When Bush regrets 527s, he regrets freedom

When Bush regrets 527s,
he regrets freedom

Joe Gandelman posted today that President Bush has denounced the Swift Boat Vet ads, but continues to tie that in to a call to do away with 527s (which are, in reality, representative of free speech).

Joe quotes Bush:

" 'That ad and every other ad' run by such groups [527s] have no place in the campaign."

If we choose to lean toward freedom, the freedom of 527s must be kept intact.

I do not regret that the Swift Boat Vets have employed the rights and priveleges enveloped by our nation's First Amendment protections.

I do regret dishonorable opportunism when it comes to a politically calculated revision of settled history.

The president also reissued his call for Kerry to echo his statement about such ads.

I would be very upset with John Kerry if he denounced 527s.

I would be pleased to hear Kerry admit that any deliberate and reckless lie is never acceptable in political advertising, especially when it so blatantly dishonors the service of any veteran.

A Commander-in-chief worth an ounce of honor would have denounced the Swift Boat ads "day one".

Talk about your whining politicians, this is the FEC complaint Bush-Cheney made against 527s (against our freedom) last March.
~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of dishonorable opportunism, Joe comments, in the same post, that he believes Bob Dole's recent comments are truly reprehensible.

I couldn't help but notice, while Bob Dole made those comments, he did so with his eyes continually cast down to the ground, indicative of a man who may have felt some shame in what he was saying about a fellow citizen who gave honorable service to America.
Shame on Bob Dole.
________________________________

At Crooked Timber, I caught a discussion about 527s:

Uggabugga links to a list of 527s and asks, “Why does the Bush campaign object to ads that the Oregon Grocery Association might run? What are they doing that is objectionable?”

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it’s pretty incredible that a serious candidate would talk like this. I doubt that five people in a hundred would agree with Bush’s position if it was presented in a cooler-headed context. The right of people to organize and speak out is right at the heart of the First Amendment.

Mr. Bush should realize this is a bipartisan issue and that he isn't fooling those of us (on either side of the ideological fence) who truly respect freedom.

Credentialed RNC Bloggers

Credentialed RNC Bloggers

RNC Bloggers

Here is list of credentialed bloggers for the Republican National Convention:



Kevin Aylward, WizBang
Dean Esmay, Dean's World
Blogs For Bush
Matt Margolis of Blogs For Bush
Captain Ed, Captain's Quarters and Blogs For Bush
Scott Sala, Slant Point
John H. Hinderaker, Power Line
Karol, Dean's World and Spot On,
Bill, INDC Journal (was a disinvited blogger from DNCC)
Tom Bevan, RealClear Politics
Ben Domenech, Red State
Tacitus
Roger L. Simon
Brian Reich, Campaign Web Review
David Adesnik from OxBlog
Hugh Hewitt

Unofficially blogging:

Travis LaFrance



RNC bloggers more privileged than delegates?

The Bloggers' Invitation (difficult to read)

GOP Convention Media Walk-Through

RNC.org blog

Convention musical entertainment
Includes: Brooks and Dunn, Lee Ann Womack, Third Day, Jaci Velasquez, Darryl Worley, Dexter Freebish, Gracie Rosenberger, Donnie McClurkin, Michael W. Smith, Daniel Rodriquez, Daize Shayne, Ron Silver, the Gatlin Brothers, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sara Evans and Dana Glover.
________________________________________________________

Top GOP Convention FAQs:

1. When is the Republican National Convention?

The Official Convention Period runs from Monday, August 30 thru Thursday, September 2, 2004.

2. Where is the Republican National Convention 2004 being held?

Madison Square Garden will be the main site. MSG is located in Manhattan, New York, USA and is bordered by Seventh and Eighth Avenues, 31st and 33rd Streets.

3. What street, subway, LIRR, business, and transportation closings and restrictions are expected?

Traffic, Transportation, closings, restrictions roundup. MTA-LIRR closings, Penn Station entrance closings map. Latest Penn Station closings, Republican Convention street closing map one, this map represents the first days street closings and the less extensive closing conditions that will apply for off hours. Republican Convention street closing map two, this map represents the more extensive street closing rules that will apply when the convention is in session. The Official NYC RNC street closings press release, with full details. Latest press Release For Penn Station, subway, business, pedestrian closings.

4. Who will speak at the RNC 2004? Updated RNC speakers list.

Here is the Official Prime Time list of speakers for the 2004 Republican Convention:

Monday, Aug 30:
Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain

Tuesday, Aug 31:
Laura Bush, Rod Paige, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Wednesday, Sept 1:
Lynne Cheney, Dick Cheney, Zell Miller

Thursday, Sept 2:
George Pataki, George Bush

Others: Senator Bill Frist, Senator Elizabeth Dole, Senator Rick Santorum, Senator Sam Brownback, Rep. Dennis Hastert, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele-MD, Rep. Heather Wilson-MD, Rep. Anne Northup-KY, Erika Harold(Miss America 2003).

5. What Security is being enacted for the 2004 Republican National Convention?

This is a question with many aspects, here we will catalogue a few. Latest security updates, airspace security, airport security, Security Cost, Federal Task Force, NYC Security, MSG Penn Station security, federal RNC waterside security, NYPD convention harbor security, bio-tech security.


6. To whom/where should permit applications be submitted?

Applications for march permits or sound device permits should be made with the Office of the Chief of Department, room 1300, One Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038.

7. Who handles applications for parkland use?

Permit requests to use parklands are handled separately by the New York City Parks Department.

8. How many delegates will attend the 2004 Republican National Convention?

2,509 delegates and 2,344 alternates.

9. How are delegates for the 2004 Republican National Convention chosen?

Delegates are chosen by a primary election, a caucus[closed political meeting], or a combination of the two. The selection process varies depending on the state's, territory's or District of Columbia's rules. state delegations to the 2004 republican national convention.

11. Who founded the Republican party?

The Free Soil Party and The Conscience Whigs [Whig Party Northerners] founded the Republican Party in Jackson Michigan July 6, 1854.

Kerry documentary: Brothers In Arms

Brothers In Arms


The documentary by Paul Alexander.
Produced in 2003.
To be released September 7. Get it here.

Howard Kurtz is off the mark

Howard Kurtz is off the mark

Since when is cooperating with liars a requirement to winning public office?

Howard Kurtz writes that the Kerry campaign's new ad reflects "anxiety and astonishment" over the Swift Boat Veterans ad. [LINK]

Are you kidding?
This is what is called 'fighting back'.
It's what Al Gore failed to do in 2000.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see the media crediting the Bush crowd for political genius on these Swift Boat lie-ads when all the public sees are a bunch of well-funded Bush-supporting vets doing anything they can to revise history for their preferred candidate's sake (calling "black" what is truly "white"--- even when your eyes can clearly see it's white).
This takes nuance to a whole new level.

Perhaps crediting scum is considered to be apropos in the world of politics.
Perhaps I'm naive to think Americans care about having a shred of decency regarding all activities in which they choose to participate--including politics.

Perhaps a lot of people will stay home on election day.
That is what the Bush team is praying for.
Our political pundits further propel the chance for lowered voter turnout by disgusting the public-at-large, playing directly into manipulative hands.

Perhaps our political pundits truly believe a candidate must "cooperate
with indecency" without fighting back or they risk political failure.
Would you put up with the line of thinking in your life?
That line of thinking is exactly what we're hearing from many in the land of professional punditry.

Perhaps our political pundits truly believe
a candidate must "cooperate with indecency" without fighting back or they risk political failure.

Would you put up with the line of thinking
in your life?

Perhaps this contributes to a world where unnecessary wars are started by the same lying techniques. Meanwhile, we say a loving goodnight to our 16-year olds and look forward to the day the draft letter comes for the next wrong-minded, barely-planned military event. Mission accomplished.

If we expect the world to change, politics is going to have to change.

The pundits must stand up for common sense, decency, and honesty...even in politics.

This swift boat garbage is not only causing a rift in the media..it's causing a rift amongst our great protectors---the military.

There's a young man or woman facing enemy fire in Najaf today. If he/she eventually runs for public office, who will be questioning his/or/her bravery or honesty in 35 years?

Tom Oliphant gives weight to the (common) sense of decency-in-politics in his observation that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may backfire and end up hurting George Bush rather than John Kerry.

ABC Political Note disappointment

ABC Political Note disappointment

I was reading ABC's Political Note today and I was not particularly impressed by some of the sections of political analysis I was seeing.

First of all, they write:

—The traditional media has shown no capacity to resist the story — for a week and counting this stuff has been the dominant narrative of the presidential race.

I submit to you, dear readers, that these analysts are speaking as if they are not writing to you from one of the biggest players in the traditional media. They are the ones showing no capacity to resist the story themselves. It's much like an alcoholic calling another guy a sot.


Another point of analysis that had me tearing at my hair for lack of meaningful comparative contrast was this one:

—There is no evidence that the Bush campaign is orchestrating the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the known ties between them are significantly less close than between John Kerry's campaign and the 527s supporting him.

First of all, the analyst makes a definitive statement: "There is no evidence..".
No evidence? According to whom? (Howard Kurtz, apparently. Why are they using Kurtz as the definitive font of wisdom?) Has there been an end-all news story I haven't heard about?
When you work for a power player like ABC, either you must be more careful of definitive statements like these or risk being seen as a Bush-coddler or, at best, a news network who doesn't care to investigate further because they "already know".

Then we have: "..the known ties between them [SwiftBoatVets and Bush] are significantly less close than between John Kerry's campaign and the 527s supporting him.."

Once again, where's the beef?
Where's the investigation and the end-all proof?

Most importantly, why are we pointing fingers at the 527s?
This is sick, my dear readers.
Sick, sick, sick.
The 527s are representing our freedom of speech.

It isn't Freedom to Lie.

Thankfully, slander and libel are still remedied by American justice. (That is, until our rights to sue are removed by the radical right-wing--look what's happening with Overtime Rules today for a taste of the slow death of justice and freedom in America).

Why would ABC political analysts drive the public to blame the 527s and not the deliberate and outright lies presented in the Swift Boat ads?

Would ABC analysts recommend that 527s be outlawed by the FEC?

Dear God, some bastion for defense of the First Amendment they're turning out to be if that's true.
James Madison would spin like chicken rotisserie in his grave.

Needless to say, I'm disappointed. I thought I trusted these folks.