Bush condemns 527s, asks Kerry to do the same

[Jobber of the Week 0]

[rul=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5797164/]Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat vets' ads[/url]

‘I think they’re bad for the system,' president says

 

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush says a veterans’ group should stop television ads criticizing John Kerry’s war record.

 

The president's criticism of the ads by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth came as Bush denounced all TV ads by outside groups attacking both Kerry and himself on Monday and called for a halt to all such political efforts.

 

“I think they’re bad for the system,” he said.

 

When asked specifically whether the ads by the group "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" should be halted, Bush said: "All of them. That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely."

 

"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."

 

On one hand, Bush's remarks fulfilled one request made by the Kerry campaign and voiced by Kerry running mate, Sen. John Edwards, on Saturday.  "This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," Edwards said at a Democratic rally. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."

 

But Bush's comments did not satisfy a broader demand from the Kerry camp and Sen. John McCain, one of Bush's own key supporters, that "the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.''

 

Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign continued to battle the charges made in the ad — that the Democratic senator had lied about wartime events in Vietnam for which he received five medals.

 

In a conference call with reporters arranged by aides to the Democratic presidential candidate, Navy Swift Boat officers Rich McCann, Jim Russell and Rich Baker said Kerry acted honorably and bravely and was well-qualified to be the nation’s commander in chief.

 

“He was the most aggressive officer in charge of swift boats,” Baker said.

 

Additionally, crewmate Del Sandusky said at a news conference in Harrisburg, Pa., that he personally witnessed the battle action for which Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and two of his three Purple Hearts.

 

“He deserved every one of his medals,” Sandusky, a retired computer repairman who drove Kerry’s boat for nearly three months.

 

With polls suggesting Kerry’s standing was beginning to slip — at least among veterans — the Democrat last week called on Bush to call for the ads to be pulled from the air. He also accused Bush of allowing front groups to “do his dirty work.”

 

Bush’s campaign heatedly denied any connection with the anti-Kerry group, and called on the Democratic challenger to join the president in a call for all outside groups to pull their ads.

Bush has himself been subjected to a multimillion-dollar barrage of attack ads aired by groups seeking to help Kerry win the White House.

 

Earlier Monday, Kerry accused Bush of standing silent just as he did four years ago when supporters waged a campaign of “lies” to destroy the White House hopes of McCain when Bush and McCain were foes in the 2000 Republican primary campaign.

 

Kerry's charges of a "smear" by the Bush campaign followed a number of charges and countercharges about the matter on television talk shows and elsewhere Sunday.

 

Click here for voter registration forms that you can fill out and mail in.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth says Kerry didn’t deserve his Purple Hearts, lied to get his Bronze Star and Silver Star, wasn’t fighting in neutral Cambodia as he said he was and that he unfairly branded all veterans with his 1971 congressional testimony about atrocities in Vietnam.

 

A new Kerry campaign ad says Bush smeared McCain four years ago and “Now, he’s doing it to John Kerry.”

 

A former Vietnam prisoner of war, McCain lost the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000 after Bush supporters accused him of opposing legislation to help military veterans. McCain never recovered from that primary loss.

 

No proof

One of Kerry’s accusers acknowledged he had no documentary proof for his allegation that Kerry fabricated reports in an incident for which the Massachusetts senator received a Bronze Star. The reports say Kerry was under enemy fire when he rescued a fellow crewman.

 

“I do not have a single document,” Van Odell said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I have the fact that I wasn’t wounded in that 5,000 meters of fire that he wrote about. ... There was no enemy fire from either bank.” He said he had seven eyewitness backing up his version of events. Other witnesses say there was enemy fire at the time Kerry made the rescue.

 

Former Sen. Bob Dole, a World War II veteran and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, suggested Kerry apologize for his 1971 testimony to Congress about atrocities U.S. soldiers allegedly committed in Vietnam.

 

Dole, who has a disabled right arm from war wounds, said Kerry received an early exit from combat for “superficial wounds.” He called on the nominee to release all of his Vietnam service records.

 

Dole told CNN’s “Late Edition” that he warned Kerry months ago about going “too far” and that the Democrat may have himself to blame for the current situation, in which polls show him losing support among veterans.

 

“One day he’s saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons,” Dole said. “The next day he’s standing there, ‘I want to be president because I’m a Vietnam veteran.’ Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn’t the only one in Vietnam.”

 

'Superficial wounds'

Dole added: “And here’s, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they’re all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you’re out.”

 

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton replied: “It’s unfortunate that Senator Dole is making statements that official U.S. Navy records prove false. This is partisan politics, not the truth.”

 

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he didn’t think Kerry had waited too long to respond to the attacks.

 

“The same effort was made by some Republicans with Bush against John McCain four years ago. It was resented then. It’s resented now by the American people,” Levin said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

 

Smart move. Bush realized that many considered the ball to be in his court here. While many think it was up to Kerry to find some way around the charges in the book, the ads barely touched the surface of addressing the accusations, and simply smeared Kerry. Bush took the high road out here and is now challenging Kerry to do the same.

 

Can't say I agree personally because people ought to be free to air what they want if they can afford it, but there are cases when it goes too far into the slander category.

 

Ah hell, let's just be honest: McCain-Feingold sucks.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Hereby agreed. It also will, in some minds, show that Bush is willing to play the high road that Kerry asked the President to do during his nomination speech back at the DNC.

 

Honestly, this is an amazingly smart move by the Bush Administration, and I somewhat agree with the condemnation of 527s. Let's be honest: both sides have theirs, and it's an end-around of the campaign finance restrictions. Good work by Bush.

 

--Ryan

...SHOCKED and AWED into disbelief that Bush does something I completely agree with...

[teke184 0]

What's funny is that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, with or without Bush's support or collusion, managed to get more publicity than all of the Democrat 527s combined for a fraction of the money.

 

George Soros spent at least $5 million on MoveOn.org ALONE and they haven't gotten this kind of publicity outside of the "Bush Is Hitler" ad flap.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/20...dex.html#003629

 

TEAR DOWN THIS RECOUNT FUND! While we're on the subject of glaring exceptions to George W. Bush's blanket condemnation of 527s, where is his disavowal of the shadowy Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc.–Recount Fund? Says here that this insidious organization is still kicking around and filing (mostly blank) reports of contributions and expenditures. If Mr. President is going to "call on Senator Kerry again today to join us in calling for a stop to all of these activities," why isn't he taking the first step himself?

 

--Jeffrey Dubner

Posted by jdubner at 06:26 PM

MORE ON THOSE 527s. My colleague Matthew Yglesias rightly notes that President Bush's denunciation of 527s is hypocritical and self-contradictory. This is especially true given (let me add some more examples) that the campaign finance law the president signed just a few years ago deliberately avoided closing the 527 loophole; that Bush beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) during the 2000 primary in part with the help of a 527 run by his supporter Sam Wylie; that Bush's own campaign manager, campaign counsel, and political guru (Ken Melhman, Ben Ginsburg, and Karl Rove, respectively) have attended fundraising and organizational events for Progress for America, a 527 founded by Bush's political director from the 2000 campaign, Tony Feather; that GOP chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot recently issued a statement designating PFA and yet another GOP 527, the Leadership Forum, as a good place for Republicans to give money to; and that the second-biggest 527 in the U.S. is the Republican Governors Association, a group spun off by the Republican National Committee two years ago specifically to collect and harness soft money for state and local GOP candidates.

 

If President Bush is opposed to 527s, somebody better tell his senior campaign staff, and quick.

 

--Nick Confessore

Posted by tapped at 06:17 PM

DAMN THOSE 527s. Atrios keeps asking a good question -- what is the president trying to say about 527s? On one level, of course, we all know that this is a pure dodge, adopted for expediency's sake, that has nothing to do with any real substantive beliefs. On the other hand, he does keep saying he wants to get rid of these "shadowy groups," and there was a time not so long ago when campaign finance was a hotly debated issue. So the question needs to be asked: If the president hates 527s so much, how did he and his wife wind up on the cover of Republican Woman magazine, a publication of the National Federation of Republican Women, which you'll find right here on OpenSecrets' list of 527 groups. Or how does he feel about the NFRW's upcoming tribute to Laura Bush at the Republican convention. Even more interesting -- why did the RNC donate $10,000 to GOPAC, yet another insidious 527 group?

 

--Matthew Yglesias

Posted by jdubner at 05:21 PM

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I didn't say it was honest. It's just an awesome PR move, is all.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Yeah, it was a good political move. Completly dishonest, but that's expected.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush has condemned these from the get go.

 

One of the candidates, though, has not.

 

Please note that --- Kerry has simply tried to silence SVBT, while not giving two shits about the over-abundance of 527's that have attacked Bush for the last year.

 

And if they REALLY want to get into it, why don't they explain why the left-wing groups have raised and spent MANY TIMES more money than the conservatives ones?

 

Yeah, again, Bush is the bad guy to the left. Fuck them.

-=Mike

...I'm the one who lives in a purely black and white, the opposition is evil world --- right?

[Justice 0]

Yeah, it was a good political move. Completly dishonest, but that's expected.

... ???

 

Are you a complete tool or something? Seriuosly, Kerry tried to outbluff Bush by trying to have him denounce this, thus saving his record from critizism without actually addressing the charges. Instead, Bush jujitsus is back at him, using it to attack the main thorn in his side: The massive amount of 527 ads that the Democrats are putting up.

 

To think that one side is being completely honest in their intentions is stupid. Kerry simply tried to use the momentum from the SBVT stuff against Bush, and it failed. Miserably. He's back in the same position he started in, and now it looks supsicious that he didn't try to directly address the charges set forth against him.

 

Please, grow up a bit and realize that both sides are simply being political.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Actually, I'd think the same way if Kerry had condemnd all 527's. What both sides want to happen is for their side to keep running and for the other side to give up. Yes, I'm a partisan Democratic hack (tm MikeSC), but I realize it's all politics. I know I'm not going to convince you, Mike or kkk to vote for Kerry.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Please note that --- Kerry has simply tried to silence SVBT, while not giving two shits about the over-abundance of 527's that have attacked Bush for the last year.

Kerry asked MoveOn to stop running an ad, and they had about as much class as SwiftVets in their response.

[Guest MikeSC]

Please note that --- Kerry has simply tried to silence SVBT, while not giving two shits about the over-abundance of 527's that have attacked Bush for the last year.

Kerry asked MoveOn to stop running an ad, and they had about as much class as SwiftVets in their response.

Of course, Kerry ignores the MONTHS of ads they've unleashed. Or Terry McAuliffe saying basically the identical thing.

Actually, I'd think the same way if Kerry had condemnd all 527's. What both sides want to happen is for their side to keep running and for the other side to give up. Yes, I'm a partisan Democratic hack (tm MikeSC), but I realize it's all politics. I know I'm not going to convince you, Mike or kkk to vote for Kerry.

It takes a special kind of hack to find a way to say that calling for a ban on ALL of these ads --- a position Bush has taken all year --- is somehow "completely dishonest".

 

Let's say Bush condemns this ad. I'm sure there's some obscure ad I've not heard of that he DOESN'T condemn. So, it's a "no-win" for him.

 

Thus, Bush called Kerry's bluff and managed to condemn ALL of the ads attacking HIM in ADDITION to condemning SVBT --- which he's ALWAYS done, mind you.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Mike, do you really think Bush, Rove, or Hughes are really all that mad about the Swift Vet Ads. Really?

 

Edit: Argh, stupid computer.

 

Anyway.

 

I mean, I agree it was a good political move. But, I somehow think as long as the Swift Vets are getting as much free playing of the ad as they're getting, the Bush campaign doesn't really mind all that much. I mean, how many MoveOn ads have been played nightly on the cablerantfests for a week straight? Plus, I always though Bush was for less restrictions on "free speech", not more. :-)

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, do you really think Bush, Rove, or Hughes are really all that mad about the Swift Vet Ads. Really?

Nope. I'm sure they're thrilled.

 

HOWEVER, they were on record opposing these ads long before --- so the only one with a problem here is Kerry, who didn't have a problem when Bush was getting slammed.

 

Bush simply IGNORED the ads against him.

I mean, I agree it was a good political move. But, I somehow think as long as the Swift Vets are getting as much free playing of the ad as they're getting, the Bush campaign doesn't really mind all that much. I mean, how many MoveOn ads have been played nightly on the cablerantfests for a week straight? Plus, I always though Bush was for less restrictions on "free speech", not more. :-)

SVBT have a grain (at the minimum) of truth.

 

Moveon.org lacks even that.

 

Bush, I'm sure, LOVES the SVBT ads --- but he doesn't have to change his tune since he clearly stated an opposition to ALL these ads.

 

Do you think Kerry would've said a word about moveon.org's ad about Bush's military service if he wasn't bitching about SVBT as well?

 

Bush has said he does not want limitless contributions for hit groups. He wants both parties to play by the rules. And, let's be honest, The Dems were kept afloat by their 527's for the better part of a year.

-=Mike

-=Mike

[tommytomlin 0]

So do these Presidential Election things you guys have contain any...what's that word.... ummm.....starts with a p....

 

Ooh! That's it! POLICY.

 

Apart from 'We must fight terror' from Bush, and 'You fucked up Iraq' from Kerry, how come when I flick to Fox News, or read this forum, or go to CNN.com or Drudge, there's barely any stories about actual policy?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because our media is lazy.

[Guest MikeSC]

So do these Presidential Election things you guys have contain any...what's that word.... ummm.....starts with a p....

 

Ooh! That's it! POLICY.

 

Apart from 'We must fight terror' from Bush, and 'You fucked up Iraq' from Kerry, how come when I flick to Fox News, or read this forum, or go to CNN.com or Drudge, there's barely any stories about actual policy?

Actually, Kerry has said he'd do the same thing in regards to Iraq --- even knowing what we know now.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, Kerry ignores the MONTHS of ads they've unleashed.

I haven't seen any moveon.org ads because I don't live in a battleground state, sorry. But I've seen the SwiftVet ads all over cable.

 

I think Bush has taken the right move re: 527s, but I still think he should specifically condemn this ad, as well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, Kerry ignores the MONTHS of ads they've unleashed.

I haven't seen any moveon.org ads because I don't live in a battleground state, sorry. But I've seen the SwiftVet ads all over cable.

 

I think Bush has taken the right move re: 527s, but I still think he should specifically condemn this ad, as well.

Why should he?

 

Condemning all of them is fine.

 

And, again, Kerry finally condemned one ad. Only took him a YEAR --- and obvious press scrutiny if he didn't.

 

This is simply Kerry bitching and moaning because these hurt him. Bush only had to deal with this for the better part of a year and lord knows they tore him to down big-time.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why should he?

 

Condemning all of them is fine.

Big difference between condemning 527s as an idea as Bush has done until now and specifically condemning garbage attack ads.

 

This is simply Kerry bitching and moaning because these hurt him. Bush only had to deal with this for the better part of a year and lord knows they tore him to down big-time.

Again, I don't see any Dem 527 TV ads. Can you find me one that's as vicious as the SwiftVets ad? I assume the reason I never see them or hear about them like I do the SwiftVets ad is because they're just criticizing policy decisions and not their character.

[2GOLD 0]

Can someone please tell the protest groups that Kerry is NOT pulling out of Iraq if he becomes President? Please?

 

I'm tired of hearing them say, "We are against Bush cause we are against the war." Well then actually, you are against Bush AND Kerry.

 

As for this, Bush condemed all the ads. He could have sat there with a checklist of every ad and denounced them all but instead he just said "ALL" which is much easier.

 

Both sides should stop with the bs attack ads and actually talk, you know, POLITICS. It's the main reason I'm not voting for either of them, they don't seem to say anything. They talk, but the words come off more as soundbites than actual meaning anything.

 

Is it too much to ask for them to just tell me what the hell they will do if they become President even though I know they actually can't do anything since if they don't have the Congress they are a powerless puppet.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why should he?

 

Condemning all of them is fine.

Big difference between condemning 527s as an idea as Bush has done until now and specifically condemning garbage attack ads.

No, the ONLY difference is that, this time, it's not slamming Bush.

 

Honestly, fuck Kerry and the Democrats. They're behaving like children. Bush has done FAR more for Kerry than Kerry did for Bush.

This is simply Kerry bitching and moaning because these hurt him. Bush only had to deal with this for the better part of a year and lord knows they tore him to down big-time.

Again, I don't see any Dem 527 TV ads.

Which, of course, means they don't exist.

 

Not BUSH'S fault that the SVBT ad actually HAS some proof and evidence behind it. Perhaps the left 527's should try to make PERSUASIVE ads --- rather than DAMNING ads.

Can you find me one that's as vicious as the SwiftVets ad?

That was vicious? BWA HA HA HA HA! Jesus, Kerry really can't handle an actual serious campaign.

I assume the reason I never see them or hear about them like I do the SwiftVets ad is because they're just criticizing policy decisions and not their character.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

You'd be thinking wrong.

 

SVBT doesn't quite go to the extremes of moveon.org et al. Blame them for being REALLY bad at their job, while the SVBT actually know what the hell they're doing.

-=Mike

...Gotta to eventually face it --- there just isn't that much deep hatred for Bush...

[Guest Cerebus]

Simply amazing.

 

I've been talking about how 527s have been wiping their asses with McCain-Feingold for MONTHS and when does Big Media catch on?

 

When the Swift Boat Vets (NOT a 527) make an add attacking Kerry.

 

Fuck this media. I'm going All Blog.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know what all of this reminds me of?

 

The Red Sox after they lost Alex Rodriguez.

 

Remember how their owner, after going on an unprecedented spending spree, said that maybe a luxury tax is a good idea because of how much NY spent to get A-Rod?

 

This is the reaction of Kerry. He's had a YEAR of 527's blasting Bush (does anybody care to mention how tiny a percentage of the overall pie conservative 527's have?) --- but the moment ONE hits him, he cries foul.

 

Maybe it's in the water up there.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

Simply put, Bush can survive without 527 ads because he has more money than Kerry does.

 

Kerry needs all the help he can get, so he might be shamed into getting rid of one of the biggest weapons he has; namely, the ads paid for by fellow liberal groups.

 

"Can you find me one that's as vicious as the SwiftVets ad?"

 

That was vicious? BWA HA HA HA HA! Jesus, Kerry really can't handle an actual serious campaign.

 

True, Mike; the Republicans have done MUCH worse smear campaigns.

 

[Former Georgia Senator Max] Cleland, 60, is still livid over a now-infamous TV commercial that Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran against him [in their 2002 Senate race]. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.

 

"The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it."

 

Oh, and Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam AND earned a Silver Star.

 

Source 1

Source 2

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, the ONLY difference is that, this time, it's not slamming Bush.

Have ANY of the ads used such gross distortions of the truth as the SwiftVets ads? I think F9/11 came up there, but that's not a 527.

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

You'd be thinking wrong.

Then why don't I remember any of the other ads getting this kind of attention? Especially when there "isn't that much hatred of Bush?" if that's the case, there would be more outrage.

[Guest MikeSC]

Simply put, Bush can survive without 527 ads because he has more money than Kerry does.

 

Kerry needs all the help he can get, so he might be shamed into getting rid of one of the biggest weapons he has; namely, the ads paid for by fellow liberal groups.

 

"Can you find me one that's as vicious as the SwiftVets ad?"

 

That was vicious? BWA HA HA HA HA! Jesus, Kerry really can't handle an actual serious campaign.

 

True, Mike; the Republicans have done MUCH worse smear campaigns.

Yes, Republicans have done worse.

 

Liberals manage to out-do Republicans.

 

Haven't heard a conservative group say that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for church burnings and lynchings.

 

And Kerry has raised A LOT of money. Let's not even pretend that there's a huge gap.

Have ANY of the ads used such gross distortions of the truth as the SwiftVets ads?

Care to list these "gross distortions of the truth"? Go ahead, shouldn't be tough. Keep in mind, I've actually read the book.

 

And, yes, they did distort facts HORRIBLY. For months. You know, he "knew" that there were no WMD in Iraq and the like (an actual ad from moveon.org).

Then why don't I remember any of the other ads getting this kind of attention?

Because when somebody like me mentioned them, you ignored them and said they were "fringe" leftists. Don't gripe because you don't pay attention.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

SVBT doesn't quite go to the extremes of moveon.org et al.

 

The 'Bush = Hitler' ad story is bullshit.

 

"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries."

 

Source 1

 

MoveOn.org did not "sponsor," edit, or willingly publish the Hitler-Bush ad segments. The group has since removed the ads, which weren't among the 15 finalists chosen as part of their political advertising competition. MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd released a statement in which MoveOn members admitted their mistake, agreed that the two ads in question were in poor taste and regretted that they slipped through the organization's screening process.

 

Source 2

[Guest Cerebus]

SVBT doesn't quite go to the extremes of moveon.org et al.

 

The 'Bush = Hitler' ad story is bullshit.

 

"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries."

 

Source 1

 

MoveOn.org did not "sponsor," edit, or willingly publish the Hitler-Bush ad segments. The group has since removed the ads, which weren't among the 15 finalists chosen as part of their political advertising competition. MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd released a statement in which MoveOn members admitted their mistake, agreed that the two ads in question were in poor taste and regretted that they slipped through the organization's screening process.

 

Source 2

I read Mike's post twice, didn't read him mention Bush=Hitler ad at all.

[Slickster 0]

Consider it a preemptive strike, then.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Care to list these "gross distortions of the truth"? Go ahead, shouldn't be tough. Keep in mind, I've actually read the book.

That they attribute the quote to him directly in the latest ad alone is a gross distortion of the truth.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=244