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

Skip to comments.

Bush Offers To Help McCain Fight Ads
KXAN ^ | August 26, 2004 | AP

Posted on 08/26/2004 9:08:22 AM PDT by yonif

Las Cruces, N.M. -- Senator John McCain says he's "very appreciative" of a White House offer to help pursue court action against outside political ad groups.

The Arizona Republican has prodded President Bush to condemn ads from a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." The group has attacked John Kerry's Vietnam record, saying he doesn't deserve his medals and shouldn't be commander-in-chief.

McCain tells The Associated Press he doesn't want the independent political groups "abolished." He says they should just "live under the same campaign finance restrictions" as other groups.

Bush called McCain from aboard Air Force One today while on his way to New Mexico. A Bush spokesman says the men spoke about the issue.

The spokesman says Bush will support McCain in court action against the ads or if that fails, work toward a legislative solution.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 527; ads; campaignfinance; cfr; kerry; mccain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last
To: redbaiter
Would anyone like to convince me why I should contribute time or money to Bush's campaign?

Well, don't forget if Kerry is elected we'll have more social spending.

And, Tom Daschle will control the judicial nominations.

121 posted on 08/26/2004 11:10:51 AM PDT by Charlotte Corday (I don't burn the flag because I can. I will burn the flag if I can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Radix

Well, my enthusiasm against Kerry is still at high levels. Even on free speech, he's far worse than Bush. Kerry believes that only his critics should be silenced.


122 posted on 08/26/2004 11:12:13 AM PDT by ScottFromSpokane (Re-elect President Bush: http://spokanegop.org/bush.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ScottFromSpokane

Republicans are sooooo stupid sometimes. Does President Bush understand that any laws, any new laws or existing mean nothing, NOTHING to the DNC, they will go around any laws. So McCain gets his way and the GOP suffers... What else is new?

Am I the only one tired of capitulation and the "new tone". Pathetic. I love President Bush, but sometimes (CFR and now) he makes me very upset and confused actually.

I say, leave the 1st amendment alone Mr. President. It is not your say.

If anybody on this board thinks that banning independent advertisements are a good thing and good strategery, then I question your judgement. Remember... the GOP was supposed to benefit from McCain-Feingold. HA! So stupid.


123 posted on 08/26/2004 11:37:18 AM PDT by Griffon76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

I'm pissed at all three branches regarding CFR.
McCain got made, then got even.
Congress passed the law.
Bush passed the buck.
SCOTUS bypassed the First Amendment so we could all make nice.

Didn't work (Surprise! surprise! surprise!).
Kerry, an incumbent Senator who still can vote on issues in Congress does not like the issues on the front burner.
Does he face them head on? No
Does he debate the issues? No
Does he release the docuements which would end this discussion? No
He threatens legal action and then grandstands an attempt to ban a book which challenges his candicacy.

I'm so fed up with this. The First Amendment is not something to be used in a game of political chess. It will only benefit those already in power.

Kerry may lose the election.
We are the real losers.


124 posted on 08/26/2004 11:41:44 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: All
I think we need to keep in mind that in the circles in which President Bush moves, the necessity and desirability of curbing independent speech is conventional wisdom: much of the Republican Party establishment, the vast majority of the Democratic Party establishment, and virtually all the major media agree.

What we need to do is explain to the President (through his staff, of course) why this is such a bad idea.

Write to president@whitehouse.gov and express your concerns.

Don't rant and rave; just calmly and respectfully point out that independent political speech is precisely what the First Amendment protects. Suggest that the President admit his mistake and withdraw from his anti-speech pact with Senator McCain.

If you're a Bush or GOP volunteer, you might make a point of saying that. Also, I'd suggest CCing your message to someone high up in your local campaign and/or GOP.

125 posted on 08/26/2004 11:50:57 AM PDT by ScottFromSpokane (Re-elect President Bush: http://spokanegop.org/bush.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ

actually, look at what McCellan is saying... only Soros would go.

Apart from that big 200k contribution from the Tx developer, most of the Swifty money has come from nickel and dime contributors like us, off the Internet. Even McCain says that is legit....


126 posted on 08/26/2004 11:57:22 AM PDT by ambrose (http://www.swiftvets.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

This is nuts!

WTF is Bush doing!?!?!?

Stop and consider the source. Are we working from primary source info here?


127 posted on 08/26/2004 11:58:42 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights; yonif
Here is a prognosis. (Warning: charitable towards Bush.)

Media, Democrats beat drum for McC-F law, planning that it would be used unilaterally against the NRA.

Bush, realizing complexity of the issue and media-drummed public support for it, hesitantly favors it, counting on the Supremes to rule it unconstitutional later.

McC-F passes Congress and Bush signs it into law.

Supremes, having ruled on 2A issue only once in the 20th Century, and then in an underhanded manner, are now forced to decide between being pro 1A or anti 2A. They decide to be anti 2A and determine McC-F is constitutional.

Bush waits in the weeds until 2004 presidential election.

The liberal MoveOn 527 builds media muscle and financial backing.

The Swift Vets 527 leverages their message into major upset in 2004 presidential campaign. Media, Democrats upset with campaign finance laws again.

FEC chair makes noises about rejecting Kerry campaign complaint against Swift Vets 527.

Media asks Bush for response.

Bush responds that a lawsuit should be brought against ALL "shadowy" 527 organizations, including MoveOn.

A lawsuit against all "shadowy" 527s including MoveOn would put the ball back into the Supremes' court. However, this time, the Supremes would not have to consider limiting the conservative NRA, but the both the conservative Swift Vets and the liberal (and media favorite) MoveOn. With media spotlight on the Supremes this time in a different context, the Supremes would be forced to overrule themselves and rule McC-F (for all effective purposes) unconstitutional.

In such a scenario, Bush is utilizing the Hegelian dialectic and deliberately swinging the political pendulum in the opposite direction from the way it should go, in another gamble of the type that begat Mc-F and 527s to begin with.

The stakes of preserving the First Amendment are high. The game is bet-the-Republic. It is unfortunate and a sign of the times that such drastic measures may be the only way of resolving the problems collected under the loose heading of campaign finance reform.

[Note: I'm not sure that a lawsuit is the first step. It might actually be a writ of mandate issued to the FEC. In any case, the direction as discussed seems sufficiently vague that the entire action might be a bluff, and/or might lead to a legislative alternative of watering down McC-F to the point that it becomes impractical to enforce in any sense of the word. I think that scenario might be what they are actually driving towards (since it's clear that the current bench of Supremes have proven their unreliability on constitutional issues already). Not a lawyer, so take all with grain of salt.]

128 posted on 08/26/2004 12:15:56 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
This is nuts! WTF is Bush doing!?!?!?

Bush is coming out against political free speech and it's being spun as brilliant "stategery".

129 posted on 08/26/2004 12:19:51 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Charlotte Corday

If the White House tried to take legal action to silence the 527s I hope we still have a senator with the wit to begin impeachment proceedings. When the president says these groups should be silenced it doesn't matter whether he means it.


130 posted on 08/26/2004 12:20:22 PM PDT by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
a legislative alternative of watering down McC-F

The problem is that now that the USSC has ruled, McC-F can always come back with a vengeance any time the political class decides it's had enough of being criticized.

Bush already bet the Republic when he signed it.

And lost.

131 posted on 08/26/2004 12:25:48 PM PDT by Charlotte Corday (I don't burn the flag because I can. I will burn the flag if I can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
With media spotlight on the Supremes this time in a different context, the Supremes would be forced to overrule themselves and rule McC-F (for all effective purposes) unconstitutional.

One can not assume that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.

132 posted on 08/26/2004 12:26:16 PM PDT by yonif ("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
Alternatively, he's corralling McCain into a neutralized position where McCain is forced into silence or taking legal action against MoveOn (the latter presumeably being something that McCain for all intents and purposes could not do since it would alienate part of his own liberal base with his constituency and the media).

Look at this again-- the press know what's up, and McClellan is playing innocent.

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.

133 posted on 08/26/2004 12:26:16 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Charlotte Corday
And lost.

Under the "charitable" scenario, Bush realizes this, and is willing to settle for a defanged McC-F-- to lessen and postpone the possibility of a full scale civil war.

As I said, it's a "charitable" scenario, not necessarily something that matches reality.

:-(

134 posted on 08/26/2004 12:30:07 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: yonif
One can not assume that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.

Right... which may point towards an alternative Bush strategy of using this announcement as a ploy to corral the wild cowboy McCain, using his own bill (McC-F) as a lasso to stop McC from riding the open range where he is doing political damage to Bush (and other non-RINO Republicans).

I've been waiting for Bush to do this since McC stabbed him in the back by giving the mainstream media a soundbite to cover the initial impact of the first Swift Vet ad ("dishonest and dishonorable").

If McC refuses to shut the **** up, Bush finds surrogates to hammer McC for refusing to support the bill that he himself wrote and which carries his name.

135 posted on 08/26/2004 12:39:05 PM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

"Sure it is. And yes it matters. The courts can be used to address slander and libel. And people can ascertain for themselves the veracity of statements made by others."

Ok. FWIW, I thought Bush's signing CFR was a very boneheaded move. Going on public notice against 527's looks to be a strategic move on Bush's part to get Kerry on the ropes.


136 posted on 08/26/2004 1:17:59 PM PDT by Darnright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Darnright
Going on public notice against 527's looks to be a strategic move on Bush's part to get Kerry on the ropes.

That makes one of us. But oh silly me, I take him at his word. Most tell me I should, I guess they aren't cynical enough.

137 posted on 08/26/2004 1:24:53 PM PDT by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: kerrybotox; Arrowhead1952
Bush is just trying to make an issue and put kerry into a box about the 63 million soros and the likes are spending, bush brought up the soft money by billionaires referring to soros.

I caught that reference he made about billionaires too. He didn't name Soros, but we knew who he was talking about. I loved it.

Funny, isn't it? The 'RATS are SCREAMING about a TEXAS (AMERICAN) Republican giving $200,000 to the SwiftVets, but not a peep about HUNGARIAN Soros giving $15 MILLION (at last count) to MoveOn.org ! No hypocrisy here, huh ??


138 posted on 08/27/2004 2:22:49 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Bush is calling Kerry's bluff. Puts the onus on Lurch to put up or shut up when it comes to 527's. I think all of the people here who are screaming about violating the First Amendment are being a tad hysterical. The court will say that they are legal, so Kerry can't whine about the Swift Boat ads. So relax, people!


139 posted on 08/27/2004 2:46:25 AM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (If Bush is such a dummy, how come all of his enemies look like idiots?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Joseph_CutlerUSA

Good question, man.

I thought 527s were legal unless they coordinated with the party or candidate. That's the basis of Kerry's FEC complaint and the only basis I've seen to stop these ads.

Since Bush ISN'T coordinating with the SWBV, there isn't a basis for him to sue and stop them.

He may have signed a bad law with a "loophole" that allowed these things to flourish, but that's a legislative, not judicial issue.

If they want to stop 527s then they need to explain to voters themselves why they need to be stopped and vote for or against it themselves. Pushing this off to the courts and the FEC is a cop out and a way for avoiding responsibility for restricting our speech.


140 posted on 08/27/2004 2:53:50 AM PDT by CalRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 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