Thank-you, Daiwa. You have effectively demonstrated that you disagree with the differences I have suggested between "MoveOn" and "SBVftT" as organizations. In doing so, I think you implicitly grant that liberals (at least this liberal) have not been blind to the connection between Kerry and "unaffiliated groups" (as you originally asserted) but, rather, see that connection as different from Bush's connection to a group like "SBVftT." You do not see it as different and that is our primary point of disagreement (on this point, at least). I primarily map that as a difference of degree rather than kind, but a significant degree nonetheless. But at least I see it and you, apparently, see that I see it. This is probably as close as you are likely to come to conceding a point, so thank-you.
The connection between Bush and "SBVftT" has been regularly dismissed by Bush supporters in multiple venues as a game of "six degrees of separation," most recently by ShoZan above. Except that, as Jon Stewart so effectively and humorously demonstrated on The Daily Show, that separation is rarely more than two degrees and often less than 1. So....drink up, fellas!
So then if a Kevin Bacon drinking game won't help your case, why not turn the the playground tried and true tactic of "I know you are but what am I?" Unfortunately, there is also a difference between the advising lawyers connections. (Again, this may be difference in degree rather than kind, but significant nonetheless). Ginsberg was a Bush campaign lawyer who helped "SBVftT" not only as an organization but specifically with the advertisement in question. Kerry doesn't have lawyers assisting MoveOn with their advertisements (although the DNC does have advising lawyers who consult for MoveOn). Kerry does have a lawyer, Robert Bauer, who consults for his campaign and also America Coming Together. Yes, ACT has been critical of the President, but they have yet to produce advertisements that have raised any serious concerns or outcries from the President's campaign.
The other difference worth mentioning I will quote from the LA Times: "In both cases, the candidates are the reason the [527] groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false."
You say: "The left has known who the Republican candidate was going to be for 3 and a half years, for cryin' out loud. To suggest that Anybody-but-Bush is somehow more noble than Not-Kerry is a crock."
Your failure to recognize the difference here is truly amazing, although "noble" is your word, not mine. Let me see if I can clue you into the difference. Bush is the incumbent. In a re-election campaign that gives him both advantages and disadvantages. While Bush was busy using his incumbency in the last few years to build an unprecedented campaign war chest, progressive 527s were gearing up to counter that financial advantage (among others). Now, instead of following McCain's lead and requests from both sides of the political fence to condemn a reprehensible ad, Bush instead calls for mid-campaign censure of all of the 527s. Given the fundrasing differentials between the 527 groups on the left and right (by some estimates $145M to $9M), now Bush wants to curb their affect. So let me get this straight: You let (possibly instruct) your 527 group make an ad that significantly bears false witness against the other guy and then you use that to argue that all 527 groups should go (but don't disavow the false witnessing in the process). Riiiight....that doesn't seem disingenuous in the least (snicker).
Getting rid of the 527s mid-election (much like passing a the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act anytime soon) is a pipe dream. No body, including President Bush (who I KNOW is not stupid, thereby shattering another myth about liberal opinions), thinks that is possible. The FMA keeps some conservatives happy and, while it may alienate some moderates in the GOP, it is doubtful they will shift their support for the President in this election. Similarly, the 527 bash seems like taking the high moral ground, but it isn't. Not when the best you can come up with is "you do it too!"
MoveOn has been dedicated to a (legal!) regime change in the US from its inception. Contrary to popular belief, that is not illegal. If it were, more than a few Right wing groups would have been imprisoned in the Clinton years. The GOP controls the House, the Senate (arguably), the Exectuive branch, the majority of governors, and (arguably) the Supreme Court. The GOP is in power. The GOP is in power because the majority of US voting citizens (with one exception) put them there, directly or indirectly. Gloat about that -- you get to. But don't gloat too much, because the advantage is not that great nor is there assurance that it will last much longer. And in the meantime, the left gets to enjoy the time-honored tradition of campaigning on the very visible flaws of the incumbent and the "guys in charge." Given how relatively recently (just a decade or so ago) the shoe was on the other foot, I'd think the GOP (and their advocates) could remember that and not be so shocked at the effectiveness of the anti-Bush rhetoric. But then, maybe that's why they are willing to say anything to keep attention off of their guys and their record.
