|
THERE'S A NEW SWIFT BOAT VETERNS AD, calling out Kerry's duplicity more explicitly: Either he was part of a "band of brothers" in Vietnam, or he was part of a gang of ruthless war criminals. Kerry has testified passionately to both versions.
Better put here: "The day after John Kerry complains about having his war service questioned, the new ad underscores how Kerry did far worse to thousands of vets." Check out the ad.
Meanwhile, the Kerry team is filing a complaint with the FEC, alleging that there is illegal coordination between the Swift Boats group and the Bush campaign.
The fact that the ads are anti-Kerry are not enough to prove coordination. If this was the case, MoveOn.org's ads would also be illegal. I'll be interested to see if Kerry has anything behind his allegation besides the anti-Kerry nature of the ads.
MSNBC has an article about what constitutes coordination. Coordination exists if...- The ad being aired by the group was broadcast at the request or suggestion of the candidate, his campaign or an agent of the campaign.
- The group suggested the ad and the candidate or his agent assented to the ad, for example, by saying something such as, “That sounds like a good idea to me.”
- The candidate or his agent was materially involved in decisions about the content of the ad, the times and places where it would air, the medium used, etc.
- The ad was aired after what the FEC calls “substantial discussion” between the person or outside group paying for the ad and the campaign. If, for example, a campaign manager said to the head of a 527 group, “Over the next two weeks, our campaign’s ads will focus on the loss of textile jobs in this state,” and the outside group then ran its own ads buttressing that message, it would be coordination.
Comments:
As a further point of discussion, is Kerry simply overreacting to these ads? i.e. are these the sort of ads that simply further the point of the conservative faithful, or do they really target moderate voters?
And I've heard so much about the veteran vote. Do you have any idea what percentage of the electorate that vote represents? I don't, and I'd like to know why that particular demographic is so much more important in this election than I remember in elections past.
I posted some further comments on my blog on how Bush could turn a denouncement of the Swift Boat group to his own advantage, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
-
As a further point of discussion, is Kerry simply overreacting to these ads? i.e. are these the sort of ads that simply further the point of the conservative faithful, or do they really target moderate voters?
And I've heard so much about the veteran vote. Do you have any idea what percentage of the electorate that vote represents? I don't, and I'd like to know why that particular demographic is so much more important in this election than I remember in elections past.
I posted some further comments on my blog on how Bush could turn a denouncement of the Swift Boat group to his own advantage, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
-
These types of legalistic defenses of poor behavior bring to mind Irving Kristol's warnings of equating the legal with the moral. Safe to say, the father of neoconservatism found it dangerous.
-
Whether you find the ads to be persuasive or offensive, Kerry's quick use of legal tactics betray a thin skin that will have to thicken if he is to be effective on the international stage. Even worse, they show a disrespect for the right to free speech that is surprising for somebody claiming that he will restore civil liberties.
-
|
