Connections between Bush and Swift Vets

[Guest MikeSC]

The sad thing about all of this is that this swift boat nonsense has taken over probably as the #1 focal point right now.  Which is probably what Bush wants, because now there is not even a debate going on between the two candidates, yet a debate between Kerry and a bunch of grumpy men who can't decide whether Kerry's service was honorable or if he is a traitor.

Again, WHO brought up Kerry's Vietnam service?

 

Kerry did.

 

Why?

 

Because his Senate record is unbelievably weak for somebody who has been there for so long.

 

The ONLY thing he's mentioned in ANY depth is his service (mind you, once again, Bush called his service "admirable" --- yet to hear a Democrat speak out against F 9/11 outside of Lieberman) --- and the vets (who, like it or not, have BETTER records here than Kerry) are questioning it.

 

Better that than Kerry's Senate record, which is sparse.

Funny how $500,000 can take a bunch of bittter, old men, and suddenly give their voice instant validity.  This would be basically like the mainstream media giving moveon.org equal time with Bush on the evening news.

Or giving Michael Moore an interview segment on Dateline to promote his anti-Bush movie --- oh wait, they DID that!

 

Or the NY Times running a ratio of roughly 9:1 stories about Bush's service compared to Kerry's --- oh wait, they did THAT, too.

 

I lovee that the vets you like are heroes --- but the ones you disagree with are, and I quote, "bitter old men". Never mind that POW's have spoken out against Kerry's testimony, stating that they had it used against them WHILE being tortured.

 

I guess they're just "bitter old men", too, huh?

I am just wondering why all of these swift boat guys didn't do all this when Kerry was running for senator.  I mean what, that wasn't a high enough position of power for them to suddenly "seek to put out the truth" Horseshit.

O'Neill did in 1971. His commanding officers weren't even aware of all of the problems for years. The rest said they did this because he does not deserve to be commander-in-chief. Senator is no biggie.

 

And, again, I'd love to see a listing of how many Kerry staffers have worked in the assorted 527's and vice versa.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I am just wondering why all of these swift boat guys didn't do all this when Kerry was running for senator.  I mean what, that wasn't a high enough position of power for them to suddenly "seek to put out the truth" Horseshit.

Simply put, it's most likely because:

 

1)

2)

3)

The more important question, I think, is why they waited until there was less than 100 days until the election to start attacking. This group didn't even exist until not too long ago, But Iowa/NH were way back there and it's been pretty obvious ever since.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Again, WHO brought up Kerry's Vietnam service?

 

Kerry did.

 

Why?

Because somewhere in Alabama...

 

(mind you, once again, Bush called his service "admirable" --- yet to hear a Democrat speak out against F 9/11 outside of Lieberman)

If any Democrat will do, I sensed the lies on the first viewing and actaully gave up reading his last book because I simply can't stand him so much that I can't even read the book. And I can read O'Reilly books.

 

Unless you're looking for a high-profile Demorat, in which case, no.

 

Never mind that POW's have spoken out against Kerry's testimony, stating that they had it used against them WHILE being tortured.

Snooooooooooooze.. If there's one thing I can't stand about Vietnam discussions, it's people think others should have shut their trap and never said a damn thing about the war if they didn't like it because OMG ITZ HELPING THE N-M-E. "The enemy", of course, being a nation that only had access to government propaganda media which would lie about such events happening even if they didn't.

[Guest thebigjig]

I just heard a news report on the radio about Bush denouncing the USE of ads and the 527 groups... yet still not actually condemning the ad in question... he then called on Kerry to join him in denouncing them as well...

 

and I laughed because this entire argument is starting to look childish to me

 

Kerry: Condemn the ad...

 

Bush: no... you

 

Kerry: you!

 

Bush: YOU!

 

Kerry: NO! YOU!

[Guest MikeSC]

I am just wondering why all of these swift boat guys didn't do all this when Kerry was running for senator.  I mean what, that wasn't a high enough position of power for them to suddenly "seek to put out the truth" Horseshit.

Simply put, it's most likely because:

 

1)

2)

3)

The more important question, I think, is why they waited until there was less than 100 days until the election to start attacking. This group didn't even exist until not too long ago, But Iowa/NH were way back there and it's been pretty obvious ever since.

I guess you missed O'Neill debating Kerry back in 1971. It's not like he JUST started.

If any Democrat will do, I sensed the lies on the first viewing and actaully gave up reading his last book because I simply can't stand him so much that I can't even read the book. And I can read O'Reilly books.

 

Unless you're looking for a high-profile Demorat, in which case, no.

In the end, the PRESIDENT has said that ALL of these ads are bad.

 

The DEMOCRATS have said ONLY this ad is bad.

Snooooooooooooze.. If there's one thing I can't stand about Vietnam discussions, it's people think others should have shut their trap and never said a damn thing about the war if they didn't like it because OMG ITZ HELPING THE N-M-E.

Never mind that --- and even you admit it --- Kerry GROSSLY exaggerated everything.

 

It's a little hard to take somebody seriously who has spent his entire career bashing that war --- and then suddenly feels it's heroic and worth the effort.

"The enemy", of course, being a nation that only had access to government propaganda media which would lie about such events happening even if they didn't.

Nice of Kerry to make them lying so unnecessary.

I just heard a news report on the radio about Bush denouncing the USE of ads and the 527 groups... yet still not actually condemning the ad in question... he then called on Kerry to join him in denouncing them as well...

 

and I laughed because this entire argument is starting to look childish to me

 

Kerry: Condemn the ad...

 

Bush: no... you

 

Kerry: you!

 

Bush: YOU!

 

Kerry: NO! YOU!

More precisely:

Kerry: Condemn this ad.

 

Bush: I've condemned ALL these ads. For months.

 

Kerry: No ... JUST this ad.

-=Mike

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

It's still a dodge, Mike. Even Scott McClellan made a special point of noting that Bush's statement today did not indicate a change of his position on the ad.

 

It's smart politics and PR, certainly, but don't pretend that it's not still taking advantage of what SBVT has done.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's still a dodge, Mike. Even Scott McClellan made a special point of noting that Bush's statement today did not indicate a change of his position on the ad.

 

It's smart politics and PR, certainly, but don't pretend that it's not still taking advantage of what SBVT has done.

Edwin, Bush criticized ALL of these ads for MONTHS now.

 

All of them.

 

The only person differentiating here is Kerry, who had NO problem with the tons of Bush ads --- the innuendo that he went AWOL, etc. --- that knocked Bush's ratings into the toilet.

 

Bush isn't going to condemn ONE ad --- he condemns ALL of them. If you have to mention every individual ad, you'll be here all day.

 

Bush distanced himself from the first ad IMMEDIATELY. Bush has stated, repeatedly, that Kerry' service was heroic and something he should be proud of.

 

What more does he have to do?

 

And when will Kerry say one negative word about the negative ads that have been targeting Bush for months and months now? When we will he criticize F 9/11?

 

Why must this "distancing" always be a one-way street? Bush has done all anybody could expect him to do.

-=Mike

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Hmm....if he's distancing himself, someone forgot to tell his campaign staff...

 

This is especially true given (let me add some more examples) that the campaign finance law the president signed just a few years ago deliberately avoided closing the 527 loophole; that Bush beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) during the 2000 primary in part with the help of a 527 run by his supporter Sam Wylie; that Bush's own campaign manager, campaign counsel, and political guru (Ken Melhman, Ben Ginsburg, and Karl Rove, respectively) have attended fundraising and organizational events for Progress for America, a 527 founded by Bush's political director from the 2000 campaign, Tony Feather; that GOP chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot recently issued a statement designating PFA and yet another GOP 527, the Leadership Forum, as a good place for Republicans to give money to; and that second biggest 527 in the U.S. is the Republican Governors Association, a group spun off by the Republican National Committee two years ago specifically to collect and harness soft money for state and local GOP candidates.

 

Stolen from here

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

It's still a dodge, Mike.  Even Scott McClellan made a special point of noting that Bush's statement today did not indicate a change of his position on the ad.

 

It's smart politics and PR, certainly, but don't pretend that it's not still taking advantage of what SBVT has done.

Edwin, Bush criticized ALL of these ads for MONTHS now.

 

All of them.

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

 

I'm sure Bush "laid the smack down" on the Club for Growth, The People of Color United ( http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=62 ), Media Fund, MoveOn and all the rest, in a general sense.

 

The only person differentiating here is Kerry, who had NO problem with the tons of Bush ads --- the innuendo that he went AWOL, etc. --- that knocked Bush's ratings into the toilet.

 

And when will Kerry say one negative word about the negative ads that have been targeting Bush for months and months now?

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-03.htm

 

WASHINGTON — Sen. John F. Kerry took a cue from Sen. John McCain on Tuesday and denounced a television ad by one of his allies attacking President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

 

In the latest twist in an ongoing debate about military credentials, Kerry condemned the new ad by the MoveOn political action committee, even though it was produced in response to an ad questioning Kerry's Vietnam War record.

 

"This should be a campaign of issues, not insults," Kerry said in a written statement.

 

Damn Kerry.

 

When we will he criticize F 9/11?

 

*missed the Fahrenheit 9/11 527 ads*

 

Here's something that would be on middle ground:

 

Condemning negative ads which either attack a candidate personally (the ads on Kerry/Vietnam, Bush/National Guard) and the ads which are blatantly deceptive (those which twist facts, make them up, and the such).

 

Condemning all 527s is a bit simplistic, since most of them don't run ads. And there's room for negative attacks on the records of Bush as President, Kerry in the Senate and on their proposals. While most people don't like negative ads. Negative ads on records and issues is better than personal attacks.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm....if he's distancing himself, someone forgot to tell his campaign staff...

Care to explain what staff member said they weren't distancing themselves from it?

 

McClellan said there was no change in the President's stance on the ad --- which he opposed from the get-go.

This is especially true given (let me add some more examples) that the campaign finance law the president signed just a few years ago deliberately avoided closing the 527 loophole;

And you'll explain how this is Bush's fault, right? He did say all of this was a bad idea, but people chose to ignore him. Oh well.

 

Remember, Bush OPPOSED the law. But, hate to sidetrack ya there...

that Bush beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) during the 2000 primary in part with the help of a 527 run by his supporter Sam Wylie; that Bush's own campaign manager, campaign counsel, and political guru (Ken Melhman, Ben Ginsburg, and Karl Rove, respectively) have attended fundraising and organizational events for Progress for America, a 527 founded by Bush's political director from the 2000 campaign, Tony Feather; that GOP chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot recently issued a statement designating PFA and yet another GOP 527, the Leadership Forum, as a good place for Republicans to give money to; and that second biggest 527 in the U.S. is the Republican Governors Association, a group spun off by the Republican National Committee two years ago specifically to collect and harness soft money for state and local GOP candidates.

I could be harsh and mention that there is STILL no evidence of ANY wrong-doing in SC. And why would Bush NOT support something that was very much legal in 2000? It's illogical.

 

Hell, what EXACTLY was the "Bad" part of that whole part there? Seems like an attempt to simply recite facts while attempting to make the innocuous sound conspiratorial.

Stolen from here

Find a better source, since they don't know what they're talking about.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Hmm....if he's distancing himself, someone forgot to tell his campaign staff...

 

This is especially true given (let me add some more examples) that the campaign finance law the president signed just a few years ago deliberately avoided closing the 527 loophole; that Bush beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ari.) during the 2000 primary in part with the help of a 527 run by his supporter Sam Wylie; that Bush's own campaign manager, campaign counsel, and political guru (Ken Melhman, Ben Ginsburg, and Karl Rove, respectively) have attended fundraising and organizational events for Progress for America, a 527 founded by Bush's political director from the 2000 campaign, Tony Feather; that GOP chairman Ed Gillespie and Bush campaign chairman Mark Racicot recently issued a statement designating PFA and yet another GOP 527, the Leadership Forum, as a good place for Republicans to give money to; and that second biggest 527 in the U.S. is the Republican Governors Association, a group spun off by the Republican National Committee two years ago specifically to collect and harness soft money for state and local GOP candidates.

 

Stolen from here

I love how most of those are from 2000 and not from the current election year. Considering campaigning rules are MUCH different this time around, you should expect him to, well, act differently.

 

Secondly, your info is wrong. Robbie and Mike already used OpenSecrets.org, and those show that Joint Victory Campaign 2k4 and Mediafund are the top money makers this election year (Democratic 527s, no less...), followed by numerous Democratic PACs. Just to say, it's pretty well-accepted that the only reason Kerry is still in this thing is because of both his PACs and 527s and his own dealings within them, so if you want to try take the highground I say "Sorry, no soup for you!"

 

Thirdly, Bush HAS been denouncing 527s for a while now. Just last year he them up to the FEC to ask them to be included under McCain-Feingold. Of course, the FEC went against him, which is why you see so many Democratic 527 ads out there. And if you don't believe that Kerry isn't consorting with them, then you are more of a tool than I thought. He just hasn't found one that has struck a nerve like the SBVT.

 

I mean, seriously, your utter hatred of Bush is amazing, but it completely skews everything you post here into utter crap. I mean, seriously, at least JotW can seem a bit non-partisan in his posting, but...

 

It's still a dodge, Mike. Even Scott McClellan made a special point of noting that Bush's statement today did not indicate a change of his position on the ad.

 

It's smart politics and PR, certainly, but don't pretend that it's not still taking advantage of what SBVT has done.

 

Edwin, let's face it: Kerry's calling on Bush to denounce the ad without actually addressing any of the issues discussed in it is just as much a dodge, politically motivated as well. He doesn't want to cast doubt on his service, so instead of putting forth any sort of answer he demands Bush denounce and then claims that he's in control of it when he doesn't singularly denounce it. Both candidates are dodging, but Kerry dodged first instead of simply punching this thing down. Again, he's has the worst damage control of any campaign I've ever seen.

[Guest MikeSC]

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

Well, here's's a letter from the RNC from 1/12/04 asking the DNC to back them in requesting the FEC ban ALL ads from 527's.

I'm sure Bush "laid the smack down" on the Club for Growth, The People of Color United

ALL of them. Not some. He and his party requested the DNC join them in opposing ALL of these ads WAY back in January.

*missed the Fahrenheit 9/11 527 ads*

 

Here's something that would be on middle ground:

 

Condemning negative ads which either attack a candidate personally (the ads on Kerry/Vietnam, Bush/National Guard) and the ads which are blatantly deceptive (those which twist facts, make them up, and the such).

 

Condemning all 527s is a bit simplistic, since most of them don't run ads. And there's room for negative attacks on the records of Bush as President, Kerry in the Senate and on their proposals. While most people don't like negative ads. Negative ads on records and issues is better than personal attacks.

Condemning ALL of the ads is a blanket statement. Doesn't permit wiggle room.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

Well, here's's a letter from the RNC from 1/12/04 asking the DNC to back them in requesting the FEC ban ALL ads from 527's.

So, Ed Gillespie is George W. Bush? Gillespie is using first person (I) instead of something to suggest that the Republican Party and Bush (We) are speaking.

 

I guess under the criteria of "if the chairman says it, candidate/president said it", then John Kerry has said that Bush went AWOL.

 

I hope you will join me in our effort to ensure the law is interpreted, applied and enforced evenly across the board regardless of party affiliation or type of organization

 

must be slang for "eliminate the 527 ads", those crazy kids

 

I'm sure Bush "laid the smack down" on the Club for Growth, The People of Color United

ALL of them. Not some. He and his party requested the DNC join them in opposing ALL of these ads WAY back in January.

 

and by "he and his party", you mean "the head of the RNC" and by "opposing all these ads" you mean "enforcing the law evenly"

 

Condemning ALL of the ads is a blanket statement. Doesn't permit wiggle room.

 

But then again, there's nothing that can be done (legally) on either side to force the ads to stop.

 

Soon enough, this will return to the issues, or at least negative advertising relating to issues. And isn't that what elections are about?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I guess you missed O'Neill debating Kerry back in 1971. It's not like he JUST started.

And then he went and worked as an attorney in Texas for many years. And then, upon hearing that Kerry won in Iowa and had momentum into the White House, he didn't do anything. He waited around until not only until all competitors had been wiped out, but until the election is this close.

 

It's not that his interest in disliking Kerry isn't genuine. It's that he sure waited around on his duff for a long time biding his time for quite a few weeks and months that it was assured that Kerry would be making it to the general election. There was clearly an element of political strategy in that.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I mean, seriously, your utter hatred of Bush is amazing, but it completely skews everything you post here into utter crap. I mean, seriously, at least JotW can seem a bit non-partisan in his posting, but...

My posting in regards to Bush is completely biased. I passionately dislike the guy and wouldn't mind seeing whoever, even another conservative, replace him.

 

It's not even partisan, it's personal.

[Guest MikeSC]

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

Well, here's's a letter from the RNC from 1/12/04 asking the DNC to back them in requesting the FEC ban ALL ads from 527's.

So, Ed Gillespie is George W. Bush? Gillespie is using first person (I) instead of something to suggest that the Republican Party and Bush (We) are speaking.

Oh, I'm sorry, the RNC would issue a statement WITHOUT the OK of the President. My bad. Happens ALL of the time. Parties OFTEN go against the unopposed Presidential candidate. Frequent occurence. Hell, happens almost every single day.

 

I mean, I can remember all of those RNC statements that Reagan had to dissociate himself from. And, wow, remember how often the DNC and Clinton didn't agree in 1996? It was constant --- CONSTANT, I tell ya.

I guess under the criteria of "if the chairman says it, candidate/president said it", then John Kerry has said that Bush went AWOL.

You can argue that since Kerry wasn't the official nominee, McAuliffe couldn't speak for anybody.

 

HOWEVER, he didn't really say those claims shouldn't be made, EITHER.

I hope you will join me in our effort to ensure the law is interpreted, applied and enforced evenly across the board regardless of party affiliation or type of organization

must be slang for "eliminate the 527 ads", those crazy kids

Selective editing is a poor refuge for actual fact.

 

The reference was to 527 ads from the start of the letter.

I'm sure Bush "laid the smack down" on the Club for Growth, The People of Color United

ALL of them. Not some. He and his party requested the DNC join them in opposing ALL of these ads WAY back in January.

and by "he and his party", you mean "the head of the RNC" and by "opposing all these ads" you mean "enforcing the law evenly"

You got bored and missed the second paragraph of the letter, which consisted of:

As you know, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (“BCRA” also known as “McCain-Feingold”) has not eliminated soft money, only shifted it away from political parties to less transparent, less accountable “527 Organizations.”

Now, if you wish to pull off Clintonian level parsing of words, have a blast.

But then again, there's nothing that can be done (legally) on either side to force the ads to stop.

 

Soon enough, this will return to the issues, or at least negative advertising relating to issues. And isn't that what elections are about? wink.gif

To paraphrase Dole, they'd attack Kerry's Senate record --- if he had one.

And then he went and worked as an attorney in Texas for many years.

At which point Kerry became a Senator for MA --- which, last I checked, is a LITTLE different than being, you know, the President. Why would he waste his time trying to prevent MA from electing somebody who is only 1% of the Senate --- not exactly a world-changer.

And then, upon hearing that Kerry won in Iowa and had momentum into the White House, he didn't do anything.

You think contacting 264 or so vets is done QUICKLY? It takes a bit of time. 60+ affidavits aren't completed in short order, either. Raising the money wasn't an overnight thing.

He waited around until not only until all competitors had been wiped out, but until the election is this close.

Just out of curiosity --- is there a point where he could have come forward and you wouldn't say it was all bullshit?

 

I am betting no.

It's that he sure waited around on his duff for a long time biding his time for quite a few weeks and months that it was assured that Kerry would be making it to the general election. There was clearly an element of political strategy in that.

No shit, REALLY?

 

They'd leave him alone if he WASN'T running for President? WELL, DUH!

 

They've said that themselves. They were more than happy to NEVER come forward --- but they feel he is sorely incapable of being President (mind you, he said he'd STILL give Bush authority to go into Iraq if he knew, in advance, that the intel was completely faulty -- a little scary, no?) and they had to come out.

 

This isn't to kill his career. It's to prevent him from being President. He can be a Senator from MA all day long if he so desires. They do not care.

 

Now, I could go into history and ask if you similarly questioned Anita Hill's story about Clarence Thomas --- but you probably wouldn't get the relevance.

-=Mike

My posting in regards to Bush is completely biased. I passionately dislike the guy and wouldn't mind seeing whoever, even another conservative, replace him.

 

It's not even partisan, it's personal.

How sad. You let political disagreements turn into hatred for a man you don't even know. How sad.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Just out of curiosity --- is there a point where he could have come forward and you wouldn't say it was all bullshit?

 

I am betting no.

Just because I'm skeptical doesn't matter because my vote is already decided. You said yourself that contacting veterans takes time but the whole organization was founded not that long ago, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

They timed it to do as much damage as they can while providing Kerry with only a few weeks to try and come up with a defense. You secretly know it's true.

 

They'd leave him alone if he WASN'T running for President? WELL, DUH!

He's been running for President for a while. Nothing happened, which is expected because Howie had all the momentum for a while. Still, Kerry was predominately running on his Vietnam experience even here and is all the way through now.

 

Then Kerry starts actually winning primaries, then the opponents are wittling down. Guys like Clark and Edwards are running out of steam and Dean is only hanging on to save face. This would be a prime time to make a case against Kerry at this point, but they don't.

 

Then Kerry is the only serious guy left in the race and the only competitor, and only in the loosest use of the term, is Dennis Kucinich running on the Hi I'm A Total Joke platform. They could come forward here, but they don't.

 

There's nobody left, Kerry's been nominated, and there's only a few weeks left to go and everyone's scrambling to get their message out... HEY, I GOT AN IDEA, LET'S STRIKE NOW.

 

How sad. You let political disagreements turn into hatred for a man you don't even know. How sad.

 

It's not disagreements. It's a complete disgrace of this country.

[Guest MikeSC]

Just out of curiosity --- is there a point where he could have come forward and you wouldn't say it was all bullshit?

 

I am betting no.

Just because I'm skeptical doesn't matter because my vote is already decided. You said yourself that contacting veterans takes time but the whole organization was founded not that long ago, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

The group wouldn't be founded until the groundwork of having the vets on board was finished.

They timed it to do as much damage as they can while providing Kerry with only a few weeks to try and come up with a defense. You secretly know it's true.

If you wish to give paranoid conspiracy theories such legitimacy, have a blast.

They'd leave him alone if he WASN'T running for President? WELL, DUH!

He's been running for President for a while. Nothing happened, which is expected because Howie had all the momentum for a while. Still, Kerry was predominately running on his Vietnam experience even here and is all the way through now.

Of course, since many of them don't personally hate the man, they saw no need to say a word since, by ALL accounts, he was essentially dead in the water heading into Iowa.

 

Why would they criticize a candidate who tanked? It'd be like wondering why the police unions didn't spend all of the primaries trashing Al Sharpton.

 

It's not like anybody saw him doing well.

Then Kerry starts actually winning primaries, then the opponents are wittling down. Guys like Clark and Edwards are running out of steam and Dean is only hanging on to save face. This would be a prime time to make a case against Kerry at this point, but they don't.

They're preparing themselves to be COMPLETELY ready.

 

Again, this all takes a lot of time. And they wouldn't even be founded until they had a good number of vets on their side and more than a few affidavits.

Then Kerry is the only serious guy left in the race and the only competitor, and only in the loosest use of the term, is Dennis Kucinich running on the Hi I'm A Total Joke platform. They could come forward here, but they don't.

Again, getting the names, affidavits, and the money takes TIME. It's not a quick thing to put together.

 

Again, if you wish to make paranoia the driving instinct of yours politically, you'll end up one insane mutha.

There's nobody left, Kerry's been nominated, and there's only a few weeks left to go and everyone's scrambling to get their message out... HEY, I GOT AN IDEA, LET'S STRIKE NOW.

Just checking --- I'm supposed to empathize with poor ol' Kerry, right?

 

Keep a few things in mind:

Kerry's BIGGEST campaign theme was his military service.

KERRY mentioned Vietnam incessantly.

 

It's HIS fault when people begin to question the record.

How sad. You let political disagreements turn into hatred for a man you don't even know. How sad.

 

It's not disagreements. It's a complete disgrace of this country.

Thank you, Ted Rall.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you wish to give paranoid conspiracy theories such legitimacy, have a blast.

I'm not the guy who buys what the SwiftVets are saying without any grain of salt.

 

Thank you, Ted Rall.

      -=Mike

Like I need to apologize or explain to you who I like and dislike. Last I checked, you didn't have a high personal opinion of Jimmy Carter.

[Guest MikeSC]

If you wish to give paranoid conspiracy theories such legitimacy, have a blast.

I'm not the guy who buys what the SwiftVets are saying without any grain of salt.

No, you dismiss them out-of-hand. HUGE improvement.

Like I need to apologize or explain to you who I like and dislike. Last I checked, you didn't have a high personal opinion of Jimmy Carter.

Nobody with an IQ above 5 should. Man coddles dictators like nobody else, is fervently anti-Israel, is an absolute jackass. And, fuck, you think BUSH is "holier-than-thou"? Carter takes the damned cake.

 

He should've remained a peanut farmer and not humiliated this country by being the most useless President this century.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No, you dismiss them out-of-hand. HUGE improvement.

I think this has given Kerry credibility problems, but I don't buy 100% of the stuff they're saying. Namely this "Kerry wrote all the reports" business. I'm skeptical of the rest because of my own bias, but I can't deny they're doing damage.

 

Nobody with an IQ above 5 should. Man coddles dictators like nobody else, is fervently anti-Israel, is an absolute jackass. And, fuck, you think BUSH is "holier-than-thou"? Carter takes the damned cake.

 

He should've remained a peanut farmer and not humiliated this country by being the most useless President this century.

          -=Mike

And there we go. You have guys you don't like, and I have mine.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

It's still a dodge, Mike. Even Scott McClellan made a special point of noting that Bush's statement today did not indicate a change of his position on the ad.

 

It's smart politics and PR, certainly, but don't pretend that it's not still taking advantage of what SBVT has done.

 

Edwin, let's face it: Kerry's calling on Bush to denounce the ad without actually addressing any of the issues discussed in it is just as much a dodge, politically motivated as well. He doesn't want to cast doubt on his service, so instead of putting forth any sort of answer he demands Bush denounce and then claims that he's in control of it when he doesn't singularly denounce it. Both candidates are dodging, but Kerry dodged first instead of simply punching this thing down. Again, he's has the worst damage control of any campaign I've ever seen.

I never said it wasn't. Kerry's call for him to denounce it is political too - anything these guys do for the next 2 and a half months is political, even it's eating pancakes for breakfast. I'm merely noting that the president shouldn't get a free pass just because he's said "get rid of all 527s"; the blanket statement does not specifically refer to the SVBT ad, and makes a deliberate point of not doing so.

[teke184 0]

If you wish to give paranoid conspiracy theories such legitimacy, have a blast.

I'm not the guy who buys what the SwiftVets are saying without any grain of salt.

No, you dismiss them out-of-hand. HUGE improvement.

Like I need to apologize or explain to you who I like and dislike. Last I checked, you didn't have a high personal opinion of Jimmy Carter.

Nobody with an IQ above 5 should. Man coddles dictators like nobody else, is fervently anti-Israel, is an absolute jackass. And, fuck, you think BUSH is "holier-than-thou"? Carter takes the damned cake.

 

He should've remained a peanut farmer and not humiliated this country by being the most useless President this century.

-=Mike

That's slightly debatable... Gerald Ford was pretty goddamn useless, as was Warren G. Harding (president after Woodrow Wilson with the most corrupt cabinet this side of Ulysses S. Grant).

 

 

The only saving grace for Ford is that he stumbled into the office (no pun intended) through Agnew and Nixon's resignations, meaning he got stuck with their mess, while Carter and Harding were both voted in overwhelmingly and then proceeded to screw up.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, you dismiss them out-of-hand. HUGE improvement.

I think this has given Kerry credibility problems, but I don't buy 100% of the stuff they're saying. Namely this "Kerry wrote all the reports" business. I'm skeptical of the rest because of my own bias, but I can't deny they're doing damage.

 

How can you say they're wrong? You, clearly, do not know. His COMMANDING OFFICER, mind you, is saying it --- and I think he'd know a lot better than you.

 

Fact is, if these men ARE lying --- they're up for PERJURY charges. Affidavits --- unless you're the President and it's "only about sex" --- are MAJOR DEALS.

Nobody with an IQ above 5 should. Man coddles dictators like nobody else, is fervently anti-Israel, is an absolute jackass. And, fuck, you think BUSH is "holier-than-thou"? Carter takes the damned cake.

 

He should've remained a peanut farmer and not humiliated this country by being the most useless President this century.

          -=Mike

And there we go. You have guys you don't like, and I have mine.

My disdain is based on rationality. I don't hate Carter PERSONALLY. I think he was just an insanely shitty President. His building homes for poor people is quite admirable.

 

If he'd just stick to that and stop going overseas and fellating dictators, the world be better.

-=Mike

...Did you know that he PERSONALLY lobbied UN countries to oppose the first Gulf War?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My disdain is based on rationality. I don't hate Carter PERSONALLY. I think he was just an insanely shitty President. His building homes for poor people is quite admirable.

 

If he'd just stick to that and stop going overseas and fellating dictators, the world be better.

-=Mike

...Did you know that he PERSONALLY lobbied UN countries to oppose the first Gulf War?

It sounds like we have the same idea. I don't hate Bush in the "I wanna knock you silly" sort of way. I hate him in the "I would take a raving loon who accidentally escaped from an asylum in office before you, go back to diving oil companies into the ground" sort of way.

 

I mean I dislike him in the sense that it transcends party lines, as I said. Much like how you would probably prefer Bubba Bill in office over Carter, even if Bubba isn't your perfect cup of tea, I'd take Dole over Bush anyday.

[Guest MikeSC]

My disdain is based on rationality. I don't hate Carter PERSONALLY. I think he was just an insanely shitty President. His building homes for poor people is quite admirable.

 

If he'd just stick to that and stop going overseas and fellating dictators, the world be better.

        -=Mike

...Did you know that he PERSONALLY lobbied UN countries to oppose the first Gulf War?

It sounds like we have the same idea. I don't hate Bush in the "I wanna knock you silly" sort of way.

EXACT PHRASE --- it's not even partisan, it's personal.

 

You don't seem to mesh up here.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

Well, here's's a letter from the RNC from 1/12/04 asking the DNC to back them in requesting the FEC ban ALL ads from 527's.

So, Ed Gillespie is George W. Bush? Gillespie is using first person (I) instead of something to suggest that the Republican Party and Bush (We) are speaking.

Oh, I'm sorry, the RNC would issue a statement WITHOUT the OK of the President. My bad. Happens ALL of the time. Parties OFTEN go against the unopposed Presidential candidate. Frequent occurence. Hell, happens almost every single day.

 

I mean, I can remember all of those RNC statements that Reagan had to dissociate himself from. And, wow, remember how often the DNC and Clinton didn't agree in 1996? It was constant --- CONSTANT, I tell ya.

Well, i'd assume that since Bush has condemned these ads for months (maybe even years). There's something more direct.

 

I guess under the criteria of "if the chairman says it, candidate/president said it", then John Kerry has said that Bush went AWOL.

You can argue that since Kerry wasn't the official nominee, McAuliffe couldn't speak for anybody.

 

HOWEVER, he didn't really say those claims shouldn't be made, EITHER.

 

He.. (would that be Kerry or McAuliffe?).. i'm sure if it came up again, there would be a condemnation of ads mentioning the AWOL idea.

 

When it comes to George W. Bush, his record from January 20th, 2001 to now is the most important. What he did in the 1970s is irrelevant.

 

I hope you will join me in our effort to ensure the law is interpreted, applied and enforced evenly across the board regardless of party affiliation or type of organization

must be slang for "eliminate the 527 ads", those crazy kids

Selective editing is a poor refuge for actual fact.

 

The reference was to 527 ads from the start of the letter.

 

I quoted the first paragraph of the letter.

 

Over the past few years you have frequently stated your strong support for McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, and you have expressed your desire to “get rid of all soft money.” We may have disagreed over the impact McCain-Feingold legislation would have on elections, but I hope you will join me in our effort to ensure the law is interpreted, applied and enforced evenly across the board regardless of party affiliation or type of organization.

 

Anything else I need to quote here? Because it doesn't appear that the RNC is asking to "get rid of all soft money", just for an even enforcement of the law.

 

I'm sure Bush "laid the smack down" on the Club for Growth, The People of Color United

ALL of them. Not some. He and his party requested the DNC join them in opposing ALL of these ads WAY back in January.

and by "he and his party", you mean "the head of the RNC" and by "opposing all these ads" you mean "enforcing the law evenly"

You got bored and missed the second paragraph of the letter, which consisted of:

As you know, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (“BCRA” also known as “McCain-Feingold”) has not eliminated soft money, only shifted it away from political parties to less transparent, less accountable “527 Organizations.”

Now, if you wish to pull off Clintonian level parsing of words, have a blast.

 

Hmm. I remember the third paragraph of the letter, which was about a pro-Bush 527.

 

Strangely enough, the 'Americans for a better country' doesn't appear to have done anything so far.

 

But then again, there's nothing that can be done (legally) on either side to force the ads to stop.

 

Soon enough, this will return to the issues, or at least negative advertising relating to issues. And isn't that what elections are about? wink.gif

To paraphrase Dole, they'd attack Kerry's Senate record --- if he had one.

 

You mean Iran-Contra, the Investigation into the BCCI bank (extra BCCI-ness here), or more stuff twisted out of his voting record?

 

(I'd imagine with the "Kerry's main thing is Vietnam" mythology, if he dares mention the two things above, it'd either be "He's changing the subject!", or something which was used first on Al Gore, such as "He's taking credit for a bit much" or "Hank Brown did the heavy lifting")

 

He waited around until not only until all competitors had been wiped out, but until the election is this close.

Just out of curiosity --- is there a point where he could have come forward and you wouldn't say it was all bullshit?

 

I am betting no.

 

Maybe after Joe Lieberman unleashed his 'Joementum' to win the nomination.

 

JTTS, you know you're a Liebermaniac at heart

[Guest MikeSC]

Feel free to provide a link to back up the "He's condemned all these ads for months" claim.

Well, here's's a letter from the RNC from 1/12/04 asking the DNC to back them in requesting the FEC ban ALL ads from 527's.

So, Ed Gillespie is George W. Bush? Gillespie is using first person (I) instead of something to suggest that the Republican Party and Bush (We) are speaking.

Oh, I'm sorry, the RNC would issue a statement WITHOUT the OK of the President. My bad. Happens ALL of the time. Parties OFTEN go against the unopposed Presidential candidate. Frequent occurence. Hell, happens almost every single day.

 

I mean, I can remember all of those RNC statements that Reagan had to dissociate himself from. And, wow, remember how often the DNC and Clinton didn't agree in 1996? It was constant --- CONSTANT, I tell ya.

Well, i'd assume that since Bush has condemned these ads for months (maybe even years). There's something more direct.

 

Seeing as how these ads were supposed to be stopped by McCain/Feingold --- why would they even be mentioned before this election cycle? The RNC's call for their banishment is very direct.

I guess under the criteria of "if the chairman says it, candidate/president said it", then John Kerry has said that Bush went AWOL.

You can argue that since Kerry wasn't the official nominee, McAuliffe couldn't speak for anybody.

 

HOWEVER, he didn't really say those claims shouldn't be made, EITHER.

He.. (would that be Kerry or McAuliffe?).. i'm sure if it came up again, there would be a condemnation of ads mentioning the AWOL idea.

Especially since Bush has never made his service an issue and never insulted vets.

 

BTW, according to a Fox News report by Major Garrett, the Kerry campaign is recognizing that his first Purple Heart might be from an unintentional self-inflicted wound. Kerry's own journal entry about the incident states that no enemy fire was present.

 

So, apparently, this is ANOTHER thing Kerry had wrong and those "lying" SVBT had correct.

When it comes to George W. Bush, his record from January 20th, 2001 to now is the most important. What he did in the 1970s is irrelevant.

True. Kerry won't run on his Senate record. He chose to run on his 4 month tour of duty.

Hmm. I remember the third paragraph of the letter, which was about a pro-Bush 527.

 

Strangely enough, the 'Americans for a better country' doesn't appear to have done anything so far.

And this proves what, precisely?

You mean Iran-Contra, the Investigation into the BCCI bank (extra BCCI-ness here), or more stuff twisted out of his voting record?

Using a piece by SID BLUMENTHAL --- the same guy who criticized Bush Sr's war record? Nice try. I'll ignore it, as it's by Blumenthal.

 

And investigating something isn't exactly the strongest record for a 19 year career.

(I'd imagine with the "Kerry's main thing is Vietnam" mythology, if he dares mention the two things above, it'd either be "He's changing the subject!", or something which was used first on Al Gore, such as "He's taking credit for a bit much" or "Hank Brown did the heavy lifting")

If he mentions Iran/Contra, he'll be laughed out of the building as the rest of the Senate will set the record straight.

 

BCCI? If he thinks a soul gives a shit, he can feel free.

He waited around until not only until all competitors had been wiped out, but until the election is this close.

Just out of curiosity --- is there a point where he could have come forward and you wouldn't say it was all bullshit?

 

I am betting no.

 

Maybe after Joe Lieberman unleashed his 'Joementum' to win the nomination.

 

JTTS, you know you're a Liebermaniac at heart

I'm a gamer. I have plenty of problems with Joe.

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

"Kerry never bled" -- Bob Dole's response to Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, I want to hear the "They're lying" brigade explain this:

 

This is from Kerry's campaign site. It is the citation for the Silver Star.

 

Notice who the Sec. of Navy was for this. John Lehman was Sec. of Navy, according to this.

 

Does anybody know WHEN Lehman became Sec. of Navy?

 

1981.

 

So, Kerry was awarded a Silver Star for his actions by a man who didn't become Sec. of Navy until 12 years after the incident.

 

The SVBT are arguing that Kerry shopped around for the medals and nobody seemed to know how he got them. I think this is even MORE puzzling.

-=Mike