Crybabies On Parade!
It seems like a far cry from "Bring It On!," but John Kerry and John
Edwards are begging George Bush to violate election law and the First
Amendment in order to force the Swiftvets into silence:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Saturday night urged
President Bush to "stand up and stop" what he called personal attacks on
him over his combat record in Vietnam.
Personal attacks? He's done nothing but hold up his Viet Nam narrative as
his single best qualification for the Presidency since the beginning of
this year. Perhaps his staff should play the videotape of his acceptance
speech at the Democratic convention, or the speeches in support of him by
the discredited David Alston and others, who couldn't talk about anything
else.

"That's why they're attacking my credibility. That's why they've
personally gone after me. The president needs to stand up and stop that.
The president needs to have the courage to talk about it." ...
In Roanoke, Va., on Saturday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John
Edwards also called on Bush to end the Swift Boat Veterans ads.

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," Edwards said at a
Democratic rally. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind
of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."


I don't know what kind of a lawyer John Edwards might be, but he's
obviously rather deficient on tax and electoral law. Candidates can't
direct the actions of independent 527s; otherwise, it violates both codes.
Not only should both Edwards and Kerry know this as lawyers, they should
know it as candidates, since independent 527s like America Coming Together
and MoveOn have spent over $50 million against George Bush this year,
compared to the microscopic $250,000 the Swiftvets have spent on their
campaign.

In regards to the nature of the attacks, the Bush campaign should condemn
that -- just as soon as Kerry/Edwards condemns Congressman Sherrod Brown,
who took the opportunity during a public hearing with Colin Powell to
accuse George Bush of going AWOL:

Powell, however, became testy when Brown said, in a reference to questions
about whether Bush completed his National Guard service: "You are one of
the very few people in this administration that understands war. We have a
president who may have been AWOL" from duty.
Or, for that matter, when Kerry fires his own party chairman, Terry
McAuliffe, for also calling George Bush AWOL:

While none of the presidential candidates has directly criticized Bush's
service, some Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman
Terence R. McAuliffe, have accused the president of shirking his military
duties in 1972, when Bush transferred to an Alabama unit. McAuliffe on
Sunday called Bush "AWOL," or "absent without leave," during that period.
Or for representing that viewpoint as the official position of the
Democratic party:

But while the AWOL charge may be absurd, the question remains: Since John
Kerry went to Vietnam and George Bush didn't, is Kerry more qualified to
be a wartime president than Bush? Terry McAuliffe seems to think so. "I
look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full
of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the
Alabama National Guard," McAuliffe said. "George Bush never served in our
military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed
up."
Note that these examples involve Democrats, one an officeholder and the
other its national chairman. The incidents go back to February of this
year, while both Edwards and Kerry were still running for the nomination.
Neither one of them have ever condemned McAuliffe or Brown, or for that
matter Michael Moore, who has repeatedly called Bush a deserter. In fact,
they invited Moore to their nominating convention, where he sat in an
honored position with former President Jimmy Carter.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, both Kerry and Edwards are
reduced to squealing like schoolgirls in the onslaught of Swiftvet
allegations that have raised disturbing questions about Kerry's character
and his precious Viet Nam narrative. In schoolyard terms, they picked a
fight with someone they thought couldn't defend himself and now want
everyone else in the playground to rescue them from the battle they
provoked. They've broken out the lawyers and even invoked the McCain
legend to help them squirm out of the debate they started.

In fact, they've done everything except release all of John Kerry's
service and medical records from his service in Viet Nam, a move they
pressured Bush to make months ago, which he did.

Is this how tough the Kerry/Edwards ticket will be in defending American
security?

UPDATE: Kevin at Cadet Happy notes a few other examples of Kerry's
pusillanimous history:

Kerry demands Bush condemn the Swift Vets, though he poured fuel on the
"AWOL" story in February . . . Far from condemning the attacks on the
President, Kerry specifically pushed the story forward: "The issue here is
. . was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to
be? I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an
honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question." SEN. JOHN
KERRY, D-Mass., in Richmond, Va., commenting on Bush's statement.
And in the Washington Post on April 27th of this year (no link, article by
Jill Zuckman and Jeff Zeleny):

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry scolded the White House for
criticizing his protest of the Vietnam War and said Monday that President
Bush "owes America an explanation" about whether he lived up to his own
wartime obligations a generation ago. "I've fought for my country. I know
what it means to defend my nation," Kerry said in a television interview
here, directly challenging Bush's service for the first time. "This
president can't even prove he actually showed up for duty in the National
Guard."