• So that shithead who has been on the run for months, shooting several police officers and killing one, has finally been caught. Good. Fuck him. And fuck his family members who (allegedly) aided in his avoiding the law. One question, though: why are the media including the “Bucky” into his name Ralph “Bucky” Phillips? I think "Ralph Phillips" or "Bucky Phillips" would do just fine. Is there another criminal named Ralph Phillips out there pissed off because "Bucky" is giving him a bad name? I could see having the "Bucky" in there when he first escaped because people from the areas where he used to live might know him by this nickname, but now he's caught. I think it's safe to say we can drop the "Bucky." And if someone needs the "Bucky" to realize who this douche is...

"Say did you hear they caught that cop-killer?"

 

"Who?"

 

"That guy who escaped from a Buffalo-area prison a few months ago and promised to 'splatter pig meat all over Chautauqua County.'"

 

"Who?"

 

"The guy who shot several state police officers, killing one."

 

"Who?"

 

"Ralph Phillips."

 

"Who?"

 

"Ralph "Bucky" Phillips."

 

"Oh, that Bucky. 'Bout time they captured him."

... then that person should have to apply for a license in order to breed.

• Two entries ago I commented on the pro-censorship Democrats who don’t want some hippie ABC 9/11 Docudrama to be aired and thought back to how a few years ago the roles were reversed with that stupid “Reagans” mini-series. Now I'm taking a trip down memory lane again thanks to an upcoming political ad that's going to be used in a Virginia Senatorial race.

Democratic Senate candidate Jim Webb has a television ad ready to air featuring praise from his late boss Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan called on him Friday to cancel it.

 

Webb, who was Reagan's Navy secretary before Webb switched to the Democratic Party, uses the ultimate GOP icon to send a sentimental message to conservatives and moderates courted by his Republican opponent, Sen. George Allen. The ad is scheduled to begin airing next week. An excerpt from the linked article:

 

But a three-paragraph letter from the former first lady's office said the use of footage of Reagan, who died in 2004, is "neither authorized nor appropriate."

 

The 30-second ad opens with video of Reagan praising Webb during a commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985, when Reagan was president and Webb, a Navy grad, was an assistant secretary of defense.

 

"James' gallantry as a Marine in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations," Reagan says on the video.

Upon hearing this story, I’m reminded of how it was just a few years ago when a pro-tax cut group used John F. Kennedy in some ads back in March of 2001. What did I say about it back then? Let's take a trip to the arkkkives back on March 14, 2001:

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy has fought Republican tax-cut proposals for years, but now the battle has become personal.

 

In midst of the current debate over President George W. Bush’s $1 trillion plus tax cut, a GOP consulting firm has created a radio commercial featuring a sound bite by John F. Kennedy that makes it sound like the former president would endorse Bush’s current initiative if he were alive today.

 

Speaking nearly 40 years ago, President Kennedy’s speech in question touted the benefits of his administration’s across-the-board tax cut plan, insisting that money, once it’s given back to the taxpayer, will spur economic growth. An excerpt of Kennedy’s speech that the ad airs says the following, "the final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system."

 

Naturally, Democrats, and especially the Kennedy family, have reacted to this ad with disgust.

 

In a letter to the GOP consultants, who are directors of the Issues Management Center, Sen. Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, daughter of former President Kennedy, said the ad is "intellectually dishonest and politically irresponsible" and “a dramatic misreading of history.”

 

Another point the letter emphasizes is that only 6 percent of Kennedy’s tax cut went to those earning more than $300,000 in today’s dollars while the Bush tax cut provides this income bracket with seven times more that number. So far, the GOP consultants have held firm, and the ads will continue to be produced and aimed for media markets in states with vulnerable Democratic senators.

 

Is this GOP strategy intellectually dishonest? Yes. Is it shrewd and politically brilliant? You bet.

 

I agree with Sen. Kennedy on the point that using somebody’s words from 40 years ago to seemingly endorse a modern-day proposal may be intellectually dishonest, and in this case it sure is. Times are different in 2001 than they were back in 1962. For example, the top tax bracket during Kennedy’s presidency was more than 90 percent -- yes, that’s ninety with an “n.” Today, the top bracket is just under 40 percent.

 

Another big difference between the two plans is that a larger part of Kennedy’s tax cut went to lower income workers than would Bush’s. This is due to the fact that during the Kennedy administration there was no Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives virtually all low-income earners a free pass on federal taxes, unlike today.

 

The consultants who are using President Kennedy’s endorsement for a tax cut 40 years ago remind me of those that argue Martin Luther King Jr. would oppose modern-day policies of affirmative action if he were alive today. You can’t make such statements because there’s no way to prove that JFK would be out lobbying for Bush’s tax cut, or that MLK would be out getting signatures to put an anti-quota referendum on an upcoming state’s voting ballot.

 

Although I disapprove of manipulating a dead public figure’s ideals, I have to give the GOP credit with this latest tactic. It’s a shrewd, and seemingly effective, maneuver, and it may give Bush that extra oomph of public support that could get his tax cut enacted.

 

The Kennedy ad may enrage some politicians and voters in liberal areas like Boston and New York City, but these commercials will be aired in places that could provide enough pressure from its citizens to influence a senator’s vote.

 

For example, this ad has been aired in Louisiana, a state won by Bush in the 2000 election, to put pressure on Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who’s opposed to Bush’s tax cut. Other states where the Kennedy ad is slated to appear include Georgia, home to moderate Dem Senator Max Cleland, and South Dakota, where Democratic Senator Tim Johnson’s constituents live.

 

Coincidentally, each of these senators is up for re-election in the near future, and should any of them vote against Bush’s tax cut, then perhaps they would get booted out of office and replaced by a more tax-cut friendly politician.

 

While having his dead brother’s words used against the Democratic Party may understandably outrage Sen. Kennedy, there has to be a feeling of fear dwelling deep inside the senior senator from Massachusetts. After all, while such political ads may be ineffective toward a number of politically conscientious citizens, these hardball tactics have been proven winners in the past.

 

A good recent example involves an NAACP-sponsored television ad that all but accused Bush of being responsible for the death of James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death in Texas by three white men in a pickup truck. The ad said that because Bush while governor vetoed a Texas hate crimes law, Byrd daughter, who narrated this grizzly ad, felt her father’s death all over again.

 

While this may seem like a disgraceful piece of propaganda to some, it was certainly effective -- Election 2000’s black vote was roughly 90-10 in Gore’s favor, and that gap increased to a 95-5 margin in Texas. Can one ad be responsible for nearly an entire race siding with a particular presidential candidate? There’s no hard evidence to prove the Byrd ad directly influence anybody, but seeing how Bush won 25 percent of the black vote in his 1996 re-election bid, it has to be assumed this commercial struck a chord with at least some voting African-Americans.

 

Politics is a continuous battle of power where almost anything is fair game. From Willie Horton to daisy girls, images and sound bites have been a powerful medium when it comes to elections or full-scale legislative battles. Sen. Kennedy may not like having his brother on the other side of this particular issue, but he better get used to it because JFK is going to be out there for a while seemingly endorsing Bush’s tax cut.

Both dead presidents? Check.

Both being used for political gain by the other side? Check.

Run the Reagan ads and let the pundit-hysteria commence.