Reply
Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:50 am
Bush Calls McCain About Ads by Outside Groups
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 26, 2004
LAS CRUCES, N.M. -- President Bush wants to work with Republican Sen. John McCain to go to court against political ads by "shadowy" outside groups, the White House said Thursday amid growing pressure on the president to denounce attacks on John Kerry's war record.
"We want to pursue court action," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New Mexico. "The president said if the court action doesn't work, that he would be willing to pursue legislative action with Sen. McCain on that."
McClellan did not say when any of those steps would be taken. Election Day is Nov. 2.
The debate over Kerry's service in Vietnam has dominated the presidential race in recent weeks after the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth aired ads questioning the Democratic nominee's decorated record.
McCain, R-Ariz., has called on Bush to condemn the anti-Kerry ads, even as the war hero popular with many independent voters is actively supporting Bush's re-election. The senator welcomed Bush's gesture.
"I'm very appreciative of the president's effort to do that," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I want to emphasize if I could that we're not saying that 527s should be abolished. We're just saying they should live under the same campaign finance restrictions (as hard money groups) because they are engaged in partisan activity."
McCain added: "I've said before I would like for the president to specifically condemn that ad, but the president has said John Kerry served honorably and also the president is now committed to acting to try to bring 527s into regulations that are appropriate."
Bush called McCain from Air Force One and the two had a brief discussion about the matter, McClellan said.
---------------
This is a canard of the highest order.
People should be able to spend money on anything they want! Isn't that the definition of FREEDOM? Bush either wants to remove the word "Freedom" from the Constitution or he is just pissed that more people are doing it for Kerry than are doing it for him.
gosh! won't they need a "trahl lawyurr" for that?
I dont' understand why people are quick to condem the ads against Kerry but not the ads against Bush. What George Soros and Moveon for Kerry is doing is no different then what the SV are doing. No one has anything to say about that. Its either all or nothing, you can't have it one way.
Agree with Baldimo.
Anyone who thinks it is right to press Bush to take up for Kerry, and not press Kerry to take up for Bush is very transparently partisan.
All or none.
Nickfun-- If people are free to spend money on whatever they want--this includes the swiftvets against Kerry.
Sofia wrote:Agree with Baldimo.
Anyone who thinks it is right to press Bush to take up for Kerry, and not press Kerry to take up for Bush is very transparently partisan.
thing is, kerry took up macain's challenge and disavowed the moveon ad.
dubya simply will not do the same with swiftys.
i actually wouldn't mind seeing all of them go away at this point. i say that with the caveat that the christian coalition and their voting guides be included.
then both/all parties would be responsible for their actions again. wouldn't that be refreshing?
how is disavowing ALL 527 groups not disavowing the SVFT?
McG:
I think Bush is more worried about MoveOn than SBVT.
Rightly so IMHO:)
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Sofia wrote:Agree with Baldimo.
Anyone who thinks it is right to press Bush to take up for Kerry, and not press Kerry to take up for Bush is very transparently partisan.
thing is, kerry took up macain's challenge and disavowed the moveon ad.
dubya simply will not do the same with swiftys.
i actually wouldn't mind seeing all of them go away at this point. i say that with the caveat that the christian coalition and their voting guides be included.
then both/all parties would be responsible for their actions again. wouldn't that be refreshing?
When did this happen? I haven't heard of this happening. Please provide source.
I seem to remember Kerry did disavow one particular ad against Bush. Can't remember which one.
Bush also said Kerry's service was noble, and he wasn't involved in the Swifties' ads. He's gone on record against all the 527s.
Because, as we know by now, it is difficult for Bush to apologize, admit a mistake, or do something someone asks him to do when he perceives it to be a challenge. Character flaw, IMO.
Sofia wrote:I seem to remember Kerry did disavow one particular ad against Bush. Can't remember which one.
Bush also said Kerry's service was noble, and he wasn't involved in the Swifties' ads. He's gone on record against all the 527s.
Of course he has, the 57 organizations for the dems have nore money to spend, he is just trying to gain a political advantage. This all or nothing canard is so illogical, it is almost laughable. Why don't we take the logiocal next step and ban all political ads?
It will be interesting to see how Kerry responds to the move to rein in the 527 ads that Bush and McCain stand shoulder to shoulder in calling for.
Larry434 wrote:It will be interesting to see how Kerry responds to the move to rein in the 527 ads that Bush and McCain stand shoulder to shoulder in calling for.
He aught to call their bluff and say OK. After all Bush knows good and well that nothing would get settled before the election so the whole thing is just an empty political statement.
As for condemning the groups as a whole rather than the particular charge, it is a way of giving the charge legitimacy while appearing gracious.
Clinton said a long time ago when bush first
tookoffice that we were all selling Bush short and that Bush was very political savy. (some words to that effect)
I agree, revel, underestimating the political acumen of Bush has been a serious mistake of his adversaries.
It's dumb for Bush to say he's in favor of stopping all 527 ads and that they should all be banned as if the candidates have a say. He knows Kerry can't stop them. Perhaps even Bush can't stop them. I don't know what would be required regarding an executive order on this, but the law Bush signed, KNOWING IT DIDN"T BLOCK 527's AT THE TIME HE SIGNED IT, has the loophole he claims to condemn.
Kerry cannot stop 527's. Bush is the only one that can through an executive order, so why doesn't he? Can he? Or, would it have to go through Congress again?
I don't think he could stop it with an executive order. The law is what it is, loopholes and all. It would take additional action by Congress to close the loopholes.
Thanks, Coastal. That was what I thought. Which means Bush's comments are completely political. It's politically advantagous for him to say when he knows it won't / can't happen.
I think the whining about the 527s is just a way to politically expedient way to infer 'he started it'. The problem is that the first ad by SBVT contained virtually no facts and was pretty much a smear job. The second one really gets to the heart of what these guys are complaining about -- and it has to do more with their personal feelings about peace activists in general and John Kerry specifically. It has nothing to do with John Kerry's war record.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace