Those Evil 527s

From Tapped.

MORE ON THOSE 527s. My colleague Matthew Yglesias rightly notes that President Bush's denunciation of 527s is hypocritical and self-contradictory. This is especially true given (let me add some more examples) that the campaign finance law the president signed just a few years ago deliberately avoided closing the 527 loophole; that Bush beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) during the 2000 primary in part with the help of a 527 run by his supporter Sam Wylie; that Bush's own campaign manager, campaign counsel, and political guru (Ken Melhman, Ben Ginsburg, and Karl Rove, respectively) have attended fundraising and organizational events for Progress for America, a 527 founded by Bush's political director from the 2000 campaign, Tony Feather; that GOP chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot recently issued a statement designating PFA and yet another GOP 527, the Leadership Forum, as a good place for Republicans to give money to; and that the second-biggest 527 in the U.S. is the Republican Governors Association, a group spun off by the Republican National Committee two years ago specifically to collect and harness soft money for state and local GOP candidates.
If President Bush is opposed to 527s, somebody better tell his senior campaign staff, and quick.

Plame Rumors

From Kos.

Ban Them All

Please can some reporter get to the heart of why Bush doesn't think that the Oregon Grocery Association should be allowed to run ads, why he thinks he does and should have the power to stop them, and why the hell he keeps saying he thought he already did ban them?

And, then, maybe, you can ask him just what he has against the National Federation of Republican women and why it is that he wants to silence them?

"I saw the blood."

Sanduksy tells Dole to suck it.

Crewmate Sandusky said today, "I was there when he got wounded. I saw the blood. I don't care what Dole said."

What a sad, sad moment in the life of Bob Dole, mocking a wounded soldier.

Free Speech - Bad for the System

So says Bush. Now, as I've said before, I'm a tepid supporter of some campaign finance initiatives, but can some reporter please nail down just what the hell Bush is talking about. Can he really be saying that all outside ads should stop because "they're bad for the system." Should political parties be the only ones who are allowed to engage in political speech? Or, is his objection to disclosure requirements? If so, the media should start learning just what disclosure laws are, which groups are complying with them, how, and whether they're doing it in a timely fashion.


Here's what Bush said when he signed McCain-Feingold:

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

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. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

Perhaps a reporter can get Our Dear Scotty to unsnarl this little bit of rhetorical fun?


...kick the ball, and they run after it. Sad little press.


...for the reporters who are slow:


All ads are not the same.

Not all negative ads are unfair.

Not all negative ads contain explicit lies or are designed to be explicitly misleading.

No matter what your general belief about campaign finance laws, Bush has apparently adopted the extreme position which would deny any "outside group" the right to make any political ads, in contrast to his previous positions on this subject.

Many "outside groups," such as the MoveOn PAC, are subject to stringent disclosure rules.

Bush has also admitted that he didn't read and/or understand the recent campaign finance law, which he signed.

Wow, Some Truth From Kurtz

In today's WaPo chat Kurtz correctly informs us that Move On's Bush ads are being financed through their PAC, which of course is subject to full disclosure laws. How many media outlets have equated the "shadowy" Move On ads with the "shadowy" Swift Boat ads, even though these things are in no way the same...

Other Priorities

This Tomasky article is just great. Go read the whole thing, because I don't know which part to excerpt, but I'll pick this one mostly at random:

But The Washington Post won't do that, because there exists no Vietnam Veterans for the Truth About Deferments, financed by wealthy Democratic donors and out peddling its wares. Which is the moral of the story. Our media can sort through the facts in front of their nose and determine, at least some of the time, who's lying and who's not. But they are completely incapable of taking a step back and describing the larger reality. Doing that would require making judgments that are supposedly subjective rather than objective; but the larger reality here is clearer than clear. Just imagine if the situation were reversed: The same people now questioning Kerry's "character" would have worked to establish Bush as a war hero long ago. They would have labeled Kerry a coward. If by chance a liberal-backed group came forward to question Bush's wartime actions, they would have been called traitors and worse. And the mainstream media would be following the agenda they set every step of the way.

You'd think a press corps that has now officially acknowledged that it was had by this administration on the pre-Iraq war propaganda would think twice before letting itself get used one more time. You'd think, for example, that if the editors of the Washington Post were planning 2,700-word takeouts, they might have given priority to an investigation into ties between the White House and the Swift Boat group. If the conventions of mainstream journalism prevent our media from letting readers, viewers, and listeners examine the full truth in its broadest context, then it's time to reexamine those conventions. Until that happens, people who are willing to say anything, and who have the money to back them up, will be setting the agenda, and the media -- once upon a time, a guardian of our democratic traditions -- will be following them.

Shadowy Groups

So, if donors to a group are all disclosed are they still "shadowy?" Then does the president think they should be able to lie without condemnation?

Strange, really.

Our Media

So, will nurses be eligible for mandatory overtime? They report, and we have no idea...

More Like This

A newspaper editor takes the time to fact-check an op-ed published in the paper. Better it was done beforehand, but at least it was done.

Who Cares

Not the liberal media, that's for sure. A bunch of people are about to take a serious hit to their paychecks, and it's apparently more important to focus on the number of ounces of blood that dripped from Senator Kerry's leg when the shrapnel, which is still making its home there, came to pay him a visit.

More Dole History

NYT, 8/7/68:

Mr. Dole, who served four terms in the House, and Mr. Avery, who served five House terms before being elected Governor in 1964, both called for a cease-fire or truce in Vietnam with strict United Nations supervision.

NYT, 1/23/69:

9 Senators Offer Bill to End Draft [including Dole]

NYT, 8/12/76:

"Let there be no confusion at to President Ford's position on this issue. It is unequivocal, and applies equally to draft evaders and deserts, no blanket pardon, no blanket amenesty, no blanket clemency."

...

"Today, we have those who would signal weakness and generate strife by declaring that those who served this nation in her armed forces deserve no greater consideration than those who turned their backs and scurried away."

...

In his legion speech Mr. Dole recalled that four wars in this century had been fought under Democratic Presidents.

"We know that wars become self justifying once they've begun," he said, "but once the harsh light of histroy reveals that they rarely begin for reasons that are self justifying, but rather because of weakness, wishful thinking and bad leadership.

"No one hates war more than those who have had to fight. And none have a greater right to insist upon leadership that understands how to prevent war, to protect liberty, and to preserve peace, than those who have had to fight."

NYT, 10/26/1976:

Senator Robert J. Dole, the Republica Vice-Presidential candidate, withdrew today his content that World War II and the Vietnam conflict were "Democrats wars," but he contended that American weakness contributed to one and American indecision led to the other.

...

"American weakness contributed to World War II and American indecision gave us the nightmare that was Vietnam."

Morning Thread

Enjoy.

Open Thread

Chat away.

Bob Dole History

March 6, 1971, about most of the potential Democratic nominees for 1972:

They are the new Chamberlains in what they hope will be another era of peace through appeasement.

In same speech, regarding genuine war hero George McGovern:

He named only Senator George S. McGovern... who has come, Mr. Dole said, "as close as anyone has yet come to urging outright surrender"...

5/12/71, UPI:

But Senator Dole expected Nixon's Vietnamization program would allow withdrawal of all but a residual American force and eliminate casualties.

1/21/72, NYT:

The Kansas Republican said that the "present crop of Democratic hopefuls" had gone along with the war's escalation in the mid-1960's, adding that it was two-faced of them now to criticize President Nixon's position on the issue.

...

Last June, Mr. Dole denounced the press for printing the Pentagon papers, saying that their disclosure had left heads of state "at the mercy of sensation-seeking newspapers."

5/13/72, UPI:

The Republican National Chairman, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas, denounced today what he called an "attempted media sabotage" of President Nixon's Vietnam policies and said "it could cost the lives" of American soldiers.

More later...gotta go...

....But, while I'm away, Josh Marshall has more.

oy

oy

Wow

Little LuLu doing her part to jeopardize national security. Why does she hate America?

Meanwhile

Jeebus.

Things The Media Needs to Explain

Why are the Swift Boat Liars and Move On "two sides of the same coin." Move On is an established organization which has been around for years and which has a very large small donor base (and, a few large donors as well). Swift Boat Liars came into being just recently to lie about John Kerry's record.

Why are the Swift Boat Liar ads and Move On's ads equivalent? On one hand we have proven liars contradicting existing Navy records and 35 years of public comment, and on the other hand we have legitimate questions, raised by many prominent news organizations, about whether George Bush bothered to show up for national guard service as he was required. There are many legitimate questions about Bush's failure to fulfill his duty, including his failure to take a required flight physical, as well as the fact that Bush lied about his military record in his autobiography. Kerry has Navy records to back up his claims, Bush does not.

Why is Move On a "far left" organization? Can you point to these extreme positions they've taken on some issues? Any issue?


... and, one more thing. If they're "the same," why are the swift boat liars on every news show and Move On people are not?

Debt

Matthew Yglesias raises the question which isn't raised enough. As he points out, our large deficit and trade deficit are largely sustained because of the willingness of the Chinese (and Japanese) governments to buy up lots of T-Bills. In both cases, it isn't precisely clear that they are doing so for purely economic reasons, but rather for some other "geopolitical" purposes. I'm not sure what the magnitude of the interest rate spike (and currency devaluation) would be if China and/or Japan suddenly stopped buying our lovely bonds, but I imagine it would be rather large.