Willie Horton II

[Jobber of the Week 0]

...And that's their own language, too.

 

New 527 Organization

"MoveOnForAmerica.org"

to Expose the Real John Kerry With

the Most Brutal, Hard-hitting Ads Ever Seen!

 

The first ad will expose John Kerry’s role in securing freedom and parole for would-be cop killer who escaped a Massachusetts prison during a furlough, just like Willie Horton!!!

 

MoveOnForAmerica.org was created due to the Bush campaign’s largely timid ads against Mr. Kerry, and will air this first ad starting Tuesday Sept. 7th in the Washington D.C. market and in key swing states beginning Monday September 13th. Since the organization is a “non-connected” committee, the ads will run non-stop until Election Day, and are not subject to the McCain-Feingold ban during the campaign’s final 60 days.

 

The first ad CLICK HERE TO VIEW (or "right click, then "save target as") will feature John Kerry’s role as a private attorney in 1982, when he secured freedom and parole for his client George Reissfelder who pled guilty to attempted murder of a police officer, bur never served his 15-year sentence because Kerry successfully secured his parole. The parole was in Florida because Mr. Kerry’s client had escaped during a furlough, just like Willie Horton. Once a free man, thanks to John Kerry, Kerry’s would-be cop killer client brazenly continued his life of crime as part of a Mafia-controlled drug ring.

 

The second ad, which will be aired at a later date CLICK HERE TO VIEW (or "right click, then "save target as") will feature the political alliance John Kerry has forged with Al Sharpton, focusing on Mr. Sharpton’s history, which was rarely mentioned during his 2004 run for president. Instead of the charismatic and witty Sharpton seen during his presidential bid, Americans will be educated about the real Al Sharpton, who recently blamed America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Sharpton who called Adolph Hitler “a great man”; the Sharpton who urged college students to kill police officers; and the Sharpton leading the picketing of a white-owned store in Harlem [calling the Jewish owner a ‘white interloper”], resulting in the store being burned down by one of Sharpton’s followers, killing seven people. The ad will include footage of Sharpton in his own words, and Mr. Kerry’s hinting of Shartpon becoming part of a Kerry administration.

 

Later ads will feature John Kerry’s raising political funds from known leaders of the Cali drug cartel, as well as other unethical [and possibly criminal] behavior by Kerry regarding his finances when he was dead broke between his two marriages.

 

MoveOnForAmerica.Org is a group of citizens created by its president, DC-based GOP political consultant Stephen Marks. Specializing in opposition research and media, Mr. Marks has consulted dozens of candidates at all levels from presidential to congressional, including consulting for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Governors Association. Mr. Marks has also been a press secretary in GOP campaigns [including Jeb Bush’s bid for governor in 1994], as well as an investigative journalist for such publications as Penthouse and New York Newsday. Mr. Marks also currently hosts The Stephen Marks Show heard weekly on KFNX Radio in Phoenix, and has appeared regularly on TV and radio, including The O’Reilly Factor, and Hannity & Colmes. Mr. Marks’ created TV ads in 2000 spotlighting Al Gore’s record, and now in 2004, Mr. Marks and MoveOnForAmerica.org. will do the same with John Kerry on a much larger scale.

 

One of two things will have to happen here:

 

1) Bush condemns these ads so that by criticising Kerry he doesn't come off looking like friends with these kooks.

 

2) An all out ad-storm occurs and the Dem 527s start getting just as nasty and start picking on Bush's past.

 

I wish #1 would happen, but I get the feeling we'll see #2.

[Vern Gagne 0]

How about all of the above.

[2GOLD 0]

Didn't Bush already condemn ALL negatives ads like three or four times now? Seriously, he shouldn't have to come out and say every ad is bad when he has already said he condemns them all.

 

I get the feeling people won't be happy till Bush stands in front of a camera, weeping openly and reads off the name of every group in the US and says he doesn't support what they say and condemns then. Then he invites Kerry in and hands him a lollipop and pats him on the head.

 

Bush shouldn't have to say a thing, he has already said it. It's getting to be a broken record from him and a waste of breath since he'll be frowned upon no matter what.

 

Be nice if Bush and Kerry would just both IGNORE the ads, not even respond to them and just discuss ISSUES. You know, like they are in an election or something.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Didn't Bush already condemn ALL negatives ads like three or four times now? Seriously, he shouldn't have to come out and say every ad is bad when he has already said he condemns them all.

There's a Bush family tradition of standing around and acting like a pacifist while a politically allied group performs smear tactics. It happened before with the last Horton ad and it's happening again.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Waaaah -- poor John Kerry.

 

Cry me a river in Vietnam so he can drive his swiftboat on it...

[BUTT 0]

Here's what I could find on the case. Keep in mind it might not all be true, but it should explain Kerry's side on this matter:

 

Shortly after dawn on the morning of October 14, 1966, two bandits stole nearly twenty thousand dollars in payroll cash from the Railway Express office in Boston’s South Station. When Michael Shaw, a railway clerk, struggled for control of one of the bags of cash, he was shot through the head. He later died of his wounds. Witnesses soon identified one of the robbers as a notorious Boston hood named William (Silky) Sullivan.

 

The other defendant, George Reissfelder, was arrested in a more roundabout way. Then twenty-six years old, Reissfelder already had a substantial criminal record—an armed robbery when he was seventeen, bad-check charges, and domestic violence against his wife. On the night of the murder of Michael Shaw, Reissfelder told his girlfriend that he was planning an armed robbery in South Boston. This information alarmed the girlfriend, who told her father of the plan, and he went to the police. Even though South Station is not in South Boston, the tie was close enough for the police, and they rousted Reissfelder the following afternoon. They found a gun, which tests later showed had not been fired, but which a witness said looked like one that had been brandished during the South Station murder, and Reissfelder was charged as Sullivan’s accomplice. Prosecutors asked for the death penalty for both men.

 

One night during the trial, in July of 1967, a lawyer from Reissfelder’s defense team, John Costello, met the head of homicide investigations for the Boston Police Department. The officer made an astonishing revelation: he knew Reissfelder was innocent. “He told me, ‘We know your guy wasn’t there,’” Costello said recently. “They didn’t want to lose the conviction of Sullivan, because they knew he was the right guy, by admitting they had the wrong guy with Reissfelder.” The authorities apparently figured that if they admitted they were wrong about Reissfelder, the jury might think they were wrong about Sullivan, too. “It was a death-penalty case,” Costello went on, “and they were thinking this way. It was unbelievable.” Costello brought the officer’s admission to the attention of the judge, but the officer denied making the statement, and the trial continued. Three eyewitnesses identified Reissfelder as one of the robbers, and both he and Sullivan were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

 

In 1974, Reissfelder won a one-day furlough from prison, and he fled the state. He was on the lam for three years until he was caught passing a bad check in Florida; when he was arrested, he tried to pull a gun on the police. He was returned to prison in Massachusetts, and resumed serving his life sentence. But his story caught the interest of a fellow-inmate who dabbled as a jailhouse lawyer, and in 1980 the inmate wrote a brief that persuaded a judge to assign a lawyer to represent Reissfelder. The judge chose Roanne Sragow.

 

Sragow visited Reissfelder in prison and told him that, given the uncertainties in the case and the fact that he had already served about ten years, she might be able to get him released on a plea bargain. But Reissfelder insisted that he was innocent and said that he wouldn’t plead guilty to anything. Sragow started digging into the case. Learning of her involvement, John Zamparelli, the lawyer who represented Silky Sullivan at trial, appeared at her office one day and said, “As God is my witness, the cops knew it, the prosecutor knew it, the judge knew it—this guy Reissfelder was not guilty.” As Zamparelli told me, “George had a record, and the cops were dying to get the case closed. The sad part was, the cops even knew who the guilty party was. And he’s still at large today.”

 

“Roanne was the court-appointed attorney, and I was the helper,” Kerry said. “She did the lion’s share of the work, but that case taught me a lot.” Several mornings, around dawn, Sragow and Kerry prowled the loading docks in South Boston, looking for an alibi witness, a man who had refused to testify for the defense at the first trial because he was wanted by loan sharks. They eventually found him, but the turning point in the case came when they learned that Silky Sullivan, who had died of leukemia in prison in 1972, had sought out a priest for a deathbed confession.

 

Kerry and Sragow researched the law and found that if Sullivan had spoken to the priest in a “non-sacramental” setting the conversation would not be protected by the priest-penitent privilege. They tracked down the priest, the Reverend Edward Cowhig, who signed an affidavit saying that Sullivan “stated that Mr. Reissfelder was not involved in the incident at Railway Express in Boston, and that he was sorry that Mr. Reissfelder had been convicted for something he didn’t do.” Cowhig said that he hadn’t come forward for eight years because he “was aware of the existing climate toward any inmate who said he ‘didn’t do it’ even if a ‘do-gooder’ chaplain endorsed and corroborated it.” During Reissfelder’s years in prison, his wife divorced him, his parents died, and his children were placed in foster care.

 

The timing of the Reissfelder case was propitious for Kerry. By the summer of 1982, he was running in a Democratic primary for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, and his efforts on behalf of the wronged inmate were drawing attention in the local press. On June 21, 1982, Sragow and Kerry appeared in a Boston courtroom with ten witnesses at a hearing to request that Reissfelder receive a new trial. A Boston detective testified that he had told an officer on the case that he had heard that others, not Reissfelder, committed the crime, and was told, “Don’t rock the boat, kid. We’re all set.” Even in this moment, Kerry was dogged by his reputation for grandstanding. The judge, Andrew R. Linscott, denied Kerry and Sragow the chance to make a closing argument, because he didn’t want to afford Kerry the opportunity to show off for the press.

 

Still, Linscott ruled that Reissfelder was entitled to a new trial, and the district attorney declined to bring the case again. Kerry travelled to Florida in order to persuade the authorities there to drop the case stemming from the time that Reissfelder was an escapee. On the day of Reissfelder’s release, August 30, 1982, two weeks before the Democratic primary, Sragow, Kerry, and the former inmate, who was now forty-two, were photographed having a beer together in Quincy Market.

 

Kerry has often cited the Reissfelder case as a reason he opposed the death penalty. He has modified his opposition in recent years, and he now supports the execution of convicted terrorists. “George wasn’t a great guy—he had done some things wrong, that was part of the problem,” Kerry said. “But he didn’t commit murder. His case convinced me of the mistakes that are made, that the system had made mistakes and what can happen in an overzealous prosecution.” In November of 1982, Kerry was elected lieutenant governor, and two years later he was elected to the Senate.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact1

 

And yes, indeed, the article says that according to reports, he did take part in a drug ring after he was released. It's not like Kerry could have known that. Sure the dude was a douchebag, but he didn't do the crime was convicted of. This should not be compared with Dukakis's treatment of Willie Horton.

[snuffbox 0]

It would probably behoove the Kerry campaign to get a little dirtier themselves...

 

If the Republikids can bring up 15 year old voting records and have their politico donors denounce Kerrys real military service...then the left should be getting Bush's 'we cant win' statement, awol military record, and economic/social record and Cheney's business corruptions, failed politics, Congressional voting records, and six consecutive Nam-era draft deferrments onto every television in the country.

 

But alas, such facts are nothing but unpatriotic...one is not to question a sitting leader.

[Guest MikeSC]

Didn't Bush already condemn ALL negatives ads like three or four times now? Seriously, he shouldn't have to come out and say every ad is bad when he has already said he condemns them all.

There's a Bush family tradition of standing around and acting like a pacifist while a politically allied group performs smear tactics. It happened before with the last Horton ad and it's happening again.

Bush doesn't have control of every group out there. He's criticized all of them and filed suit to have all of them banned (a move I vehemently disagree with, mind you).

 

Actually, Bush and McCain have both championed the suit --- but Kerry has not. Good luck to him in pinning this on Bush.

It would probably behoove the Kerry campaign to get a little dirtier themselves...

 

If the Republikids can bring up 15 year old voting records and have their politico donors denounce Kerrys real military service...then the left should be getting Bush's 'we cant win' statement, awol military record, and economic/social record and Cheney's business corruptions, failed politics, Congressional voting records, and six consecutive Nam-era draft deferrments onto every television in the country.

 

But alas, such facts are nothing but unpatriotic...one is not to question a sitting leader.

Ironically, all of those have been mentioned by the left for years. I love this new-found theory by the left that they have been "too nice" to Bush. Comedy GOLD!

 

Small differences though:

 

Bush "We can't win" --- it's actually common sense, 100% correct, and God Kerry would be wise to avoid ever discussing security issues.

Bush "AWOL" --- unlike with Kerry, there isn't a group of people serving with Bush who have written a book, taken out affidavits, and made ads questioning if he went AWOL. Kerry has that.

Economic/social record --- Been discussed, ad infinitum.

Cheney --- go ahead and mention the VP. God knows that opens the door to UNLOAD on the trial lawyer Edwards --- not a winning formula for the Dems there.

 

I love that the ONLY person who has questioned anybody's patriotism is Kerry, who claimed that Cheney abandoned his country by not serving in Vietnam.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

If the Republikids can bring up 15 year old voting records and have their politico donors denounce Kerrys real military service...

Um... perhaps it's just me, but both of the Swift Boat ads I've seen have denounced Kerry for his "Winter Soldier" testimony and throwing away his metals. The only thing that questions his service is the book, and how many books have questioned Bush and openly slandered him? Frankly, I'm not putting too much faith in the book, but the ads have been attacking everything he did after the war, which no one seems to really notice.

 

then the left should be getting Bush's 'we cant win' statement,

 

It's sad when you are grasping for straws like this one...

 

awol military record

 

But we can't question military records, remember?! The way I look at it: One man never went to Vietnam and never actually hurt anyone in the process, the other came back and basically lied to Congress, which ended up making POWs sign War Crimes confessions. Which service is more 'honorable'?

 

economic/social record and Cheney's business corruptions, failed politics, Congressional voting records,

 

Senseless bitching... moving on...

 

six consecutive Nam-era draft deferrments onto every television in the country.

 

And yet, this didn't matter in Clinton's case.

 

There's a Bush family tradition of standing around and acting like a pacifist while a politically allied group performs smear tactics. It happened before with the last Horton ad and it's happening again.

 

Oh boo-hoo. Jobber, what killed Dukakis was when he answered Bernard Shaw's question the way he did and the fact that the man didn't know how the fuck to run a campaign. It wasn't about ads, it was about his utter inability to be able to respond to the ads correctly.

 

First off, Bush has denounced all 527s multiple times. That includes Swift Boat ads, even if he doesn't mention them specifically. Kerry tried to deflect the heat onto Bush, and Bush jujitsued him at his own game. Bush has asked Kerry to denounce all the harmful 527 ads, why has he idly stood by as they commit slander against Bush?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

First off, Bush has denounced all 527s multiple times. That includes Swift Boat ads, even if he doesn't mention them specifically.

You guys always keep saying this, but never get the slightest bit suspicious about it. Even when it's happened again (Horton I) and again (McCain) and again (SwiftVets.)

 

I don't think Bush is associated with these ads or SwiftVets' ads, actually. I think the Republican Party is, but I think that's fair enough. But that he never actually speaks out specifically against any ad on his side can't at all look to you like a suspicious wink and nod at these guys to keep running them?

 

This group says:

MoveOnForAmerica.org was created due to the Bush campaign’s largely timid ads against Mr. Kerry

So they think they're speaking out on Bush's behalf. But he will never actually say that said group doesn't represent him, which seems just downright odd because if I was trying to run a clean campaign I'd want to make sure in no uncertain terms that nobody thinks these guys are reflecting on me.

[Justice 0]

First off, Bush has denounced all 527s multiple times. That includes Swift Boat ads, even if he doesn't mention them specifically.

You guys always keep saying this, but never get the slightest bit suspicious about it. Even when it's happened again (Horton I) and again (McCain) and again (SwiftVets.)

No, I understand both sides are throwing tons of dirt and concealing it through 527s. The Dems more than the Reps, but they have to work with what they got, so there's some understanding for it. The problem is, I don't see the Swiftboat ads as incredibly offensive: The ads (not the book) do call into question what he did AFTER he got out of Vietnam, which is perfectly fair game, especially when you consider what he did. He should be called out on what he did after the war especially when he's parading around a 4-month tour of duty as the basis for about half his platform. Kerry chose poorly and tried to deflect the stuff onto Bush, and Bush jujitsued him, plain and simple. Kerry doesn't know how the hell to run a campaign, just like Dukakis, and he's getting hurt more and more by it. I recognize that Bush's motivation definitely has political reasons, but understand that so does Kerry's, and if he had been smart he would have simply addressed the accusations rather than trying to throw attention onto Bush.

 

And frankly, I don't care much about this whole thing. It's a response to MoveOn.org. Cool. In the end, I doubt it'll mean anything.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

It's amazing how much McCain-Feingold got things completely backwards with their exceptions. Assuming something along the lines of M/F is going to exist (I don't think it should, but let's leave that debate for elsewhere), wouldn't it have been more productive to the process to ban these attack ads and allow 527s to only produce ads endorsing a specific candidate without mentioning any of the others? Instead, we have a system where you can't say "vote for this guy because this is what he will do for our country" but you can release ads that say "don't vote for this guy because of stuff he did a few decades ago".

[Guest MikeSC]

First off, Bush has denounced all 527s multiple times. That includes Swift Boat ads, even if he doesn't mention them specifically.

You guys always keep saying this, but never get the slightest bit suspicious about it. Even when it's happened again (Horton I) and again (McCain) and again (SwiftVets.)

 

I don't think Bush is associated with these ads or SwiftVets' ads, actually. I think the Republican Party is, but I think that's fair enough. But that he never actually speaks out specifically against any ad on his side can't at all look to you like a suspicious wink and nod at these guys to keep running them?

Horton I wasn't done by Bush. Hate to break it to you.

 

NOTHING happened to McCain. Hell, the LA Times asked him for names, he gave them 6, and of the ones they could contact, NONE mentioned these alleged calls McCain said were so prevalent.

 

Hell, I'm a registered Republican and got calls out the ass in 2000 about the primary --- not ONE of them approached ANYTHING close to what McCain alleged.

 

Bush simply used his long-standing policy and the left hates it. Bush has opposed these groups from the GET-GO.

 

Kerry, on the other hand, whose campaign has more than a few leaders from the left-wing 527's, didn't give two shits about all of them --- UNTIL the SBVT hit.

 

Which candidate seems a little sketchy on this?

 

And, for what it's worth, neither should bitch about it.

MoveOnForAmerica.org was created due to the Bush campaign’s largely timid ads against Mr. Kerry

So they think they're speaking out on Bush's behalf. But he will never actually say that said group doesn't represent him, which seems just downright odd because if I was trying to run a clean campaign I'd want to make sure in no uncertain terms that nobody thinks these guys are reflecting on me.

As opposed to groups like moveon.org that Kerry has done such work distancing himself from?

 

How about the Media Fund?

 

ACT?

It's amazing how much McCain-Feingold got things completely backwards with their exceptions.

Mind you, every critic --- myself included --- saw all of this coming before the bill even got debated.

 

We were ignored by the CFR zealots.

Assuming something along the lines of M/F is going to exist (I don't think it should, but let's leave that debate for elsewhere), wouldn't it have been more productive to the process to ban these attack ads and allow 527s to only produce ads endorsing a specific candidate without mentioning any of the others?

Then what would be the benefit of 527's? Why change anything? That's what the parties are supposed to do.

 

Keep in mind, my view is that they should remove ALL restrictions on domestic funding and require STRICT reporting of donors. Let the opponent make it an issue.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hell, I'm a registered Republican and got calls out the ass in 2000 about the primary --- not ONE of them approached ANYTHING close to what McCain alleged.

I don't think we're thinking of the same thing.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, I'm a registered Republican and got calls out the ass in 2000 about the primary --- not ONE of them approached ANYTHING close to what McCain alleged.

I don't think we're thinking of the same thing.

I assume your going with the unproven story that Bush had people calling SC voters and bashing McCain --- which McCain bitched about prodigiously without actually proving.

-=Mike

...We can, of course, ignore McCain's bashing of Bush as being anti-Catholic...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I assume your going with the unproven story that Bush had people calling SC voters and bashing McCain --- which McCain bitched about prodigiously without actually proving.

Nah, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the Veterans groups saying "he [McCain] forgot us" as though he was in Kerry's place doing Winter Soldier testimony. I'm also talking about Republicans for Clean Air.

[Guest MikeSC]

I assume your going with the unproven story that Bush had people calling SC voters and bashing McCain --- which McCain bitched about prodigiously without actually proving.

Nah, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the Veterans groups saying "he [McCain] forgot us" as though he was in Kerry's place doing Winter Soldier testimony. I'm also talking about Republicans for Clean Air.

McCain would do the world a favor if he would simply, for the love of God, grow some skin. Jesus, he and Cleeland are the poster boys for the perpetually embittered.

 

McCain slammed Bush far worse and lied about it far more often. So be it. He also bashed the Republican Party --- which, in a primary, is about as dumb a move as basing one's Presidential bid on 4 months of one's life that occurred 33 years ago.

-=Mike

...John McCain just likes to bitch about things --- you know, like Nero...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

More on the guy in the first ad:

 

http://www.amnesty133.org/ai/actionteams/d...eissfelder.html

[snuffbox 0]

I assume your going with the unproven story that Bush had people calling SC voters and bashing McCain --- which McCain bitched about prodigiously without actually proving.

Nah, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the Veterans groups saying "he [McCain] forgot us" as though he was in Kerry's place doing Winter Soldier testimony. I'm also talking about Republicans for Clean Air.

McCain would do the world a favor if he would simply, for the love of God, grow some skin. Jesus, he and Cleeland are the poster boys for the perpetually embittered.

 

McCain slammed Bush far worse and lied about it far more often. So be it. He also bashed the Republican Party --- which, in a primary, is about as dumb a move as basing one's Presidential bid on 4 months of one's life that occurred 33 years ago.

-=Mike

...John McCain just likes to bitch about things --- you know, like Nero...

It appals me that a duder with no military experience or any known background in being courageous like MiketheRepublikid can say this about a man like John McCain...

 

All in the name of following Bush like a sad lil pet goat.

[bob_barron 0]

What does his service in Vietnam have anything to do with it?

 

So because McCain served in Nam- Mike can't criticise him on anything?

 

Warped logic there duder.

[Vyce 0]

What does his service in Vietnam have anything to do with it?

 

So because McCain served in Nam- Mike can't criticise him on anything?

 

Warped logic there duder.

Exactly.

 

And, conversely, just because someone did serve in Vietnam, that doesn't give them carte blanche to say what they will about those who did not.

[snuffbox 0]

What does his service in Vietnam have anything to do with it?

 

So because McCain served in Nam- Mike can't criticise him on anything?

 

Warped logic there duder.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

 

Any man who could endure what John McCain did in Vietnam doesnt need to 'grow any skin'.

 

Its a sad state when so many people will worship a man whose only military experience is dressing up like GI Joe, and disregard the actual heroics of a John McCain.

[bob_barron 0]

No one is disregarding his heroics.

 

But because he served 5 years in a POW camp does not give him carte blanche.

 

In the example Mike CITED he believes McCain should grow thicker skin in the matter. It has nothing to do with Vietnam.

 

What's with liberals and wanting to use Vietnam every 5 seconds to make a political point?

[Justice 0]

No one is disregarding his heroics.

 

But because he served 5 years in a POW camp does not give him carte blanche.

 

In the example Mike CITED he believes McCain should grow thicker skin in the matter. It has nothing to do with Vietnam.

 

What's with liberals and wanting to use Vietnam every 5 seconds to make a political point?

The funniest thing is that they bitch about the "If your against us, you're helping the terrorist" stuff that apparently goes on so much, yet they'll pull this sort of thing. o.0

[Guest BDC]

Well, Powerplay, that makes you a terrorist that served in Vietnam, right?

 

It's a lovely double standard, learn to laugh at it every day.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What's with liberals and wanting to use Vietnam every 5 seconds to make a political point?

Here's the shocker, sit down for it:

 

Most liberals want to go back to talking about current issues, not Vietnam.

[NoCalMike 0]

I just happen to find McCain appalling because everyone knows damn well he dislikes Bush, but knows the only way he will advance in the future is through the republican party, so he shills for Bush regardless....

 

However it is not half as appalling as Cheney inviting his entire family EXCEPT his lesbian daughter up on stage after his speech to celebrate, once again reinforcing the "gays are ok as long as they are over there" mentality of the republican party.

[2GOLD 0]

What's with liberals and wanting to use Vietnam every 5 seconds to make a political point?

Here's the shocker, sit down for it:

 

Most liberals want to go back to talking about current issues, not Vietnam.

 

Then why don't they?

 

Seriously, did the democrats learn ANYTHING from the Clinton impeachment? If the country doesn't care, which they don't, then ignore the stupid attack ads and move on. It's really not that difficult.

 

Let the splinter groups chase after Kerry's record and Kerry can focus on the issues. It's that damn simple.

 

Instead, the Kerry camp goes into "BUSH SHOULD CONDEMN THESE ADS!" mode, forgetting the fact he has already done it countless times and he's not wasting time even acknowledging their existance anymore. Course, the democrats are the same party that convinced Gore he should turn his back on Clinton, falling right into the Republicans trap and making them believe he should have.

 

So now splinter groups pop up once a week and Kerry's camp (not Kerry) goes into bitch about it mode instead of focusing on the issues. Which is exactly what the groups want them to do.

 

His campaign is being poorly run and if they want to move on and focus on the issues, then move on and focus on the issues. If he has nothing to hide, he should just tell them look all they want instead of getting defensive like he is hiding something which just makes them want to dig more. If he has so much confidence in his record, maybe he should for once show some confidence in his record.

 

Agree with Bush, say all these ads for both sides splinter groups are wastes of time and let both candiates focus on the issues and have a moderately clean election.

 

As much as I hate to say it, the democratic side is acting like a bunch of 10 yr olds whining to mommy that Bush should say he's sorry for something a half cousin of his said. And Bush is acting confident about the election and ignoring the ads, setting up his campaign while the democrats are jumping up and down like they didn't get the GI JOE they wanted from Walmart.

 

I'm tired of hearing the democrats say, "We want to move on", when the only thing stopping them IS them. If they want to beat Bush (which should have been a slam dunk) then they need to quit acting like children with a chip on their shoulder and go to work.

 

Otherwise they need to drop out of the race and let it be Bush vs Nadar or whoever.

 

Considering my dislike for Bush the politician and his choices of attorney general among others, I was prepared to vote Democratic this year. After what I have seen, I am not voting for either side of this coin.

[Guest MikeSC]

It appals me that a duder with no military experience or any known background in being courageous like MiketheRepublikid can say this about a man like John McCain...

 

All in the name of following Bush like a sad lil pet goat.

Srory, I forgot that veterans can't POSSIBLY be pains in the ass. My bad.

 

MacArthur was such a good guy.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

 

Any man who could endure what John McCain did in Vietnam doesnt need to 'grow any skin'.

A man as tough as McCain has a startling ability to be a massive pussy politically. He bitches and moans at the first sound of everything. He's not as bad as Cleeland --- the most pussified man on Earth --- but God he's just become a walking cliche nowadays.

 

You know, like Kerry.

 

THAT is why he'll NEVER be President --- Americans don't want political pussies at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

And you'd think Kerry would not do something like calling McCain a liar in his site's response to the RNC (of course, that page has been removed since the blogosphere found out about it and made a few mentions of it).

 

But he did. Well, Kerry has a long history of slamming vets.

Its a sad state when so many people will worship a man whose only military experience is dressing up like GI Joe, and disregard the actual heroics of a John McCain.

Man, you'd think the left would eventually find something besides military records to use to shut up all dissent.

Here's the shocker, sit down for it:

 

Most liberals want to go back to talking about current issues, not Vietnam.

Actually, y'all CLEARLY don't as military service is the first thing the left runs to --- after commenting on how needless it is for, oh, eight years.

 

Fact is, Kerry's midnight speech keeps SBVT relevant. And 60 Minutes is going to do a hit piece on Bush's service. All this while Kerry is under investigation for his medals in the first place.

 

Kerry's record is going to be a total anchor --- and the Dems have found no other reason for a soul to vote for the man.

However it is not half as appalling as Cheney inviting his entire family EXCEPT his lesbian daughter up on stage after his speech to celebrate, once again reinforcing the "gays are ok as long as they are over there" mentality of the republican party.

Mike, seeing as how you do not know the first thing about what the Cheneys did, your analysis is a little shaky.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

You want a brutal ad?

 

Check outy: www.kerryoniraq.com. Vicious --- and insanely fair --- stuff.

-=Mike