Those whiny Democrats- they are never satisfied. Once again, I guess for the terminally stupid, Bush has re-stated that he does not support he Swift Boats for Veterans commercal, nor any other run by 527’s:
President Bush on Monday denounced campaign commercials aired by outside groups, including an ad that accuses John Kerry of lying about his combat record in Vietnam.
“That ad and every other ad” run by such groups have no place in the campaign, Bush said when asked about the commercial sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that has roiled the race for the White House.
Asked directly whether his Democratic rival for the presidency had lied, Bush said, “I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.”
Since this was not clear enough for the Democrats and the press, he elaborated, speaking slowly so the media an Kerry/Edwards supporters would understand:
In Texas at his ranch, Bush said, “I don’t think we ought to have 527s,” a reference to the outside groups that have poured millions of dollars over the past year into attack ads. Bush himself has been a main target of ads costing some $60 million. Bush said all of the ads should be stopped.
“That means that ad,” he said, referring to the anti-Kerry ad, “and every other ad.”
The anti-Kerry ad, no longer running but much publicized in news accounts, says Kerry didn’t deserve his Purple Hearts, lied to get his Bronze Star and Silver Star and unfairly branded all veterans with his 1971 congressional testimony about atrocities in Vietnam.
“I couldn’t be more plain about it,” Bush said “I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s.”
Bush can keep hoping, because they aren’t going to, despite the disgusting connections between 527’s and the DNC and the Kerry/Edwards campign. In fact, not only are they not going to denounce all 527’s as Bush has, they are going to continue to lie about what they have condemned. Right now, the Kerry campaign claims to have condemned specific ads by MoveOn.Org. The record, of course, as it almost always is with the Democrats, just the opposite:
Again, for those of you keeping score at home: John Kerry initially condemned the Moveon.org ad that maliciously floats disproven charges concerning George Bush
Since Oliver the paid hack is so into govt. records- why doesn’t he call on Kerry to release ALL his military records, all his tax records, and all his attendance records from the Intel committee secret meetings?
Well Oliver? I’ll wait for your boss Soros to slip you a few bucks and tell you how to answer me.
The Kerry camp today said that they were saddened that Dole decided to “contradict Naval records.” Of course there was no such sadness from the Kerry camp when their opponent was Wesley Clark and he was letting Michael Moore contradict National Guard records, nor did they call on Clark to denounce Moore, nor have they denounced Clark’s MoveOn.org-esque attacks now on their behalf.
Meanwhile, Edwards says that Bush “failed the test” because he didn’t say to stop the ads… except, er, he did. This, ladies and gentlemen, is called slick trial lawyer lying. They just don’t want to respond to his test.
The link pointed to by “Jeff Goldstein’s… post” is broken.
I’m confused, as often happens, John. 527s are just any bunch of people who band together to pay to distribute their opinion; I thought you were for that sort of thing and opposed to restrictions on that sort of thing. Have you changed your mind? If not, why would you approve of President Bush calling for a blatant elimination of free speech?
“Bush has re-stated that he does not support he Swift Boats for Veterans commercal….”
I apologize if I missed the relevant earlier post of yours, which is entirely possible: do you have a cite for when the President specifically stated this in the first place, before this “restate[ment]” (which is less than inspiring given that the ad is no longer running; the next SwiftVets ad starts tomorrow, on Tuesday)?
Gary- IN the past two weeks, Bush has repeatedly been asked if he condemns the Swift Vets as, and his response has been the same- “I condemn all of these unregulated ads.”
Only the intentionally and willfully obtuse would conclude that for some reason Bush has not condemned the Swift VEts along with every other unregulated group.
For the record, I am in favor of no regulations whatsoever, would get rid of public financing, and would disband the FEC. Barring that, I am in favor of no limits on hard money with the only requirement being instant disclosure.
“…and his response has been the same- ‘I condemn all of these unregulated ads.'”
Quite so, but that doesn’t answer the question I asked. A generality is not the same as a specific. Stating a generality is not “restating” a specific, but is restating the generality. You certainly can maintain that the generality, in your view, covered the specific, but specifically asserting that a generality is a “restating” of a specific is inaccurate.
Example: someone comments on my blog that “John Cole is a big doo-doo head.” You rightfully ask if I might respond. If I say “I condemn all insults on blogs,” I am saying something different than “I object to your calling John Cole a doo-doo head: don’t do that here again.” The former has no force or specificity; the latter does.
And would you in all honesty suggest that the President not responding to a specific request (which is certainly his right), but instead switching to a generalized plea that just happens to include the provision that his opponent call for people to support him to stop advertising while an entire month passes that the President is legally allowed to continue to spend his own campaign’s money while his opponent is legally restricted to a lesser total is not, perhaps, just a bit disingenuous?
Ditto the President waiting until the specific ad is no longer running to call for it to, um, no longer run? (New Swift ad starts tomorrow, Tuesday, as I imagine you are aware.)
Mind, I’m not righteously indignant to find that — shock, horror — politicians are being political. I merely am a bit surprised that you kinda gloss over these aspects.
Gary, try not to be too hard on John: he’s cultivating a defiant obtuseness at the moment, like (and kind of an homage to) his feckless leader.
Just like Flyboy Pebblehead, John’s purposefully ignoring the fact that the Swifties’ allegations have been fully revealed as sad lies and a nauseating smear, not worth the toilet paper I’d transcribe them on to wipe my ass with. When asked their opinions about the appropriateness of base slander even in a political campaign, what else can they do but join hands–John and his Captain, oh Captain–and march off into obfuscation and obliviousness, respectively? Admittedly, though, it wears better on the President, who lost any credibility regarding his scruples and acumen quite some time ago.
Not to say that there isn’t a method to their moronism, for when asked directly about patent falsehoods contained in the Swifties’ ad, they turn the discussion–whether anybody wants them to or not (see McLelland, Scott, ad nauseum)–to the one area where the Bush campaign doesn’t have a funding advantage. Brilliant, really, in a land of the blind sort of way.
Bush can’t denounce the lies because they’re his lies and he never lies, which of course is a lie. Plus, his base doesn’t like to be corrected: witness the number of people who believe we’ve found WMD & Iraq-AQ ties. John can’t denounce the lies because that would undermine his oft-stated contention that only Democrats are willing say or do anything in their relentless lust for power. So, John lashes out, calling Democrats crybabies, when only a few months back Kevin Drum’s inquiry in Bush’s (poon)TANG service had John, Ricky and the boys screaming like a bunch of little girls with skinned knees.
As for Jeff Goldstein’s typically uneven foray into political analysis (with a just-precious Bozell-CNS link to boot!), my recollection is that the Clark and Turner comments were:
(1) made in the morning and Kerry denounced the MoveOn ad in the afternoon (Jeff’s writing does bend space-time in some delightful ways, but never literally); and,
(Too) limited to the fact that Bush used his father’s influence to avoid being sent to Nam, which is hardly controversial.
What really strikes me about Bush’s statements today (now yesterday), though, is his apparent belief that McCain-Feingold was intended to rid politics of these sorts of nefarious groups. What, did he not read the bill, or have someone read it to him, before he signed it? Obviously not, for the clear text of the bill (he’s a strict constructionist, right?) would have revealed to him that 527’s were expressly exempted. Does he not understand that the purpose of M-F was to eliminate the influence of groups with direct financial interests in political outcomes? Is there anything about which he even remotely has a clue?
C’mon, John, be a cut above. Let go of that soft, well-manicured, clammy mitt, before the landslide carries you over the cliff. There’s no hope for the idiot-king, but certainly you can do better.
Jesus, what a festering pustule that was.
Uh, John? About those whiny Democrats- they are never satisfied. Once again, I guess for the terminally stupid thing?
Could you reconcile this stuff for slow, terminally stupid, me, please?
I’m also unclear about “he elaborated, speaking slowly […]These people are, quite simply, pathological liars.”
Could you please clarify for me: is this intended to persuade undecided voters, or to simply indict the plurality of the citizenry of the United States of America who are registered Democrats? What is your intention in continuously accusing the largest number of registered voters in your country of being pathological liars, and various other foul attributes?
I kinda get the idea that it makes you feel good at the time you write this stuff when you write it, to be sure. But is there some intent behind that? Americans are stupid, overall? You hate Americans? Only Republicans are true Americans? People you don’t like are pathological liars? Folks who don’t vote as you wish are terminally stupid?
It’s possible that name-calling is not the most convincing argument. Of course, I might be wrong about that.
I’ve been an elected Republican delegate to a county convention. I didn’t get there because I was called “terminally stupid” or a “pathological liar,” and neither was I prevented from gaining that position from such. Do you have some point in using this language beyond self-enjoyment at the rant?
You’re better than that, John. You’re better than that.
Gee, pointing out that someone accusing the sitting president of being guilty of AWOL and declaring it’s up to him to disprove the charge is quite outrageous is now screaming like a bunch of girls?
One wonders what the description would be had I, instead of offering a critique within an open forum, run to the FEC whining “make them stop”.
BTW, the official government documents (now deemed to be the end-all/be-all of historical investigations) show that Bush was honorably discharged, so Drum is now quite discredited.
Glad you brought my name into the fold, bloggerhead?
“Only the intentionally and willfully obtuse would conclude that for some reason Bush has not condemned the Swift VEts along with every other unregulated group.”
I expect you’ll now stick to this “there is no need to ever denounce anything specifically, since vague generalities do the trick” claim, then, John. I think it’s weird, dishonest, and won’t serve you well, but if that’s your choice, so be it as you’ve made it, and good luck with your making a tactical choice a life choice.
It does make me sad for you.