He's doing this before he's president. What will he do afterwards?
By this rational, the Bush administration could sue any theatre that ran a Michael Moore Doc.
This FAX is very dangerous and scary for anyone who wants free speech.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I guess, then, that if Moveon.org or some other group were to put out an ad with someone claiming that GWB drugged and drank his way through national guard duty you would be opposed to Bush team calling it "libel." (Not saying he did that, but there is also no proof to substantiate teh claims made by the group who made this ad - at least Moore sticks with facts - even if he sorts them to his own end.)
quote:WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.
“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
Like the article says - Bush supporters smeared McCain in the primaries in 2000. I guess they figured it worked well then so they might as well try the same thing again.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
It's not censorship precisely BECAUSE he's not president.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While I generally respect McCain I think he's being a bit irrational on this one. In the article I read he never says any info in the ad is wrong, he's more upset that its opening up old wounds about the Vietnam war. If Kerry wants to run almost soley on his war record then he should have to answer for it as well.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
So let me get this straight. These guys "served" with Kerry but were not part of his boat crew? So how do they know so much about him?
The DNC letter also talked about how the doctor who claimed to have treated Kerry cannot substantiate his claims. The website never refuted that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That's not the point.
They are threatening legal action to stop a political ad. The first amendment is all about political speech. That's why it's there. And here is a MAJOR PARTY trying to shut it down.
This is not a corporation declining to run an ad. This is someone who wants to be the most powerful person in the world threatening to sue anyone who runs it.
As for Michael Moore sticking to facts, I think this has been beaten to death on every forum I read. The man doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Welcome to the good old USA where anyone can threaten legal action for anything.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Beren, they knew him personally, were within visual range of the incidents that won him his medals, and the doctor personally treated him.
Posted by zip (Member # 4710) on :
quote: The man doesn't have an honest bone in his body.
You would need some pretty sophisticated sonar to find a bone in his body.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was trying to avoid the fat jokes.
'sides, the idea of using sonar gave me a really gross visual.
[ August 05, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
There's a lot of background information to be had about this issue:
Apparently, two of his current detractors used to be supporters--or at least they supported his winning the Silver Star (which others at Swiftvets claim he had no right to win).
Search for: +swiftvets +kerry +refute
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm leaning towards Kerry, but I do agree with Pix's sentiments. Threatening legal action is not a prior restraint nor is it technically censorship. But I would like to see a candidate battle slander with the truth instead of lawyers.
Thanks for the insight NFL. I found some interesting criticism of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth atSalon.
Of course, I don't consider Salon to be any kind of authoratative news source. So if anyone else has links backing up the anti-Kerry side, I would be interested in reading it as well.
quote:A private detective retained by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- the Texas-based group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military record -- is contacting veterans who may have information about the incidents that led to Kerry's Vietnam decorations. According to a former Kerry crew member, several of the Massachusetts senator's old Navy comrades have refused to talk with the detective, a former FBI agent named Thomas Rupprath -- and some have complained that the detective tried to put damaging words in their mouths.
....
Registered as a "527" organization with the Internal Revenue Service, the "Swift Boat Veterans" group can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for campaign activities, but is prohibited from working directly with the Bush campaign or the Republican Party. Its spokesmen have repeatedly denied any GOP sponsorship, although several of the group's leaders have longstanding ties with the Republican Party.
So does its most significant financial backer. The largest donor by far is Houston home builder and religious right activist Bob Perry. According to the group's latest IRS filing, Perry gave $100,000 to the "Swift Boat Veterans" on June 30. His generosity accounted for nearly two-thirds of the group's total receipts, and no other single donor gave more than $25,000. In a profile published last November, the Houston Chronicle reported that Perry is the single largest Republican donor in Texas. He has close ties to White House political director Karl Rove and to Tom DeLay. Since 2000, Perry has donated nearly $800,000 to GOP political action committees associated with DeLay and other Republican congressional leaders.
....
Runyon isn't alone in suspecting that Rupprath may misuse his words, according to Wade Sanders, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy who served with Kerry in Vietnam and is publicly supporting the Democrat. Sanders said he has heard lately from a pair of other Navy veterans interviewed by the detective. "They told me that he sent them transcripts [of their interviews] and that they told him that his version was a misrepresentation of what they said."
As a side note, I love Moore and Limbaugh. I truly do. Their only problem is one of categorization. They should call themselves political satirists instead--because that's what they are, and they are damn good at it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Why not look at their web page for a start? swiftvets.com
Yes, they are a 527 just like MoveOn.Org (financed by billionair George Soros and the Tides Foundation/Billionair Teresa Hienz-Kerry)
But my post was not about the ad, or the organization itself, but the Kerry/DNC attempt to silence them.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I tried, but the site is down. The site says it is moving to a faster server. When are politicians going to learn. The more you try to suppress something, the more people are going to want to know.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I read the letter. It sounds like a stern warning and a reminder to the station to abide by its fidiciary responsibility "to protect the public from false, misleading, or deceptive advertising." If the station knows that a substantive portion of the ad is libelous fiction, then more power to the Kerry camp. I actually like the libel laws, it makes it the case that I don't have to worry about unresonable lies in the media.
Booth Tarkington said, "There are two things that will be believed of any man, one is that he has taken to drink." (don't check the quote. I'm mostly sure that Booth Tarkington said it, and I'm mostly sure that those are all of the correct words). I imagine that the other thing is that the man would be involved with such and such woman. If he is a war hero, he'll lie about his medals. Or if he is an LDS, he'll lie about how many wives he has. The point is that none of these things are true, but they are easily believed. Maybe nobody has ever been in an election where the voting pool is tainted by lies. It's not illegal to be mean-spirited, but you aren't allowed to misrepresent the facts. If I'm in Kerry's position, I'd do the same thing. And, yes, I say the same to Michael Moore and Ann Coulter and the rest of them. I also believe in Freedom of the Press without the context of wanton and fictitous character assasination.
It's the station's individual decision. They should send someone to do a fact check and go from there.
Whether the ad is an honest representation is now going to come out. I also imagine that most Vietnam Vets have made up their mind. I imagine that some of the Veterans are Pro-Bush. Some are Pro-Kerry. But I just don't think that any of them are stupid. And if the ad turns out to be trying to foist-off falsehoods, then there may be a sizeable backlash, indicated by McCain's response.
[ August 05, 2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I would like to clarify that the DNC is being absolutely moronic here (as usual). One, they're only going to amplify the attention drawn to these claims. Two, a good platform should be open to any and all criticism; a great one would be prepared to respond in advance.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Only the liars lose if attention is drawn to these claims, therein resides the virtue in open government.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It seems to me that a political ad which contains falsehoods is indeed a perfectly valid -- and non-oppressed -- target of libel law. Were political ads containing falsehoods about George Bush to be aired, I'd expect him to challenge them, as well.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I agree, Tom.
On the other hand, libel doesn't really bother me; I think laws against it are kind of outdated. Quick list of reasons: - propaganda and the like are much more subversive in the long run yet can never really be suppressed in a free state - the amount of material "published" in diverse yet widely-consumed ways these days makes policing hopeless, unless Ashcroft starts funding a Blog Task Force - I think we've already passed the critical threshold of information fluency for assuring that (1) the real truth is almost always available (2) sources can be authoritative if not sufficient. Usenet FAQ maintainers, Snopes auditors, and Google PageRank are some of my heroes.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*frowns*
*wonders why any self-respecting intellectual would indulge in such worries now*
fallow
PS. sometimes thinks the terrorists DID win
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
The RNC did the same thing a couple months back......
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Pixie, did you watch the ad? it has absolutely no substance whatsoever, it is footage of a bunch of old vets saying over and over again "kerry lied", "kerry lied", "kerry lied to congress", but never bothering to state how or when. i'm sorry but that's not free speech, that's libel, and the DNC has every right to attempt to keep that from being aired. Its almost funny really, that they would make an ad that long and "forget" to include any justification for the claims being made.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Irami,
quote:I also imagine that most Vietnam Vets have made up their mind. I imagine that some of the Veterans are Pro-Bush. Some are Pro-Kerry. But I just don't think that any of them are stupid
Of course some of them are stupid! Some of all of us are stupid (by that, I mean the "general populace," of course. Here, we are all above average. We are also all individuals. Except me.).
For some reason I thought that was important to say.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
I think this will be more of a problem for Bush than it ever could be for Kerry. The allegations made in the commercial are being quickly and vehemently shot down by other veterans and from the records of the activities.
In the meantime, the GOP and the president's campaign staffers are quickly trying to distance themselves from this and get it removed from the airwaves, calling it a product of "unregulated soft money" and making sure that they say again and again that they've had nothing to do with it.
Why? Simple. The allegations, whether right or wrong, put emphasis on Kerry's military service. If these fringe supporters manage to bring that to the forefront of the campaign, who do you think will come out on the short end of the stick in a military record vs military record debate?
It would read like comparing Dan Quayle's military record versus John F Kennedy's... (Kerry isn't Kennedy and Quayle isn't Bush, but from a service prospective, that's the closest comparison you're likely to find).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This is standard DNC behavior?
What about the RNC sending letters to TV stations telling them not to run the MoveOn "Child's Pay" commercial?
As far as I can tell here, the "truth" issue is over whether Kerry turned tail and ran, or stayed around under fire to rescue a man in the water, who was being fired upon. This was the basis for one of Kerry's medals.
quote: Larry Thurlow, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who appears in the ad, told CNN that Kerry's boat fled from a mine blast that damaged another vessel in a March 1969 incident for which Kerry won the Bronze Star.
"Our boats immediately put automatic weapons fire onto the left bank in case there was an ambush in conjunction with the mine," said Thurlow, a Navy officer in a nearby boat at the time. "It soon became apparent there was no ambush."
But Jim Rassman, the man whose rescue from the water in that incident resulted in Kerry being decorated, said Thurlow "has a very unusual recollection of events."
"I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air," said Rassman, who has campaigned for Kerry since January.
How come all the links to the actual video of the ad don't work? I mean, they lead to a web page, but the actual movie file never comes up...
Farmgirl
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I thought the cease and desist letter that the vets sent to the Kerry campaign clear back at the first of July made it clear that many of the people who served with Kerry were unhappy that he was using photos of them (group photos w/Kerry in the military) without their permission, giving the impression that these men supported Kerry. Yet he continued to use these photos.
Farmgirl
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i was under the understanding that a lot of people who served with him (as well as others obviously) are still rather angry with Kerry's testimony to the senate. it seems like they've found a few outlets for that anger...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book.
Hmmmmm...interesting. Why say that if he didn't really believe it, or at least want to discredit Kerry? And why would he retract it?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
$$$$$$$$$$$ ???
FG
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The Boston Globe peice was an outright lie written by Kerry's biographer.
Here is a link to the affidavits.. the original one, and the one from today re-affirming the first one from Capt Elliot.
I've watched the ad, read the web page and heard multiple radio interviews with these guys. They make a powerful case. I'm sure the upcoming book "Unfit For Command" will have many many more details.
[ August 06, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You DO work for the Bush campaign, don't you?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
No, Tom. I pay attention to politics.
I realize that last post sounded like an ad, and infact I made a little joke about it. Then I deleted it (that was the edit) because what I was saying was serious.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Oh, what the hell...
The Pixiest -- what's your opinion on the $10,000 reward that Garry Trudeau offered to anyone who witnessed Bush's serving in the Alabama National Guard in late 1972, when he's alleged to have gone AWOL? Seems no one ever came forward to claim the $10,000...
(Still wants to see what The Pixiest thinks/feels about no one being able to offer proof that Bush didn't go AWOL from his National Guard Service in '72...)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Kerry's campaign is simply insisting that the networks not publish false information now that they have been told of the obvious problems with the stories of these vets.
That isn't censorship...they are telling the networks that they are not legally obligated to provide equal time such as that guaranteed to other candidates. I'm sure the group of disgruntled vets have tried to say they are entitled to equal time when in fact the rules guaranteeing that equal time has never applied to private political groups.....only to the main candidates; exactly who IS entitled to it I'm not sure, but I know that this group isn't.
They can say whatever they want, within reason. If I libeled or slandered you, you would have the right to sue me.....and Kerry has the same rights as you do, even though he is running for office. He isn't saying they can't speak...he is saying that what they are saying if deliberately false and misleading, if not outright lies, and he reserves the right to sue them for libel/slander.
Now he has told the networks so they can't claim they were unaware of the issue, and if they don't fact check it, they could be held accountable as well....not to the same degree, but they are bound by the same laws as us regarding slander/libel.
Makes sense to me...
Kwea
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't think Mr Doonsbury would say when someone comes forward.
Plus since this is the first time I've heard of it, I don't think it's that well known.
Further, there is proof that he served in the pay stubs from Bush's released military records. (We still don't have the recomendation forms for Kerry's medals.)
Now you people seem to think I like Bush. I don't particularly. He's far too left on the fiscal side creating social program after social program. These, like all social programs, can never be repealed because of the howling from those receiving them. We will be paying for those and ANY social program until the US collapses under their weight. I don't like that Bush is Pro-Life and Anti-Gay. (But it seems every politician and most average people are anti-gay still. Even Kerry is against gay marriage. And he said life begins at conception.)
But I know Bush will continue to fight the War on Terror. Kerry will surrender our right to defend ourselves to the French. (As would many of the extreme left wingers right here on Hatrack.)
Further, This thread was about his threat of legal action to stop his dissenters. Yes, it's legal to threaten legal action for anything. But what's he going to do once he's in the White House if he can't handle the Swift Vets? What they're saying is incredibly minor compared to what any president has to put up with. Is he going to crack down on free speech with the full power of the executive branch? Bush could have thrown thousands of people in prison for the duration of the war on terror citing national emergency for their seditous statements. If Kerry will threaten legal action over a couple hundred Swift Boat vets, what will he do when he IS the law?
(edit: spelling)
[ August 09, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Further, there is proof that he served in the pay stubs from Bush's released military records."
No. There's proof that he was paid, which is hardly the same thing. After all, Kerry received multiple medals; is that proof that he was valorous?
"Kerry will surrender our right to defend ourselves to the French."
Yes. Naturally. Because, y'know, Kerry -- like all leftists -- believes that the French are our natural overlords. As opposed to, say, Texans.
"Bush could have thrown thousands of people in prison for the duration of the war on terror citing national emergency for their seditous statements."
I would argue this point, given that we are not legally involved in a "war" on "terror" and sedition is therefore not exactly possible. But seriously, Pix, do you really intend to argue that someone should ignore illegal action taken to harm them on the premise that, if they later became president, they could wield that power to crush unpopular opposition? For instance, if Obama's bike is stolen, should he not report it -- on the basis that, if he someday became president, he could order the FBI to investigate every household in America to see if any of them harbor improperly-obtained bicycles?
[ August 09, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You're dragging a red herring, Tom. Steeling a bike is different from politics.
Look at all the whacky accusations the left has leveled at Bush. From "He knew about 9-11 ahead of time." to "He is responsible for Abu Ghraib!!!" and a million instances of libel and slander in between. Heck, he'd have to throw the entire press in prision!
Look at everything the right said about Clinton. "He raped Juanita Brodderick." "He lied under oath" (well, we got that one on tape. We know he really did.) "His Wife is guilty of Insider Trading!"
Heck, the whacko fringe groups still think that Reagan, Bush 41 and (then Gov) Clinton were smuggling drugs into Mena back in the 80s.
Acusations and finger pointing are part of poltics. The Bush administration has not cracked down on dissent. They have allowed free speech no matter how whacky they have become. He's endured lie after lie after lie.
Kerry threatens legal action against the ::stations:: that want to run the swift vet ads. What if the ads are true? (I think there are concidering Kerry's entire chain of command is in the group.) This is a very easy way to shut down their voices.
And if this intemidation works, what more powerful, legal means of shutting down dissent will he use once he's president?
Remember, this man has a very thin skin. When he fell on the sky slopes he blamed the secret service guy for tripping him. (Takes a big man to badmouth someone willing to take a bullet for you.)
Clinton just had the IRS audit anyone who spoke out against him. But I think Clinton had a thicker skin. What will Kerry do?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Look at all the whacky accusations the left has leveled at Bush."
Can you find an example of a television ad that contains these statements?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Doesn't need to be an Ad to be slander, Tom.
'sides, How about the MoveOn.Org Hitler ad? Heck, I bet if I went to Moveon.Org I could find all sorts of whacky ads.
But I refuse to put myself through all that bile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The whole point of the MoveOn "Hitler" ad -- and I speak here as a MoveOn member -- is that it never aired and was reasonably unpopular; it was never selected to air precisely because the membership thought that it was clumsy, insulting, and excessively derogatory. Republicans, desperate to find SOMETHING they could use to demonstrate Democratic "insults," latched onto an ad that we'd already dismissed for being too insulting.
Can you come up with something that the Democrats have actually AIRED?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Like I said Tom, It doesn't have to be an Ad to be Slander, and thus, Actionable.
Heck, I would put it to you that Michael Moore's masterpeice is far worse than a 30 second ad. Michael Moore went into painful detail in his lies and half truths. The swift boat ad only had enough time for a handful of their members to say "Kerry lied" and give a link to their web page for details.
Come to think of it, didn't Fahrenheit 911 have TV ads with footage from the movie?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Come to think of it, didn't Fahrenheit 911 have TV ads with footage from the movie?"
Yep. But, oddly enough, those ads contained a) no slander and b) promotions for the movie. Ergo, they weren't presenting themselves as factual political ads but rather promotional ads for the film.
Do you see no distinction? Moreover, do you not understand the difference between taking out an ad full of falsehoods and, say, making a speech full of falsehoods?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Pix, you're missing the whole point of the slander/libel laws; they don't exist to keep people from lying, or to punish people for lying, they exist to keep people from causing demonstrable harm to others by lying. The existance of demonstrable harm is the key element here. if i tell my friend that bush came into my bedroom and beat me last night, it may be a lie, but it's not really slander unless i have harmed him by saying that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And there was no harm from Michael Moore's movie?
Tom, the movie is presented as fact. And has reached more people than the swift boat ad.
You're really reaching for straws here. An hour and a half movie with tons of promotion is far worse than a 30 sec commercial. And Bush isn't sueing anyone. Yet you sit here and defend Kerry's legal action against a group of vets.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, the movie is presented as fact. And has reached more people than the swift boat ad."
Kind of a grey area, isn't it? I think the simple answer is that if the movie makes clear and factual statements that are obviously misleading -- which advancing those statements as fact -- then a lawsuit should be considered.
And before you think Republicans are taking the high ground here, it's worth noting they've ALREADY challenged ads for Farenheit 9/11 on the grounds that they constitute campaign ads, and have already come after Moore for slander. The difference, of course, is that Bush has flunkies who'll do the suing FOR him, while Kerry -- as a private individual, at the moment -- has to bring the suit himself.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually, it DOES violate Mccain-Fiengold. But McCain-Fiengold is specifically aimed at political speech. That's what the law is for. I agree it's a horrible law that should never have been proposed, passed or signed and should have been overturned as a blatent assault on the first amendment. But the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it without exception. And since it was Democrats and a RINO that was pushing in the first place, they should follow the law most of all!
As for Bush going after Moore for slander.. Link Please.
And the idea that Kerry has no flunkies is painfully laughable. He has the whole of the Democrat party, Most of the press and Moveon.Borg. Hey... aren't you members of all three of those?
[ August 09, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Pot, Kettle is on line 2:
GOP Threatens Stations Running Anti-Bush Ads By RICHARD BRENNEMAN (03-09-04)
The Grand Old Party has declared war on MoveOn.org’s Voter Fund’s television ads critical of President Bush, and MoveOn founder Wes Boyd is furious. On Friday, the Republican National Committee sent letters to 250 television stations across country Friday, warning of potentially dire consequences should they air the ads from the Berkeley-based activist organization.
In the three-page letter, RNC Chief Counsel Jill Holtsman Vogel told broadcasters they “have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity.”
“That’s outrageous,” Boyd said Monday. “They’re lying. We’re operating under the law. But this is getting to be a standard tactic of the RNC to silence opposition.”
The GOP letter doesn’t seem to have had the intended effect. Boyd said he talked to MoveOn’s media buyer Monday afternoon, and not one station had bumped the group’s commercials.
MoveOn launched the ad campaign Thursday, buying $1.9 million in broadcasting time in 67 media markets in 17 states. The ads highlight worker job insecurity and White House plans to eliminate overtime pay for eight million jobs. The group responded to the RNC letter by announcing plans to add another $1 million in advertising buys to the campaign.
The Republicans claim the ads are illegal because they are funded in part by a seven-figure donation from George Soros, while the law limits such ads to funding by contributors who give $5,000 or less.
Because the ad “clearly attacks and opposes President Bush. . .and is being broadcast in states commonly considered crucial to the outcome” of the November election, Holtzman wrote, “the MoveOn.org Voter cannot use soft money” for the ad “and must register with the Federal Election Commission.”
The letter concluded with an ominous last line: “Now that you have been apprised of the law to prevent future violations of federal law, we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station’s broadcast rotation.”
But Joseph Sandler, MoveOn.org’s own lawyer, sent a letter of his own to broadcasters, charging that the missive was part of “the RNC’s cynical and dishonest efforts to silence the voices of citizens who dare to criticize the president. . .and to intimidate broadcasters into complicity with that indefensible attempt at censorship.”
Sandler said MoveOn.org’s ads “are entirely lawful under the federal campaign finance laws.”
Broadcasters are walking on eggs recently, in light of the recent Clear Channel purge of shock jock Howard Stern after he turned against the president and the outburst of conservative rage following Justin Timberlake’s bearing of Janet Jackson’s breast during the Super Bowl halftime show.
One thing Super Bowl viewers didn’t see on CBS was a MoveOn ad the network refused to air, saying they wouldn’t run advocacy ads during the biggest game on the American broadcasting calendar. CBS also killed an ad from the animal rights group PETA on the same grounds. But CBS did air another advocacy ad during the show, a product of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Link please? I'd like to vet the source. This looks like an editorial to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's completely factual, Pix.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Like I'm going to take your word for it Tom. Link please.
Besides, they weren't threatening with Libel, but with McCain-Fiengold. And we've covered that.
And if Moveon.org didn't violate McCain-Fiengold, then niether did the Swift Boat Vets and you still have no leg to stand on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Like I'm going to take your word for it Tom."
You know, I would LOVE for you to manage to come up with a single thread in which I've been provably wrong.
Tell you what: I'll bet you ten bucks that this citation is accurate. You willing to put your money where your skepticism is, or are you going to pretend that it's more likely that this is a huge hoax?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm just not going to believe it without a link. There are many many things I could post here that I don't have a link that this forum would accept.
Example, I could supply a link to a story at Jewish World Review about how 3 frenchmen slung anti-semetic remarks and a group of jewish students at THE AUSWITZ HOLOCOST MUSEUM today, but no one here would ever accept a link from that site (I've tried before)
Anything I post on this predominately left wing/authoritarian blog must have an (AP)/(REUTERS) or similar tag on it and I must supply a link. That's the way it's been here for ages.
Therefore, before I believe a copied article I must have a link back to the source.
[ August 09, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I see why he wouldn't post the link.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Pixiest- On page one you stated that the Globe article was an outright lie written by Kerry's biographer.
Neither of the individual statements there are accurate as you present them.
Last summer, the Globe ran a 7 peice series on Kerry. This spring, the Boston Globe published a book based upon research and interviews done for that series, which contains a lot of new information. Kranich, as a long time staff member of the Boston Globe, was one of the journalists involved in the process of putting together the series, and then writing this book. Obviously, to some extent, this is a biography. However, as you try to present it, this means KRanich is linked to Senator Kerry in a manner which makes it unethical for him to write articles about Kerry. THis is false. The research done, and the Biography itself, are non-partisan, and attempt to show the true nature of Senator Kerry, who was EXTREMELY upset at the Boston Globe about the content of that 7 part series.
Kranich also hasn't lied in this article. The quotes he used were on the record. THe context he used them may have been extremely bad, and for that, I wrote an angry letter to the Globe (as I am a subscriber) and called them to express my displeasure. HOWEVER, Elliott himself seems to be confused about his stance on Kerry, as many of the comments he made to Kranich were also made to another journalist. As well, he spoke out in favor of kerry at least through 1996. I do not know what changed his mind about Senator Kerry, and he's entiteld to his opinion. However, he doesn't seem to have a consistent view point on the man, and whether he deserved the medals.
Kranich didn't lie. He may have used Elliotts quotes out of context, but so far the Boston Globe (although they have endorsed Kerry, the Globe, including Kranich, in general have written more positive things about Bush then Kerry) has not backed down from the article.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yah. Thats the best we've got on that... a statement that some journalists received such a copy. However, the actual copies don't seem to exist.
Edit: This was in response to a post Pixiest seems to have deleted.
[ August 09, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Here is one link I found and it was all over the other news sites when this happened several months ago.
As for why I haven't posted a link before now PIXIEST, its because i was away from the computer. Some of us DO have a few things to occupy us rather than sitting in front of a computer all day. Maybe not MUCH else, but else nonetheless.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Last year, Boston Globe reporters working on a multipart series uncovered the stunning news that John Kerry's paternal grandfather was Jewish. This book, an expansion of that series, doesn't find any smoking guns about the presumptive Democratic candidate for president. But it does offer a detailed and at times critical biography of the Massachusetts senator.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not sure what your point is, Pixiest. That would be exactly what I said it was.
If Kranich is Kerry's biographer for a critical examination of who he is, in an attempt to inform the public, then he's obviously highly qualified to write about Kerry. You implied Kranich is not highly qualified to write articles about kerry, and has a conflict of interest, which would imply that the biography was sponsored by kerry, and that writing about Kerry in such a way compromises his neutrality. My point was that this particular book does NOT compromise Kranich's neutrality, because its a critical examination, and the information was gathered through a long research effort which Kerry was upset about, because it didn't present him in a highly favorable light.
[ August 09, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: posted August 09, 2004 04:54 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see why he wouldn't post the link.
And now we all see why he didn't care if you believed him.
And just in case you don't get what I'm saying:
quote: Anything I post on this predominately left wing/authoritarian blog must have an (AP)/(REUTERS) or similar tag on it and I must supply a link. That's the way it's been here for ages
Here's another one.
I forgot.....you only have to do that if you are liberal, right?
I am neither Republican or Democrat, nor do I really care for either candidate, and I am from MA so I have been aware of Kerry for longer that most of the people here on Hatrack.
Just in case you would like to insult me specifiable instead of in general.
. . . The difference between the two ads is that most of the people in the Vet's ads have recanted or stated that they have been misquoted. I have read that in several places, and if I have time to look the articles up I will, and post a link....god knows that I wouldn't expect you to "take my word for it", even though others have already posted several links to the same articles.
The ads against Bush state his publicly stated positions, and complain about them and what they would mean to workers here in the US.
They don't question his "service record", such as it is, and they don't criticize his combat record (he has none)....mostly because the records have "disappeared"....go figure.
They don't call into question his well earned citations (he had none) or honors. Honors that passed all screwtiny....until he began running against Bush.
. . . . . .You can, here in the US, ask questions and challenge positions of candidates.
>>You can't lie, or make false claims based on statements that have bee retracted, or ones that were never made in the first place.
.
. . . Why is the difference so hard to see?
Kwea
[ August 09, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Sorry I deleted the previous post Paul. I accidently clicked the reply button before I was done with the post, then realized that wasn't the article I was looking for (the one I was looking for seems to have expired and been removed from the news website.)
Book: Thank you for posting a link. Still, that has to do with McCain-Fiengold, not libel. And I agree we should dump that law. It's a horrible law as I said in my previous post. I was agog that it passed every step of the way. But if it is the law it must be enforced. If there is a misconception about the law it must be cleared up.
Since MoveOn.Org is not in volation of the law, neither is SwiftVets.Com.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No problem, pixiest.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true...they weren't accused of breaking the same laws.
There is a difference of opinion on if the campain financing laws even apply to Moveon.org, but there is no question of libel or slander laws applying to either candidate....they are appliable to both.
. . . For the record, I hate most negitive ads in general, regardless of who puts them out. But if the ads focus on issues instead of character assination they are easier to take.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I just tried to edit my post from 2 posts ago....I can't spell for anything, so feel free to make fun of me for that. I deserve it...
Also, I wanted to add a smiley to the post where if said "if you want to insult me specifically", because I as joking (kinda) but it didn't come across that way...but I can't edit my own post!
Weird...
. . . . .must be a conspiracy! Damn Liberals! Or was it Conservatives?
Maybe it's both... Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
The reason I brought it up is that if you're going to beat on one side for doing something, then give an equal beating to the other side for doing the same thing..
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Since MoveOn.Org is not in volation of the law, neither is SwiftVets.Com."
Which law? SwiftVets is being accused of violating libel law by knowingly lying about Kerry and his record. MoveOn is being accused of violating campaign finance law by taking out TV ads. While it's true that if MoveOn is guilty of the latter that SwiftVets, which has done the same thing, is ALSO guilty, the reverse -- that if SwiftVets has lied about Kerry, then MoveOn has lied about Bush -- does not follow.
Which MoveOn ad would you say contains blatant and provable lies?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My point was that we were comparing apples and oranges...
Libel laws apply to all of us...
Where there appears to be some confusion on if the campaign finance laws apply to private political organizations.
Even if they do, that is a completely different charge.
The statement "If one is guilty" would only apply if they were accused of the same thing, which they aren't.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes. Naturally. Because, y'know, Kerry -- like all leftists -- believes that the French are our natural overlords. As opposed to, say, Texans.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)