December 23, 2007


"Bitter attacks":
"John yesterday said that he didn't believe in 527s," [said Barack Obama]...

“I do not support 527 groups. They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads. I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process,” [said John Edwards]...

... Obama said his concern was not with the independent spending by labor unions per se but with the question of Edwards' character.

"I love labor," he responded. "It's just important not to say that you oppose" 527 spending "the day before" the spending begins. ...

"I already said I'm against 527s," Edwards said, ignoring a question about whether he'd call publicly for his allies to cease spending on his behalf. "I've been fighting against these people my entire life."

In 2004, Edwards demanded that President Bush stop independent spending on his behalf by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with "three words: Stop these ads."...

But a person close to the group [said it] was barred from responding to Edwards' call for them to stop advertising — because that would constitute coordinating with his campaign, which is illegal.
Count the delicious ironies.


rhhardin said...

Obama accused his rival for the Democratic nomination of hypocrisy

Worse that scurvy cur.

vet66 said...

Only a tort lawyer could make sense out of that gordian knot of logic. I haven't been subjected to anything that risible since Bill Clinton wanted to know what the definition of "IS" was.

Lawyers! A pox on them.

Bruce Hayden said...

Somehow Mr. Edwards was involved in a different election in 2004 than the rest of use were. I remember any number of 527 ads, running almost constantly in his favor. Does the name George Soros ring a bell?

His problem with the Swift Boaters was that their ads were devastating. Worse, it was impossible to rebut the running of his running mate's Congressional testimony about all the supposed atrocities in the Vietnam War. That tall shaggy guy (who legally should have still been in the Naval reserves at the time) sure looked like Sen. Kerry, and sure sounded like him. And no one even really insisted that it wasn't he, or that his Congressional testimony hadn't happened, or that wasn't what he said.

So, yes, it was unfair that the Democrats put up such a flawed candidate who could be taken down by his own testimony.

And for those who will jump in and claim that Kerry was proved right, he wasn't. Most of the issues ended up as he says/he says, with more witnesses on the other side. And he still hasn't released his military records, some three years after publicly committing to do so. Ask yourself, why not?

Getting back to his former running mate, Edwards. He benefited immensely from 527 ads during the last election cycle. Now he is crying about how horrible they were. Obviously, his position is that they are fine as long as they run for his benefit, but not if they don't.

George M. Spencer said...

Did I miss something?

I went away for a few days...what happened to the story about the very pregnant woman whom the Nat'l Enquirer asserted was carrying Sen. Edwards' child?

If true, wouldn't that end his campaign?

Is it that all the newspapers and TV stations in the world decided that they did not want to "dignify" that story by investigating it to see if it were true or false?

Just presenting evidence to show its falsity alone would be a good story. Would sell some papers, to be sure.

A disgusting story, yes, but that's no reason not to rake that muck.

As for 527s, hard to believe a candidate's stance towards them will change votes.....

Ruth Anne Adams said...

A disgusting story, yes, but that's no reason not to rake that muck.

George: If the story's true, somebody sure did muck that rake.

Fen said...

John yesterday said that he didn't believe in 527s

"It doesn't matter whether you believe in 527s, 527s believe in you" said... blog.