Well Well Lil Dubya caught in a tight spot AGAIN

[westkoast]

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence” that the veterans group is “coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson told NBC News.


The complaint comes at the end of a week in which Kerry himself accused Bush of having the Swift Boat veterans do “his dirty work” and media reports have exposed connections between Bush, his family and other high-profile Texas politicians. In a Thursday speech, the Massachusetts senator said: “The fact that the president won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know.”

Steve Schmidt of the Bush campaign said charges that Bush is in league with the veterans’ group are “absolutely and completely false. The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.” But the Bush campaign has, in fact, refused to specifically disavow the Swift Boat veteran’s ad, in which fellow Vietnam veterans say Kerry acted dishonorably to win the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts that he was awarded for his service in Vietnam.

Formal ties would be illegal
Any formal ties between the Bush campaign and the veterans group would be against the law. Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth is organized as a non-party, independent political group under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and coordination between a 527 group and a presidential campaign is illegal.


The rest of the article is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't say that im not suprised but if the court proves that these were some illegal tactics...then the Bush campaign is digging itself a hole faster than Sadaam Hussein.

[Joe Vancil]

I have no doubt that Bush is in league with the Swift Boat Veterans.

I also have no doubt that Kerry is likewise breaking the law with a few of the 527 groups that support him.

Oh, sure, they're both doing it hush-hush and through enough levels of secrecy and front-men that it'd take you months to get to the bottom of it.

The ads can't be "coordinated" by the campaign.  You don't need the campaign offices to coordinate ads - just listen to freakin' CNN and you'll find out what the campaigns are about to do.  Anyone with any sense of timing can coordinate with that!

Heck, all it takes is a leak - "Well, CNN, we're finding that a lot of folks are really leaning toward Kerry because of his war record, and we really need to get them back on our side" is completely legal, and all that's required to get the Swift Boat Veterans to release their ad.  All you have to do is point, and the campaign wizards at the 527 group will understand what is being asked of them.

Campaign reform.  HERE'S how you reform campaign finance:  Give each candidate 4 commercials, and a total run of 32 times.  Limit campaign expenses (outside of the commercials) to $1 million.  Prohibit outside groups from airing commercials.  Anyone, anywhere, can donate as much as they want - but the cap limit for expenditures is $1 million.  THEN, have each party designate an accountant to set on a board to review all expenses (preferably not the Enron accountants).  Any campaign going over the $1 million mark LOSES ITS ABILITY TO RUN IN THE ELECTION.

That will fix campaign finance.
 

[westkoast]

Joe the difference is they are trying to discredit something pretty serious.  Those are some of the highest accomplisments our government gives out and they are trying to make it sound like anyone can fake it and get em.  I find that a low blow.  I understand what you are saying, its a tactic to pull the people's minds.  However Bush shouldn't be giving the ok for them to take shots about something serious, especially when he was in the national guard sitting in the US.

[spursfan101]

Both candidates are hiding behind their 527's, I'm sure Kerry coordinates his attacks with Moveon.org, no suprise about the Bush news.

What gets me is, how could Bush dog Kerry over Vietnam when he didn't even GO.

I'm torn. Hope Bush suffers a humiliating defeat. Then I'm scared because Kerry, to me, hasn't said exactly what he plans to do about Iraq.

[Joe Vancil]

No, the "difference" is that they're trying to discredit someone FOR PERSONAL GAIN - namely, the office of President.  Which is, of course, what the other camp is trying to do as well.

Both candidates are so weak that their own records can't point to any sign that either of these men would be good for our country.  They're left trying to prove that their record isn't as bad as the other guy's.

What is it with this country?  Every four years, the two worst people to run the country square off to see which one isn't worse?

I know who *I* want to vote for of the folks in or near the campaigns.  I want to vote for Teresa Heinz-Kerry.  You ask me, she makes a better leader than all the rest of the bozos put together.


 

[Guest]

No, the "difference" is that they're trying to discredit someone FOR PERSONAL GAIN - namely, the office of President.  Which is, of course, what the other camp is trying to do as well.

Both candidates are so weak that their own records can't point to any sign that either of these men would be good for our country.  They're left trying to prove that their record isn't as bad as the other guy's.

What is it with this country?  Every four years, the two worst people to run the country square off to see which one isn't worse?

I know who *I* want to vote for of the folks in or near the campaigns.  I want to vote for Teresa Heinz-Kerry.  You ask me, she makes a better leader than all the rest of the bozos put together.

Im not voting for either but thats not the point.  Like 101 said, how can Bush support someone taking shots at Kerry for Vietnam, when he didnt go.  Thats what im getting at.

Im worried just like 101 also.  Both are spending more time throwing mud then actually talking about issues alot of us are worried about.  Has anyone heard a single peep about what either canidate is going to do here at home.  I don't live in Iraq so that is not as important as homeland issues to me.

[spursfan101]

Bush is just CRIMINAL, I'm voting AGAINST HIM more than voting FOR KERRY. Think I'm like most people.

And I listen to alot of Rush Limbaugh when i'm in the car, he drives my wife nuts, but its good to see how the other side thinks.  And its...SCARY!! :eek2:  :crazy:  

[guest-koast]

What Im worried about is this new overtime ordeal that Bush and his staff are pushing for.  I will end up falling under the group who is going to be effected and right now I cannot say that I am happy.  I normally work 10-20 hours of overtime every other week because of the location of our other offices.

[ziggy]

Joe the difference is they are trying to discredit something pretty serious.  Those are some of the highest accomplisments our government gives out and they are trying to make it sound like anyone can fake it and get em.  I find that a low blow.  I understand what you are saying, its a tactic to pull the people's minds.  However Bush shouldn't be giving the ok for them to take shots about something serious, especially when he was in the national guard sitting in the US.

Whether Bush went to Vietnam is really irrelevant.  If the standard is you can't question or challenge something you didn't do, then Kerry has no right to criticize any of Bush's actions as President, since Kerry hasn't been President.  That is ridiculous of course.  Hold Bush accountable for his actions and decisions, just like you hold Kerry responsible for his.
Kerry has made his service in Vietnam a central part of his candidacy, so he should expect some heat on that.  The reality with much of this Swift boat stuff is that this is much more about the things Kerry said once he returned (see the latest ad), calling US soliders baby killers, rapists, who were committing genocide.  There are a lot of people who find his words repulsive, and are prepared to go to the mat with him over it.
The second part of all this is that Kerry has a tendancy to exagerate, and then he exagerates his exgerations.  When he does that about issues that he makes as central themes to his campaign then he sets himself up.  That was Gore's problem, and it is quickly becoming Kerry's.
I find a lot of this swift boat controversy to be pretty dubious.  The swift boat vets IMHO are not backing up most of what they are saying with anything concrete, just lots of veiled innuendo.  That is the part that I don't like, and don't support.  The notion that this is DIFFERENT from what the lefties have done is all so BOGUS though :puke: .  The accusations that Bush went AWOL when NO EVIDENCE was presented was equally slimey.  The entire Micheal Moore  :crazy: garbage, and the unsubstantiated crap he spewed is much more sleazy.
As far as Bush orchestrating all this through a 527, I am unconvinced that he is doing anything outside the letter of the law.  Both Bush and Kerry know the law very clearly, so they control the 527's within the rules as they are.  They control them through winks and nods.  No doubt Bush's people are influencing this, just like Kerry's are with Moveon.Org.  Campaign Finance Reform :puke: , oh what a great and glorious improvement to our electoral system  :bash: .

I, just like Paul, like to listen to left wing talk radio, and lefty magazines etc.  My reaction is the same, they SCARE THE HELL out of me  :crazy: .  Those on the left who really buy the Fahrenheit 911 BS, and who believe that the 2000 election was illegitimate, those are the people that really need to get a grip  :eek2:  :crazy: .

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the 2000 election just showed how inept our political system is.

I could take a class of third graders and get a more accurate vote count than either of the political parties did in Florida.  And I'll bet they better understand what a "recount" means and the proper way to perform it.

And we're likely in for the same situation again - wasting government dollars to find out which worthless candidate belongs in office.

There are lots of folks I'd vote for:  Bush Sr., Perot, Sen. Feingold (D-Wisconsin), former Rep. Largent (R-Oklahoma), even Howard Dean; as much as I disagree with some of these guys, I at least respect their leadership abilities.  But I *WILL* *NOT* vote for Kerry or Bush Jr.

 

[jn]

Just had to pitch in this tidbit from my recent reading.

Conservative: n. A person enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with new ones.

-Ambrose Bierce "The Devil's Dictionary"

[Derek Bodner]

Whether Bush went to Vietnam is really irrelevant. If the standard is you can't question or challenge something you didn't do, then Kerry has no right to criticize any of Bush's actions as President, since Kerry hasn't been President.

It's not the ability to question something you haven't done.  It's about being a hypocrit.  Bush can't criticize Kerry's shady (in the eyes of republicans at least) vietnam war record when his own vietnam war record is shady at best as well.

[ziggy]

Whether Bush went to Vietnam is really irrelevant. If the standard is you can't question or challenge something you didn't do, then Kerry has no right to criticize any of Bush's actions as President, since Kerry hasn't been President.

It's not the ability to question something you haven't done.  It's about being a hypocrit.  Bush can't criticize Kerry's shady (in the eyes of republicans at least) vietnam war record when his own vietnam war record is shady at best as well.

Derek,
First it is a major bone of contention with many people.  Kerry brought it up, so Bush should be able to challenge it.  One recourse Kerry has is simple, challenge Bush on his.  In other words if you believe Bush is a hypocrite, then put the case together for it.  I have no problem with anybody hammering Bush on that sort of stuff.  If it is an important issue to voters, then Kerry holding Bush to task for his record will garner Kerry votes, and that is the politcal process.  Just make sure the case that is put forward has legitimacy.  As I said I find the approach of the swift boat vets to be dubious.  They haven't convinced me.  I think their strategy is to raise the medals issue, and then focus the debate on his actions after he left the military.  Throw the accusations out, and then change the topic and make him look dishonorable, and then more people just may buy the original accusations.  Kind of like Micheal Moore.

[westkoast]

Whether Bush went to Vietnam is really irrelevant. If the standard is you can't question or challenge something you didn't do, then Kerry has no right to criticize any of Bush's actions as President, since Kerry hasn't been President.

It's not the ability to question something you haven't done.  It's about being a hypocrit.  Bush can't criticize Kerry's shady (in the eyes of republicans at least) vietnam war record when his own vietnam war record is shady at best as well.

Derek,
First it is a major bone of contention with many people.  Kerry brought it up, so Bush should be able to challenge it.  One recourse Kerry has is simple, challenge Bush on his.  In other words if you believe Bush is a hypocrite, then put the case together for it.  I have no problem with anybody hammering Bush on that sort of stuff.  If it is an important issue to voters, then Kerry holding Bush to task for his record will garner Kerry votes, and that is the politcal process.  Just make sure the case that is put forward has legitimacy.  As I said I find the approach of the swift boat vets to be dubious.  They haven't convinced me.  I think their strategy is to raise the medals issue, and then focus the debate on his actions after he left the military.  Throw the accusations out, and then change the topic and make him look dishonorable, and then more people just may buy the original accusations.  Kind of like Micheal Moore.

The difference between Michael Moore and these guys is that Michael Moore didnt make it a secret that he was being extremly bias on purpose.  That was part of his deal.  Which made the movie that more entertaining.  Not his fault that people took it as the gospel, alot of us took it for what it was.  Some didnt.  :Shrugs:

I am glad Bush denounced the anti-kerry ads.  I dont see why he needs to sling mud, for some odd reason Kerry wants to go heads up with Bush on the terrorist thing and Bush has him beat in that department.

[Guest_Randy]

Whether Bush went to Vietnam is really irrelevant. If the standard is you can't question or challenge something you didn't do, then Kerry has no right to criticize any of Bush's actions as President, since Kerry hasn't been President.

It's not the ability to question something you haven't done.  It's about being a hypocrit.  Bush can't criticize Kerry's shady (in the eyes of republicans at least) vietnam war record when his own vietnam war record is shady at best as well.

Dbods, BOTH sides are incredible hypocritical:

     Bush is pointing a finger at Kerry's military record when he was able to stay stateside because of political connections.

     The demo's put Michael Moore on stage with them to try and give credence to his movie which Moore tries to paint as fact rather than fiction.  Demo's are trying to play Kerry's war record as a TRUMP card when their last presidential representative was a draft dodger who ran to Canada.  You don't see hypocrisy in that?

My problem is that I have YET to see Kerry say what he will do IF he got into office.  I've heard him talk a lot about his "results" but nothing that even indicates that he has a plan!  It SCARES me to think of electing a guy who can't even trot out a plan for anything!  Reminds me of several other Presidents who became puppets that others controlled (Grant, etc.).  Kerry hasn't proven anything in the Senate -- that concerns me.