I thought the parties and candidates weren't supposed to have any connection or coordination with their 527's? Take a look at the DNC website.....from a May 2003 ad. (Link provided below) I suppose this is why the Bush campaign filed a complaint with the FEC months ago:

It's time to fight back.

The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans.
http://www.democrats.org/wvc/weekinr...305120002.html


Then there is a John Kery connection:

http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kerry.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Seeing as how both of these items were before the actual campaigning started, I don't think they have much of a point.

__________________
Why are they called the "right", if they are so wrong?

Oh really? Where is that rule?

What it says to is this: John Kerry and the DNC are very connected to MoveOn.org and MediaFund. They have connections there. They have former campaign managers there. They have big donor supporters there. And they have "partnered" together on issues. It doesn't matter that it was a year ago. I don't think that's allowed. If you can prove to me that it is....then please do so. And if that's the case...then why are the complainers about the Swit Boat vets saying that they guys have contributed to Bush in the past and say that it matters now? See the hypocrisy here?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Well now your'e going to make me work, let me debunk your "big find"...

The first link...
A party can have a connection to a 527 group....not a campaign, parties and campaigns are two totally seperate entities.

second link...
This letter is under MoveOn.org's PAC group....do you know the difference between 527 and PAC?
http://www.gnossos.com/webhelp/What_...anization_.htm

__________________
Why are they called the "right", if they are so wrong?

Sure I know. A 527 is an unregulated PAC by another name. That's about it.

I'm glad you cleared it up though.....about a "party can have a connection to a 527." That means that the fact that many of the Swift Boat vets have donated to Republicans is a bogus, meaningless argument from the Democrats. So, the Dems should stop acting like it measn something.

Plus the flyer that was recently "supposedly found" in Florida was in a Republican headquarters; not in a Bush/Cheny campaign headquarters. So that's makes it okay...even if it was actually found there. (Which I question anyway)

Some other known Democrat connections to 527's:

1) Kerry's former campaign manager now works for MediaFund (a 527) a "revolving door" policy to say the least.

2) Harold Ickes, from the MediaFund, was a SUPER DELEGATE at the DNC convention. That means he was there in support of nominating John Kerry. As a 527, he's not supposed to support a specific candidate. By their very nature, 527's are negative because they can only do ads against the opposing candiate; not endorse their choice.

It's time for John Kerry to join the president in his call to do away with all this UNREGULATED SOFT MONEY and negative attacks ads of ALL the 527's.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Yep.

Kerry wrote a letter to MoveOn long before he was a presidential candidate. That's legal. The DNC can coordinate with MoveOn. The only coordination that is illegal is with a campaign.

Best I know, MoveOn and other groups haven't tried to hide their connections. They haven't claimed to be nonpartisan. SBVT have.

Much of SBVT's value rests on their credibility (since they're asking voters to believe them and not the official military record). Any ties to Bush or the GOP tarnish that credibility. Ties that they tried to cover up REALLY tarnish their credibility.

So, lets see here: The DNC can coordinate with the liberal 527's. And the Kerry campaign can coordinate with the DNC. Don't you see the silliness in all this? Don't you see how disingenuous the 527's are? They are nothing but UNREGULATED SOFT MONEY.

I haven't heard the Swift Boat vets saying they are nonpartisan. I've heard them say that not all of them are Republicans....which is true. I've also heard them say they would love to have a former Swift Boat vet....one of them....as president whether it be a Republican OR Democrat. Their gripe is with John Kerry, the man. Whom they happen to believe is unfit to be Commander-In-Chief. And they give their reasons in their ads. You know.....John Kerry has written awfull things about some of them in his book, "Tour of Duty." But somehow, he expected they wouldn't fight back and would just sit back and take it.

All I know is that they can't ALL be lying. There's more of them than there are John Kerry Swift Boat supporters. And Kerry has already had to backtrack on at least two of the stories he's told over and over again. I think the Swift Boats vet made their point....and they did it well.

What Kerry did after the war is far more important to me. His anti-war activities, and his 20 years as one of the most liberal Senators is far more important. In a recent Fox News poll, some 76% of people say this is what is more important to them as well; not his Vietnam experience. Choosing that as his centerpiece for his campaign was a bad idea.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Agreed. It's nearly impossible to prove collusion even if it exists, and 527s need to be reined in.

But you can't do it during this election cycle. You have to play this one out by the rules set up for it. It would be extremely magnanimous of Kerry to agree to a ban, but it would be both ineffective (the 527s would ignore him) and, if effective, politically suicidal.

Then you're not listening. From their Web site:

Further, There's this transcript from John O'Neill's interview with Brit Hume on Fox:

Okay, first point, you have O'Neill trying to claim he's nonpartisan.

Now, second point. check this out: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_5062.shtml

I checked opensecrets.org, and the linked article is correct. O'Neill lied. He has never given money to a Democratic candidate, anywhere.

As I've said repeatedly: There are 250 SBVT who dislike Kerry. Only 13 have signed affidavits accusing him of lying. Most of the rest couldn't even if they wanted to; they didn't serve anywhere near him.

Kerry appears to have at least as many swift boat vets on his side: His crew, Rassman, the Chicago Tribune editor, and the other 3 or 4 who have spoken up at Kerry's request. That makes about 10, right? And that's just the ones who have agreed to speak up.

The numbers game is misleading and stupid.

Okay. So why all the support for SBVT then? Both sides seem to be saying "I'll quit talking about it if only THEY would." Kerry at least has a reason to talk about it: burnishing his national security credentials.

Then....Bush can't do anything about the Swift Boat ad either....for the exact same reasons you site about Kerry. So, we agree it's a bit disengenuous for Kerry and the Democrats to even call for him to do it. If Kerry can't do it....then Bush can't do it. However, the difference is that Pres. Bush has said they are all bad for the system; John Kerry thinks only those against him are bad for the system.

I don't care what their website says. They are NOT all Republicans. Many of them have said they usually vote for the man. What they say is that they are anti-Kerrry. And that's the truth.

On your last part...here's the deal. Kerry wanted to talk about his military experience.....but he wanted to be the ONLY one that could talk about it. He tried to silence these guys. I still believe they have just as much a right to tell the experiences from their point of view as John Kerry does. And he has now had to retract or alter at least 3 of the events he highlighted in his "Tour of Duty" book. That alone makes me question Kerry's ability to tell the truth. Everyone else can make up their own minds. Kerry recently said...."bring it on." But from his quick turnaround to try and change the subject now....I'd say he really didn't mean it.

Questions for ya:

1) Do you think that the people doing the MediaFund and MoveOn.org have the right to do ads and voice their opinions?

2) Do you think the Swift Boat vets have the right to do ads and voice their opinions?

If billionaire immigrant George Soros can pour $16 million plus of his own money into these liberal ads to defeat Bush....then these Veterans have definitely earned their right to collect $1 million and do some ads. And you know what? Since John Kerry has tried to silence them.....they've collected a lot more money from a lot more people.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

You don't care what the SBVT say about themselves? C'mon!

They try to claim they're nonpartisan, and they're not. Please admit that.

Yes to both. But if I think SBVT's accusations lack merit, or they are lying about their affiliation, I'll call them on it. If I think their ads are more misleading or dishonest than others, I'll say so.

I've said the DNC trying to muzzle SBVT was silly. And I've recently condemned Media Fund for being very Karl Rovish in their ads. I think sleazy ads are sleazy no matter who puts them out. But frankly, I don't see a lot of such ads because I don't watch a lot of TV. I talk about SBVT mostly because it comes up here. But I'm tired of piecemealing it; I plan to post a thread fairly soon comparing Bush/Kerry/independent ads to see who, if anyone, is playing cleaner.