God! What a wimp! Does anybody really want a guy like this commanding the U.S. military?
George W. Bush: Face the Nation: March 5, 2000: Bob, there are people spending ads that say nice things about me. There are people spending money on ads that say ugly things about me. That's part of the American--let me finish. That's part of the American process...
George W. Bush: Larry King Live: August 12, 2004: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves. There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed [the McCain-Feingold] law that I thought would get rid of those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so....
George W. Bush: White House: March 27, 2002: [McCain-Feingold] does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed.... I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election...
George W. Bush: Face the Nation: March 5, 2000: You know, let me--let me say something to you. People have the right to run ads. They have the right to do what they want to do, under the--under the First Amendment in America...
George W. Bush: Larry King Live: August 12, 2004 : Well, I haven’t seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they’ve said some bad things about me. I guess they’re saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view...
George W. Bush: Washington Post: March 28, 2000: George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression...
George W. Bush: Face the Nation: March 5, 2000: There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about...
George W. Bush: via Scott McClellan: August 26, 2004: The president said he wanted to work together [with McCain] to pursue court action to shut down all the ads and activity by these shadowy 527 groups," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Air Force One after Bush spoke to McCain by telephone from the presidential jet Thursday morning...
George W. Bush: letter to Trent Lott: March 15, 2001: Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: by: 1) updating the limits on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy...
George W. Bush: Los Angeles: March 2, 2000: In my state that’s the way it is. People can give any amount they want to give so long as there’s disclosure.... I believe the best policy is to say individuals can give [to whoever they want] and then have instant disclosure on the Internet...
And, of course, there's Bush's own campaign strategy:
Posted by DeLong at August 27, 2004 01:43 PM | TrackBackGeorge W. Bush: Face the Nation: March 5, 2000: his allegation somehow that I'm involved with this is just totally ridiculous. It is uncalled for. There is no--no truth whatsoever. This--the notion that this man who ran the ads spent the night in the governor's mansion--I think Senator McCain just made that allegation--they're--they're just not true...
"Senior Republican": Financial Times: December 9, 2003: It is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."...
Thing is, what W does seems to work. I would have thought this SWVT crap would backlash on them big time. In reality Kerry loses double-digit points among veterans.
The Bush boys know how to play this game. A big section of the undecideds are so superficially informed that they will go with a "if there's smoke there's fire" impression. Then Bush wins with them.
Further, the cacophony over the Vietnam non-issues drown out what Kerry has to say on anything else, including economy, health care, iraq etc.
Damn I want these guys gone. Ain't going to happen though.
Posted by: Alan at August 27, 2004 02:52 PMThe fact that the swift boat adds work even a tiny bit points to a catostrophic failure of the press and media. The aligations are provably lies and politically motivated. Why is the headline not "Bush campaign insults veterans"?
Posted by: Stephen Richards at August 27, 2004 03:44 PMBesides the lazy media, we have lazy, stupid voters.
Posted by: Alex at August 27, 2004 05:13 PMLazy, stupid voters indeed. For a scary look at this problem, see this by Louis Menand in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?040830crat_atlarge
Here is a taste:
In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that “2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet” as a consequence of that year’s weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election.
The obvious truth of the matter is that too many voters are uninformed or brainwashed . In my world you would have to pass a test in order to vote. The test would be based on facts and fiction. If you answer a certain number of questions incorrectly, you could either study up and retest or lose your right to vote. We are being ruled by fools who are being supported by fools. The movie, "Clan of the Cave Bear" with Darryl Hannah reminds me that little has changed in these past thousands of years. The stupid still rule with the support of the stupid.
Posted by: vaughn at August 27, 2004 06:38 PMAre we liberal elitists, disparaging the illiterate unwashed masses? Or are we Neo-paleolithic conservatives, providing bread and circuses (SBVT) to distract the populace from our kleptocracy? Heck, maybe the conservatives are right and we ought to just go for our own in this zero-sum game.....at least until global warming sinks us all. But wait! "Our administration hasn't changed its position at all, has it?"
Sure, the media is to blame, but their interest is readership. Make a scandal. Thank god for blogs.
Posted by: Ned at August 27, 2004 07:31 PMWhat a flip flop!
Posted by: blank at August 27, 2004 08:00 PMStephen hits it squarely with " a catostrophic failure of the press and media".
Folks *are* turning away from the major media outlets to blogs. Atleast those who need a little more information, opinion, and sophistication than the crud found in most of the press and TV.
> Are we liberal elitists, disparaging
> the illiterate unwashed masses?
Yes.
Posted by: Alan at August 28, 2004 09:01 AM"In my world you would have to pass a test in order to vote."
Well, they did that in the south, but it seems the election workers forgot to apply the test to the pasty ones.
"Are we liberal elitists, disparaging the illiterate unwashed masses?"
I have nothing against those who don't know. I have everything against those who don't CARE.
Posted by: Dragonchild at August 29, 2004 05:33 PM