mr. McCabe said the post office box was associated with Ms. Arceneaux because she was handling all of the group's accounting. He said she was hired because she had a specialty in "political compliance'' but did he not say who recommended her to the group."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/politics/campaign/24swift.html?pagewanted=1

 

[bsnyder]

Just bumping this thread back up so that Peachgirl can expand on her earlier comments.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Interesting comment that's almost completely devoid of any factual information.


Why is it an important point and which ads specifically are moveon.org, and which belong to the PAC?

Why thank you Bsnyder....funny, I say the same thing every time I read a post of yours.

Oh and thanks for the bump, gee I didn't realize a whole hour had passed since you posted.

It's important because the laws regarding PACS and 527's are different.

I would think it would be important to be correct when you say something and the fact is that Moveon is not a 527 organization no matter how many times someone says it is.

Then again, considering that you don't think complete sentences are important, I can see why you think the way you do.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Why thank you Bsnyder....funny, I say the same thing every time I read a post of yours.

Oh and thanks for the bump, gee I didn't realize a whole hour had passed since you posted.

It's important because the laws regarding PACS and 527's are different.

I would think it would be important to be correct when you say something and the fact is that Moveon is not a 527 organization no matter how many times someone says it is.

Then again, considering that you don't think complete sentences are important, I can see why you think the way you do.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

How are the laws different?

Which ads are Moveon.org and which are bought and paid for by the PAC?

 

[peachgirl]

527's are not subject to FEC regulations, PAC's are.


There's at least a partial list on the site posted by the op.

And this is why you won't see the swift liars come right out and say they're doing this for Bush...it's illegal.

" Because contributions to a §527 orgnaization are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission, these organizations may not make any expenditures involving express advocacy for the election or defeat of any candidate for federal elective office."

 

[JimB.]

But this is ok??

The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization.

Are not those organizations listed 527's, as is Democrats.org??

If you think there is no coordination between Kerry, et. al., & these groups, you are livin' in a dream world!!

BTW, the quote comes from the Democratic Party's Women's Vote Center.

http://www.democrats.org/wvc/weekinreview/200305120002.html

 

[720L]

O.k.--all this political crap confuses me so I read these boards to try and make sense of what is going on. The "Swiftboat vets" are people who were on a military boat with Kerry. They were in combat and Kerrys boat left the combat, abandoning the other boats. When the shooting was over, Kerrys boat came back to the other boats and happened to float by a man floating in the water and Kerry happened to be the one to pick him up. That is how he got his purple heart.?? Which is why the other vets are saying he shouldn't have got a purple heart?My question: How could 65 or so people all be convinced (or want to) to lie about this? And I am told that Pres. Bush released all his military records but Kerry won't release all his. Suspicious don't you think?

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by 720L
O.k.--all this political crap confuses me so I read these boards to try and make sense of what is going on. The "Swiftboat vets" are people who were on a military boat with Kerry. They were in combat and Kerrys boat left the combat, abandoning the other boats. When the shooting was over, Kerrys boat came back to the other boats and happened to float by a man floating in the water and Kerry happened to be the one to pick him up. That is how he got his purple heart.?? Which is why the other vets are saying he shouldn't have got a purple heart?My question: How could 65 or so people all be convinced (or want to) to lie about this? And I am told that Pres. Bush released all his military records but Kerry won't release all his. Suspicious don't you think?

That's a bit abbreviated but there are some mistakes to correct. The members of Swift Vets weren't on the boat with John Kerry. Many were on other swift boats serving with John Kerry. Doesn't mean their view or perspective should be given any more or less weight, it was just a different perspective. Take a department manager for example. The people working directly under him have one view and the other department managers have another. They may or may not hold the same view.

And we haven't seen all the records for either President Bush or Senator Kerry.

IMO I won't fault anyone for serving, however they served. It's certainly very possible that George W. Bush used family connections to get into the National Guard. And he wasn't the only one. But National Guard is not a dirty word. It was a very unpopular war and many tried to get out of Vietnam in different ways.

Based on that many assume that George W. Bush ducked Vietnam by using family connections to join the Guard. And hey, it's easy to make that assumption. What we can't know however is what would George W. Bush have done had he been unable to get into the Guard?

That's kinda what happened to John Kerry. And to his credit, he served. Something you don't hear a lot about is John Kerry joined after an application for a 12 month student deferment was denied. When he secured his appointment as a "swift boat" skipper, they had little to do with the war. They were involved in coastal patrolling. But 2 weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the mission changed for the "swifties". And he went from one of the safest assignments to one of the most dangerous. Again, to his credit, he served. But I think the ads would have you believe that John Kerry jumped in and volunteered for the most dangerous thing he could find. And like most political ads from both sides, that's just not the whole truth.

So what is the truth? Personally and for whatever it's worth, I think the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. There are so many veterans that still feel angry and betrayed about what John Kerry did when he came home from Vietnam. Can these feelings have clouded and tainted some 35 year old memories? Possibly. But the fact that there are so many leads me to believe not all is as Senator Kerry would have us believe.

There were many heroes in Vietnam. I'm quite certain there are some that received no medals. I'm also certain that because the Vietnam conflict was so unpopular and in an attempt to create heroes, there were quite a few medals awarded when they shouldn't have been. And it's possible, and only speculation on my part, that Senator Kerry may have some of both.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[faithinkarma]

and yet another lie is exposed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek

Aug. 26 - A previously undisclosed Navy record obtained by NEWSWEEK supports John Kerry’s claim that he was under fire when he rescued a U.S. Green Beret who had pitched overboard from Kerry’s 50-foot Swift Boat during a short but intense engagement in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in March 1969.
Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions that day. But the organization Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a tax-exempt "527" advocacy group, has challenged Kerry’s Vietnam record—in particular that Kerry was under hostile fire when he pulled the Green Beret, Jim Rassmann, from the water.

Kerry’s was one of three Bronze Stars awarded for actions during this incident. Another went to the commander of a second Swift Boat, Larry Thurlow. Thurlow is now one of the core members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He has sworn an affidavit saying the Swift Boats were not under hostile fire during the rescue. Thurlow’s own Bronze Star citation contradicts this, but Thurlow insists the citation is false and has suggested that Kerry wrote it.