Possible Problem for Kerry

[Guest MikeSC]

Veteran Democratic political operative Rodney Shelton has crossed over from America Coming Together, an anti-Bush 527 organization set up to evade the McCain-Feingold Act's ban on soft money, to become Arkansas state director of John Kerry's presidential campaign.

 

The 527s and the Kerry campaign are not supposed to coordinate with each other, but top staffers have moved back and forth through a revolving door. Zack Exley has left the Bush-bashing MoveOn.org to become Kerry's director of online organization. Moving in the opposite direction, former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan has joined ACT.

 

Shelton, a native Arkansan and a veteran of the last three Democratic presidential elections, raises Democratic hopes for reversing Bush's 2000 win in Arkansas. Republicans are gloomy, fearing unpopular GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee is hurting President Bush's chances.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

Novak is right --- this looks bad. It generates the appearance of co-ordination between the 527's and the Kerry campaign, which is QUITE illegal.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

The only way anything comes of this is if the Republicans make something out of it.

[Guest MikeSC]

The only way anything comes of this is if the Republicans make something out of it.

And they won't. The press SHOULD, but you're right, they likely won't.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

Even if the press made a big hullabaloo about it, few people I know give a rip about campaign finance laws.

[Vyce 0]

The only way anything comes of this is if the Republicans make something out of it.

And they won't. The press SHOULD, but you're right, they likely won't.

-=Mike

I mean, I agree, this is something the press should look into, if they want to be all "fair and balanced" (LOL2004). It's long been suspected that this type of shady business was going on, but here we have something that's worth looking into, but unless conservatives actively FORCE the media to look into, they won't.

[Guest MikeSC]

The only way anything comes of this is if the Republicans make something out of it.

And they won't. The press SHOULD, but you're right, they likely won't.

-=Mike

I mean, I agree, this is something the press should look into, if they want to be all "fair and balanced" (LOL2004). It's long been suspected that this type of shady business was going on, but here we have something that's worth looking into, but unless conservatives actively FORCE the media to look into, they won't.

Hell, if the press doesn't care about Kerry reps being sent back to prison for endangering a child, I doubt this will suddenly make them care.

 

So, I have to ask how Bush is the bad guy here.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Wait, wait wait....I thought Kerry has nothing to do with the 527s!?! I'm so confused now!

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=57222

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

The question comes up: do any 527s relate with the Republican campaigning as well as it seems the Dems do? Because if there are, there's a reason as to why it's all kept so quiet.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Republicans don't use 527's, obviously. They're better than Democrats.

[Guest MikeSC]

The question comes up: do any 527s relate with the Republican campaigning as well as it seems the Dems do? Because if there are, there's a reason as to why it's all kept so quiet.

I'm sure there are 527's for conservative causes --- but the left-wing ones have pretty well banded together and become quite the efficient machine.

Republicans don't use 527's, obviously. They're better than Democrats.

Democrats were the ones crying for campaign finance reform --- and they're the ones violating the spirit of the laws they wanted passed. Republicans are STILL owning them for clean, hard money donations.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The question comes up: do any 527s relate with the Republican campaigning as well as it seems the Dems do?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...NYT02/405290697

 

They're trying. I know the group that has filed suit against Moore for his film is a right-leaning 527.

 

Traditionally, though, when it comes to the really dirty tactics, the right has just relied on crazies.

[Guest MikeSC]

The question comes up: do any 527s relate with the Republican campaigning as well as it seems the Dems do?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll...NYT02/405290697

 

They're trying. I know the group that has filed suit against Moore for his film is a right-leaning 527.

 

Traditionally, though, when it comes to the really dirty tactics, the right has just relied on crazies.

A 2000 ad that rips off a 1964 DNC ad is "done by crazies"?

 

Stretching a bit, are we?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I dunno Mike, but...

The New York Times reports the ad is sponsored by a Texas-based nonprofit organization, Aretino Industries.

 

Have you checked out these people's website? I wouldn't consider that ad one of "the finest accountability ads in the industry." Not to mention that when you start resorting to nuclear doomsaying to endorse a candidate in today's age, and in yesterday's pre-terrorwar days, you're getting pretty crazy.

[Guest MikeSC]

I dunno Mike, but...

The New York Times reports the ad is sponsored by a Texas-based nonprofit organization, Aretino Industries.

 

Have you checked out these people's website? I wouldn't consider that ad one of "the finest accountability ads in the industry." Not to mention that when you start resorting to nuclear doomsaying to endorse a candidate in today's age, and in yesterday's pre-terrorwar days, you're getting pretty crazy.

There was remarkable concern over how much technology Clinton gave to China. I will say that they have actual documentation behind their claims.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cmon, Mike. It's an near-anonymous smear ad. Even you're admitting that it's pinning Clinton's issues on Gore.

[Guest MikeSC]

Cmon, Mike. It's an near-anonymous smear ad. Even you're admitting that it's pinning Clinton's issues on Gore.

Gore was VP of the administration. Hardly an unfair smear.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What powers did the VP have in this situation?

 

Mostly he just opens and closes Congress and presides over joint sessions.

[Guest MikeSC]

What powers did the VP have in this situation?

 

Mostly he just opens and closes Congress and presides over joint sessions.

Oh, Gore did NOTHING under Clinton now?

 

Wow, I seem to remember the left praising all of the work he did in the administration.

 

I guess the story has now been clarified.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Now, now, let's be realistic. Don't hold me to everything "the left" has said.

 

Exactly how much control did Gore have over the highs, or the lows, of Clinton's very controversial legacy. More specifically, what abilities did he have in the case of arms sales?

 

Pushing the worst of the Clinton times onto Gore was the most obvious, and most commonly relied upon, embellishment in right-wing attack ads in 2000.

[Guest MikeSC]

Now, now, let's be realistic. Don't hold me to everything "the left" has said.

 

Exactly how much control did Gore have over the highs, or the lows, of Clinton's very controversial legacy. More specifically, what abilities did he have in the case of arms sales?

 

Pushing the worst of the Clinton times onto Gore was the most obvious, and most commonly relied upon, embellishment in right-wing attack ads in 2000.

Guess what --- that's his cross to bear. He was VP of a rather useless administration --- a Coolidge for our times. He gets the blame for the good if he hopes to take any credit for the good.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

He was VP of a rather useless administration --- a Coolidge for our times.

[Guest MikeSC]

He was VP of a rather useless administration --- a Coolidge for our times.

His entire legacy is that he kept out of the way of the economy and got out before it got bad.

 

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

He was VP of a rather useless administration --- a Coolidge for our times.

His entire legacy is that he kept out of the way of the economy and got out before it got bad.

 

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

-=Mike

thank you for the brilliant anaylsis. I am so glad I have you around to sum up his legacy. Nowhere before have I seen such an unbias look at thr 8 years under Clinton.

[Guest MikeSC]

He was VP of a rather useless administration --- a Coolidge for our times.

His entire legacy is that he kept out of the way of the economy and got out before it got bad.

 

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

-=Mike

thank you for the brilliant anaylsis. I am so glad I have you around to sum up his legacy. Nowhere before have I seen such an unbias look at thr 8 years under Clinton.

You can hate it if you wish, but the BIG deals he signed (NAFTA et al) were prepared before he got there and welfare reform was forced on him by the Republicans.

 

Clinton was too busy worrying about school uniforms and the V Chip.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

If Clinton's Coolidge

 

then wouldn't Bush be Hoover?

 

[Guest MikeSC]

If Clinton's Coolidge

 

then wouldn't Bush be Hoover?

 

Nope, because Bush got the economy to rebound.

 

Hoover couldn't.

 

Hell, FDR couldn't.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

-=Mike

Coolidge saw that so many Americans lived in poverty and chose to do nothing about it.

 

Uh...?

[Guest MikeSC]

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

          -=Mike

Coolidge saw that so many Americans lived in poverty and chose to do nothing about it.

 

Uh...?

Coolidge governed over a booming economy powered by a grossly overinflated stock market. The economy later collapsed, largely due to the rampant corruption of the times. Naming Coolidge's actual proposals and platform issues he passed are nigh impossible.

 

Sounds damned close to Clinton.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

          -=Mike

Coolidge saw that so many Americans lived in poverty and chose to do nothing about it.

 

Uh...?

Coolidge governed over a booming economy powered by a grossly overinflated stock market. The economy later collapsed, largely due to the rampant corruption of the times. Naming Coolidge's actual proposals and platform issues he passed are nigh impossible.

 

Sounds damned close to Clinton.

-=Mike

I don't understand why people still attribute so much of the economies fluxuation to the President. In general the President has little power to change the economy, moreso the cycle pretty much dicates thateconomies go up and down and repeat themselves for all of eternity. There has never been a great economy that didn't come down, and there has never been a bad economy that hasn't rebounded.(America) I do agree that Bush got too much flack over the lagging economy, but now I think he is just getting to much credit by a general public that doesn't understand how the economy works.

[Guest MikeSC]

Clinton is Coolidge.

 

Hell, be glad I'm not comparing him to Harding.

          -=Mike

Coolidge saw that so many Americans lived in poverty and chose to do nothing about it.

 

Uh...?

Coolidge governed over a booming economy powered by a grossly overinflated stock market. The economy later collapsed, largely due to the rampant corruption of the times. Naming Coolidge's actual proposals and platform issues he passed are nigh impossible.

 

Sounds damned close to Clinton.

-=Mike

I don't understand why people still attribute so much of the economies fluxuation to the President. In general the President has little power to change the economy, moreso the cycle pretty much dicates thateconomies go up and down and repeat themselves for all of eternity. There has never been a great economy that didn't come down, and there has never been a bad economy that hasn't rebounded.(America) I do agree that Bush got too much flack over the lagging economy, but now I think he is just getting to much credit by a general public that doesn't understand how the economy works.

That's EXACTLY right. The President's ability to "create" or "lose" jobs is, at best, weak. I will say Reagan's tax cuts were extremely helpful --- but there is little he could've done to MAKE it happen. The market produces jobs.

-=Mike