Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Calls McCain About Anti-Kerry Ads (UPDATE)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 8/26/04 | Deb Reichmann - AP

Posted on 08/26/2004 8:06:56 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 next last
To: El Gato
but a Judge could sign a restraining order today and shut the Swifties down

Which would probably be stayed pending an appeal. Theoretically, the court system could quickly shut them down, I agree. But it's rare when our courts move quickly.

161 posted on 08/26/2004 10:25:03 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: EllaMinnow
You shouldn't be believing more than 25% of any AP article.

So read it directly from the White House website.

Q McCain says he's fed up with these Swift Boat ads. Is the President willing to go any further than what he said the other day?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, thank you for bringing that up. The President, also, on board Air Force One, called Senator McCain this morning. And the President said he wanted to work together to pursue court action to shut down all the ads and activity by these shadowy 527 groups. And the President said if the court action doesn't work, then he would be willing to pursue legislative action and work with Senator McCain on that.

Q Which groups does he want to shut down?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's all the unregulated soft money activity by these 527 groups. The President thought we got rid of all of this kind of shadowy activity when he signed the campaign finance reforms into law. As you're aware, there was FEC action that has been pursued by Senator McCain, that has been pursued by us, as well. And the FEC has not acted on it. And so the President reached out to Senator McCain to say, let's work together and pursue court action to shut down all of this activity by these shadowy groups.

Q That includes the Swift Boats --

Q -- specific condemnation of the Swift Boat.

Q -- Swift Boat ones. He said, he's happy that -- he condemns all 527s --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President condemns all the ads and activity by these shadowy groups. This is unregulated soft money activity that the President thought we got rid of when he signed the campaign finance reforms into law. Senator McCain said that he thought it was a good idea for the two of them to work together to shut down this kind of activity.

Q So this includes the Swift Boat, right? You want to shut down -- Bush wants to shut down, through legal action --

MR. McCLELLAN: All, all the ads and activity by the shadowy groups. That would include everything that these shadowy groups are involved in.

Q You don't want to say "Swift Boat," is that the --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered it by saying, all of the ads and activity.

Q And that would include the Swift Boat, yes?

MR. McCLELLAN: That includes everything. That includes -- I don't know how I can be more clear than that, Adam.

Q Are the Swift Boats a shadowy group?

Q But McCain said beyond that -- he called the President to condemn those specific ads. Will he condemn those --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has condemned every ad and all the activity by these 527 groups.

Q How does he feel about what they're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think I can be more clear, nor can the President. The President wants Senator Kerry to join us in calling for a stop to all of the ads and activity by these shadowy groups. The President has condemned all of this activity by these shadowy groups.

Q What does he mean by court action?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, pursue -- pursuing court action, working with -- and pursuing court action to shut down these -- shut down this activity by these 527 groups that are funded with unregulated soft money. This is what we thought we got rid of when the President signed the campaign finance reforms into law. And so --

Q So who files -- who files the lawsuit, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and I'll try to get you a little bit more information on this, but there's -- there have been previous complaints filed against the FEC. The FEC had an opportunity to act with, I think it's within a 100-day -- 120-day period. They did not act. And so that allows those who had filed those complaints to pursue action against the FEC. I know Senator McCain had filed complaints with the FEC; we had, as well. And so the President looks forward to working with Senator McCain to pursue court action to shut down all of this activity by these shadowy groups.

Q So is the Justice Department going to get involved in this?

Q He would be the one who be going to the --

MR. McCLELLAN: He called them this morning, and we'll provide you more detail as we move forward and work together, through court action, to shut these groups down.

Q So you are asking Justice to get involved, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we'll get you more details as we move forward together. But we want to pursue court action.

Q How long was the phone call?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q How long was the phone call?

MR. McCLELLAN: I will try to get you the length. It was brief. And Senator McCain said he looked forward to seeing him soon. We certainly appreciate Senator McCain's strong support for the President, and look forward to hearing his remarks next week at the convention, as well.

Q -- the charge --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q Can you tell me what the legal basis would be for taking court action?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, yes, that's why I said, if you go back, you might want to look at some of this. I'll try and get you more details on the ground. But because of the complaints -- the complaints have been pursued with the FEC, and there's a window of opportunity for the FEC to pursue action. They failed to pursue that action then. You can pursue court action following that if they don't act within that time period.

Q Okay.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, thank you.

Q Is it a lawsuit?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Yes, it would be.

Q But none of it would happen until after the election, correct? I mean, the FEC --

MR. McCLELLAN: There would be a lawsuit.

Q But the FEC can't act on this stuff until after the election.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, there have been complaints previously filed with the FEC that they did not act on to shut -- to shut down this activity.

We've got to land. Thank you.

* * * * *

MR. McCLELLAN: We would be asking the court to force the FEC to shut down this activity.

Q Force the FEC?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. It would be asking the courts to -- yes, since the FEC failed to act, we would now be asking the courts to force the FEC to act to shut down these -- shut down all this activity.

Q It's not directly -- so the case is not directly against the 527s, it's against the FEC.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's going to the courts to ask them to force the FEC to shut down all this activity.

I'm so mad I could just spit.

162 posted on 08/26/2004 10:31:24 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RileyD, nwj
If I recall correctly, our President is one heck of a poker player. My guess he is creating a situation where the democrats will have to oppose shutting down the 527's. President Bush will then ruefully agree that it is best to permit as much free speech as possible.

Sounds simliar to the strategy of signing the CFR act in the first place on the theory that The Courts would strike it down. That really worked well.

163 posted on 08/26/2004 10:34:03 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo

The First Amendment will poke through the cracks. It always does. Unless a president Kerry can pack the courts.


164 posted on 08/26/2004 10:35:00 AM PDT by AmishDude (I am AmishDude and I approved this message before I disapproved it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The CFR loophole has turned out to be quite a mess.

Actually, there's another CFR loophole that hasn't even been exploited to the fullest extent yet. Say a PAC gets together, declares itself a "media" outfit and starts sending out direct mail or advertising for or against various candidates?
165 posted on 08/26/2004 10:36:50 AM PDT by Antoninus (Abortion; Euthanasia; Fetal Stem Cell Research; Human Cloning; Homo Marriage - NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

CFR went to the SC and it was upheld.

That law is a complete abomination, and Bush signed it, and now wants to "strengthen" it.


166 posted on 08/26/2004 10:37:24 AM PDT by Guillermo (OJ is innocent because Mark Fuhrman said the "N" word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
By calling for legislative reform

But first he's called for legal action to force the FEC to shut down the "shadowy" 527s. Of course how shadowy can a group be that records the names, profession and employers of all it's contributors, and furnishs that information to the government where anyone can get it?

In the case of the 527s we have full disclosure, but that apparently is not enough for the proffesional politicians of both parities, and the ones who can't seem to decide which party is theirs.

167 posted on 08/26/2004 10:37:28 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: medscribe
RIGHT ON! And now the POWs are piling on with their documentary due out in mid Sept.!

Kerry is French Toast!

168 posted on 08/26/2004 10:38:28 AM PDT by hoosiermama (prayers for all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #169 Removed by Moderator

To: LincolnLover
Strategery.

Yea, stategery which might, *might*, help win this election, but which results in the next President, which could be Hillary or someone almost as heinous, having the power to silence it's critics. Sort of like the Nazis using the Wiemar era gun laws to disarm the Jews.

It's a violation of the Constitution, I don't like it, and it's just plain dumb.

170 posted on 08/26/2004 10:41:47 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
"CFR went to the SC and it was upheld.

I thought the Supreme Court only ruled that it was NOT going to give an immediate opinion (voiding the law, or giving a stay of execution of its provisions) on the whole CFR bill, and that it deferred the actual (complete review) of constitutionality until early October.

True?

171 posted on 08/26/2004 10:42:51 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: LincolnLover
Hell, even the FEC said it's not going to take a stance on how 527s are being used until after this election cycle.

And that's why Bush and McCain are going to go to court to force them to act now.

172 posted on 08/26/2004 10:43:12 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I don't mind people knowing where political money comes from

With these "shadowy" 527s, you do know where the money comes from, yet the professional pols want them shut down. The 527 have to report that information. Whey do you think the Swifties require your name, and that of your employer before taking your donation?

173 posted on 08/26/2004 10:47:11 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
OK. Come up with a better idea

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

It's worked fine for a couple of hundred years.

174 posted on 08/26/2004 10:49:46 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ping jockey

I've had some time to think about it and it looks like more Bush and Rove strategery and it might just work.


175 posted on 08/26/2004 10:50:28 AM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The banner looks fine.
Bush tells the Truth and Kerry?????


176 posted on 08/26/2004 10:50:38 AM PDT by ozdragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The law is clear and the law is not going to be changed anytime soon

ROTFLMAO. The law is anything but clear, have you looked at the law itself? Or read the Supreme Court opinion, which is even less clear? The lawsuit will be to force the FEC to use a different "interpreation" of the law than they are currently using. It's more a matter of how the law is being applied than the law itself.

177 posted on 08/26/2004 10:53:28 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Nothing will be resolved before the election. That is the fatal flaw in the law itself. It cannot be enforced in a timely manner.

Bush's action will demonstrate this.

I remember when Nixon imposed wage and price controls. No one has ever suggested it since. I hated Nixon for it, but it was effective, even though counterintuitive.


178 posted on 08/26/2004 10:57:52 AM PDT by js1138 (Speedy architect of perfect labyrinths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

"If President Bush was really against the Swifties, he would have immediately come out and called for them to stop the ads.

He can't, because that is illegal."

I don't think you are correct on this point. Chair of FEC was on Brit Hume's show last week and he asked him this question. While his answer was not definitive, he basically said this would not be "coordination".


179 posted on 08/26/2004 11:00:01 AM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
I thought the Supreme Court only ruled that it was NOT going to give an immediate opinion (voiding the law, or giving a stay of execution of its provisions) on the whole CFR bill, and that it deferred the actual (complete review) of constitutionality until early October.

True?
Yea, October of 2003, not this October. Their decision ruling is In this FindLaw PDF file
180 posted on 08/26/2004 11:09:22 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-187 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson