Sham Anti-Kerry Ad Shames Bush Regime Campaign
Gandalf Grey
Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
August 8, 2004
Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John Kerry
in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his war
record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of stretching
the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won the
first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and gutless
and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by the
Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last week,
these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
Whether one supports him or not as president, Kerry must be admired for his
courage in Vietnam, for volunteering for duty, for commanding a swift boat,
for saving the lives of the men under his command. To imply that he did not
deserve all the medals he won (three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and Silver
Star) is ethically bankrupt and adds more vitriol to an election battle that
is already below-the-belt nasty. The people behind this ad are all good
Republicans, including Bob Perry, a Houston developer, Merrie Spaeth, who
was involved in ads attacking McCain during his campaign in the last
Republican presidential primary, and John O'Neill, who was recruited by the
Nixon administration in the 1970s to debate war-hero-turned-dove Kerry about
Vietnam. They all, as the Wall Street Journal notes, "have more than a
passing relationship with Bush political guru Karl Rove." But stooping this
low makes the Republicans look desperate and even sleazy. If anything, they
should be attacking Kerry on his record in the Senate, which is far less
stellar than his exploits in Vietnam. This disparaging of Kerry's
distinguished war record should make Republicans feel ashamed and sorry.
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004
"For us to get bogged down in the quagmire
of an Iraqi civil war would be the height of foolishness."
---Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, 1991
T.Carr
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits08.html
>
>
> Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
>
> August 8, 2004
>
> Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John Kerry
> in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his war
> record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of stretching
> the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won the
> first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and gutless
> and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by the
> Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last week,
> these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
>
One small problem with your header and the opinion piece title...The
ad was done by a 3rd party..just like moveon.org
" Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
Bush campaign distances itself from commercial
Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)
"President Bush's re-election campaign distanced itself from the ad.
Campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the president's re-election
effort "has never and will never question John Kerry's service in
Vietnam. The election will be about the future."
"In Columbus, Ohio, where the president was traveling Thursday, Bush
spokesman Scott McClellan cast the commercial as a product of
"unregulated soft money activity."
"We will not and have not questioned Sen. Kerry's service record in
Vietnam," he said. "This is another example of the problem of
unregulated soft money."
The president, he said, "thought he got rid of all of this when he
signed the McCain-Feingold bill [regulating campaign financing] into
law," adding, "This should all be stopped. It does nothing to elevate
the discourse."
The Bush press secretary said he "hopes the Kerry campaign will join
us in calling for an end to all unregulated ads."
Asked whether the campaign will demand the ad be pulled from the air,
he said, "We are calling for a cessation of all unregulated ads and
hope the Kerry campaign will join us."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.veterans/
So tell us "gandalf"..do you support the idea of enforcing a ban on
ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey
"T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8c213b2e.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4117f844$0$2391$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits08.html
> >
> >
> > Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
> >
> > August 8, 2004
> >
> > Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John
Kerry
> > in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his
war
> > record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of
stretching
> > the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won
the
> > first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and
gutless
> > and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by
the
> > Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last
week,
> > these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
> >
>
> One small problem with your header and the opinion piece title...The
> ad was done by a 3rd party..just like moveon.org
One small problem with your lie. The front money was put up by a long time
Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the anti-McCain ads,
also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest operation has
the Karl Rove stench all over it.
And that's a good thing. Nothing is going to turn off the swing voters
faster than a smear campaign.
Top Texas Donor's Influence Far More Visible Than He Is
Robert Perry is behind an ad attacking John Kerry's war record and many GOP
campaigns.
By Scott Gold
Times Staff Writer
August 8, 2004
NASSAU BAY, Texas - Robert J. Perry, the main financier behind the effort to
discredit Sen. John F. Kerry's military record, is the most prolific
political donor in Texas.
A homebuilder who lives lakeside in this Houston suburb, Perry has helped
bankroll the widespread success of Republican candidates here, has
long-standing ties to many close associates of President Bush and has
contributed to Bush's last four campaigns. According to interviews and
campaign documents, he has given a total of more than $5 million to scores
of political candidates.
"And the vast majority of those people have never laid eyes on him," said
Court Koenning, executive director of the Republican Party in Harris County,
which includes the Houston metropolitan area.
Despite the enormous influence of his money, Perry, 71, is reticent and
guarded, and remains something of a mystery in Texas. But this week, his
largess crept onto the national stage.
A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched television ads
Thursday accusing Kerry, a Massachusetts senator and the Democratic
presidential nominee, of lying about his military record. A $100,000 check
that Perry wrote to the group this year represented about two-thirds of the
money in its accounts as of June 30, according to financial documents.
The Bush campaign says it has no ties to the group.
The advertisements, running in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Ohio
and West Virginia, are part of a multimedia campaign questioning Kerry's
fitness as a leader and commander in chief. A book written by one of the
group's leaders, Houston lawyer John E. O'Neill, is scheduled to be released
Aug. 15.
"Bob Perry is a very generous guy with his political donations," Koenning
said. "His primary interest is good government.. Everybody agrees that John
Kerry's service to this country is admirable. But if he lied about it, that
speaks to his character."
Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for
his service in Vietnam. Upon his return, he became a leader of a veterans
group that declared the war a mistake. His military service is a cornerstone
of his presidential campaign, one his advisors believe contrasts sharply
with Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.
None of the veterans featured in the advertisements served on the river
patrol boats Kerry commanded during Vietnam. Several of Kerry's crewmates
have condemned the advertisements, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), once a
prisoner of war in Vietnam, called them "dishonest and dishonorable."
"Bob Perry pulls the strings and never gets his hands dirty. But even by his
standards, this latest deal is just over the top," said Charles Soechting,
chairman of the Texas Democratic Party.
Perry declined to comment through his spokesman, Bill Miller, an Austin
political consultant.
Perry has been a political donor for years, working with White House
political director Karl Rove during Rove's Texas years, contributing to
Texas Gov. Rick Perry's rise in politics and giving $20,000 to Bush's two
campaigns for governor in the 1990s.
But Perry, no relation to the governor, began increasing his donations in
2000. Today, campaign documents and his representatives confirm that he has
given more money to campaigns and political organizations in the last four
years than any other Texan. A few of his donations have gone to Democratic
candidates, but most have gone to Republicans and conservative causes.
He has given nearly $1 million to the Texas Republican Party. He has donated
at least $200,000 to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, one of the most successful
"tort reform" organizations in the nation.
In the 2002 election cycle, he also provided about $700,000 for the GOP's
effort to dominate Texas politics. That included $165,000 given to Texans
for a Republican Majority, an offshoot of U.S. House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, formed to help conservatives
get elected.
The election that year of a slate of DeLay-backed Republicans - all
supported by Perry - gave the GOP control of the state House for the first
time in 130 years. That paved the way for passage of a host of conservative
measures, such as abortion restrictions and limits on medical malpractice
cases. The GOP also redrew congressional maps for Texas, a move designed to
shore up Republican control of Congress.
Perry is largely unknown outside of campaign finance databases and a small
group of political leaders, shunning social activities often embraced by
major donors. Many of the politicians who have received Perry's money say
they have never met him. One who has, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan
Combs, said he wanted to know just one thing before supporting her: "Are you
a straight-talking, straight-shooting person who is going to represent Texas
well?"
"I just think he's an unassuming guy," Combs said.
Born in a tiny ranching community in Bosque County, Texas, Perry attended
Baylor University and then taught high school for awhile, like his father
before him. In 1968, he started a home-building business in Houston.
Today, Perry Homes does business across central and eastern Texas. The
company's website lists 48 communities in the Houston area alone where the
company is building or selling houses, which range from $110,000 to more
than $400,000.
Perry and his wife, Doylene, have been married since 1961. They have four
grown children.
The Perry home is less than a mile from Nassau Bay Baptist Church, where the
couple attends services each weekend, said Senior Pastor David Fannin.
"Bob is the most kind, gracious and giving man you will ever meet," Fannin
said. "He is a man of strong conviction."
Perry donates generously to the church, Fannin said, but never asks anything
in return. His supporters also cite that trait.
"He has never asked me for a single thing," Combs said. "He is one of those
rare individuals who is just interested in people being honest and ethical."
His detractors say otherwise.
Like many prominent building companies, Perry Homes has been sued dozens of
times. Last year, Perry was among several developers watching as the
Legislature imposed strict limits on civil lawsuits, particularly claims
brought by homeowners alleging shoddy construction.
Critics called the seats where he and other builders watched the legislative
debate the "owner's box," because much of their money had gone to advocacy
groups fighting for limits on the civil court system, as well as politicians
who supported those efforts. During that debate, the governor put a Perry
Homes executive on a panel established to put in place new restrictions on
claims against builders.
Perry's backers also say he works hard to reach out to Houston's Latino and
African American communities. But some leaders of those communities accuse
him of aggressively buying land in inner-city areas, then building expensive
homes that gentrify those neighborhoods and drive out low-income families.
"I think he fancies himself as a person who can manipulate politics for his
own gain," Soechting said. "Politics and money are one and the same to him."
jslater
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:<4117f844$0$2391$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits08.html
> >
> >
> > Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
> >
> > August 8, 2004
> >
> > Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John Kerry
> > in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his war
> > record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of stretching
> > the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won the
> > first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and gutless
> > and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by the
> > Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last week,
> > these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
> >
>
> One small problem with your header and the opinion piece title...The
> ad was done by a 3rd party..just like moveon.org
>
> " Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
> Bush campaign distances itself from commercial
> Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)
>
> So tell us "gandalf"..do you support the idea of enforcing a ban on
> ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
>
>
> T.Carr
The point isn't barring third party ads--that would be a horrific
infringement on freedom of speech. The point is that this PARTICULAR
third party ad is so obviously offensive, unreliable, and wrong. Any
such ad made by a group supporting either side should be condemned.
Bush should specifically condemn this ad, and if, in the future, Kerry
supporters ran some ad saying that Bush murdered little babies in
their cribs when he lived in Texas, Kerry should denounce that too.
This "no independent ads" stuff is a weak, waffling dodge from
Bush.--Joe
T.Carr
> TCarr...@aol.com (T.Carr) wrote in message news:<8c213b2e.04080...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message news:<4117f844$0$2391$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits08.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
> > >
> > > August 8, 2004
> > >
> > > Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John Kerry
> > > in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his war
> > > record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of stretching
> > > the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won the
> > > first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and gutless
> > > and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by the
> > > Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last week,
> > > these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
> > >
> >
> > One small problem with your header and the opinion piece title...The
> > ad was done by a 3rd party..just like moveon.org
> >
> > " Anti-Kerry veterans group releases critical ad
> > Bush campaign distances itself from commercial
> > Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)
> >
>
> > So tell us "gandalf"..do you support the idea of enforcing a ban on
> > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> >
> >
> > T.Carr
>
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
> The point isn't barring third party ads--that would be a horrific
> infringement on freedom of speech.
The problem is that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the speech
limitations imposed under MCCain Feingold are constitutional.
The point is that this PARTICULAR
> third party ad is so obviously offensive, unreliable, and wrong.
Just like the ads from the NAACP linking Bush with the Byrd lynching
in 2000?
Any
> such ad made by a group supporting either side should be condemned.
Should be..but it wont..by either camp
> Bush should specifically condemn this ad, and if, in the future, Kerry
> supporters ran some ad saying that Bush murdered little babies in
> their cribs when he lived in Texas, Kerry should denounce that too.
Kerrry spoke on the record about not being critical about how one
served during Vietnam in 1992..He didnt speak out against the AWOL
attacks on Bush
Hell, Kerry attacked Bush on his initial response after the 9/11
attacks, yet admitted he "couldnt think" after the attacks himself
This is going to be another dirty, nasty campaign I'm afraid
We (the electorate) get what we deserve (imo)
T.Carr
T.Carr
> "T.Carr" <TCarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:8c213b2e.04080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<4117f844$0$2391$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> > > http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits08.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Sham anti-Kerry ads shame the Bush campaign
> > >
> > > August 8, 2004
> > >
> > > Talk about cowardice. A group of Vietnam vets who want to defeat John
> Kerry
> > > in the presidential election has created a television ad impugning his
> war
> > > record. The ad, which began to run this week, accuses Kerry of
> stretching
> > > the truth about his time in Vietnam and claims he should never have won
> the
> > > first of his Purple Heart medals. The ad is morally indefensible and
> gutless
> > > and should be, as Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain says, condemned by
> the
> > > Bush campaign. As the headline in the Wall Street Journal noted last
> week,
> > > these are "Sham Charges Against a War Hero."
> > >
> >
> > One small problem with your header and the opinion piece title...The
> > ad was done by a 3rd party..just like moveon.org
>
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> One small problem with your lie.
Still projecting your shortcomings on others gandy?
The front money was put up by a long time
> Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the anti-McCain ads,
> also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest operation has
> the Karl Rove stench all over it.
One small problem with your theory..the Bush campaign never launched
the anti-McCain ads
"McCain told the AP the ad was "the same kind of deal they pulled on
me" during his 2000 presidential race, when the Arizona lawmaker ran
against Bush in the Republican presidential primaries.
At the time, McCain's backers accused Bush allies of using telephone
surveys to spread rumors about McCain. The Bush campaign said it knew
nothing about the tactics and couldn't do anything about them."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.veterans/
Now if you object in principle to wealthy partisans contributing to
3rd party attack ads, feel free to be consistent and indicate your
opposition to George Soros in addition to Richard Perry ===>
<sounds of crickets chirping>
>
> And that's a good thing. Nothing is going to turn off the swing voters
> faster than a smear campaign.
Too bad your candidate didnt listen to your advice
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey
I've already proven that you're a liar, Terri. "Accurately quoted" Mrs.
Heinz Kerry????
>
> The front money was put up by a long time
> > Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the anti-McCain
ads,
> > also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest operation
has
> > the Karl Rove stench all over it.
>
> One small problem with your theory..the Bush campaign never launched
> the anti-McCain ads
I said that they were created at the direction of the Bush Crime Family,
which definitely includes Karl Rove and Robert J. Perry
The front money was put up by a long time
> > Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the anti-McCain
ads,
> > also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest operation
has
> > the Karl Rove stench all over it.
T.Carr
Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com
> I've already proven that you're a liar, Terri. "Accurately quoted" Mrs.
> Heinz Kerry????
You didnt, I did
With credible cites Gandy
Not your selective memory and snips
Your lies have been well documented.."most secret documents" ring ?
>
> >
> > The front money was put up by a long time
> > > Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the anti-McCain
> ads,
> > > also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest operation
> has
> > > the Karl Rove stench all over it.
> >
> > One small problem with your theory..the Bush campaign never launched
> > the anti-McCain ads
>
> I said that they were created at the direction of the Bush Crime Family,
> which definitely includes Karl Rove and Robert J. Perry
Credible cite please.
Not your ususal bs snipping..but real cites PROVING that Rove had
anything to do with it
Most likely you will snip and run again
T.Carr
jslater
> > > So tell us "gandalf"..do you support the idea of enforcing a ban on
> > > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> > >
> > >
> > > T.Carr
> >
>
> jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
>
> > The point isn't barring third party ads--that would be a horrific
> > infringement on freedom of speech.
>
> The problem is that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the speech
> limitations imposed under MCCain Feingold are constitutional.
True, but that doesn't mean that it would be Constitutional to
completely ban anyone besides the candidates or parties themselves
from making ads to support certain candidates or causes. And I can't
believe that you personally would support such a law even if it was
Constitutional--I know I wouldn't.
> The point is that this PARTICULAR
> > third party ad is so obviously offensive, unreliable, and wrong.
>
> Just like the ads from the NAACP linking Bush with the Byrd lynching
> in 2000?
I haven't seen that ad, so I can't comment on it.
> Any
> > such ad made by a group supporting either side should be condemned.
>
> Should be..but it wont..by either camp
> > Bush should specifically condemn this ad, and if, in the future, Kerry
> > supporters ran some ad saying that Bush murdered little babies in
> > their cribs when he lived in Texas, Kerry should denounce that too.
>
> Kerrry spoke on the record about not being critical about how one
> served during Vietnam in 1992..He didnt speak out against the AWOL
> attacks on Bush
>
> Hell, Kerry attacked Bush on his initial response after the 9/11
> attacks, yet admitted he "couldnt think" after the attacks himself
It's a matter of degree, and also where the attacks are coming from.
The "initial response" point hardly rises to the slanderous level of
the swiftvets crap--candidates should be able to criticize each other,
even when it's a bit hypocritical. Also, there's been no major ad buy
accusing Bush of being AWOL, that I know of (plus, that charge has
more credibility than the "swiftboat" crowd, IMHO).
Look, politics is a contact sport, but at some point, things can get
"too dirty"; where that point is can fairly be debated, but a number
of Repubs. think the "swiftboat" stuff crossed the line.
> This is going to be another dirty, nasty campaign I'm afraid
I sadly agree with you here.
> We (the electorate) get what we deserve (imo)
I would like to think that isn't true, but I'm not sure I can come up
with an argument why it's not.--Joe
Gandalf Grey
" What was reported, and ignored by the opinion writer, is that Mr
McNickle quoted Mrs Heinz Kerry accurately and she lost her composure."
--T. Carr lying.
>
> Your lies have been well documented.
One of yours is quoted above.
>."most secret documents" ring ?
Are you having an attack of dyslexia or are you just tired?
>
> >
> > >
> > > The front money was put up by a long time
> > > > Bush Crime Family Buddy and the same group who launched the
anti-McCain
> > ads,
> > > > also at the direction of the Bush Crime Family. This latest
operation
> > has
> > > > the Karl Rove stench all over it.
> > >
> > > One small problem with your theory..the Bush campaign never launched
> > > the anti-McCain ads
> >
> > I said that they were created at the direction of the Bush Crime Family,
> > which definitely includes Karl Rove and Robert J. Perry
>
> Credible cite please.
Already been there and done that. Posted it right on this group. You can
find it at www.mediamatters.org, a site run by one of your own past minions
of the darkside. The other cite is right below you, you moronic boob. The
LA Times points out the connection to Karl Rove.
>
> Not your ususal bs snipping..but real cites PROVING that Rove had
> anything to do with it
>
> Most likely you will snip and run again
And as usual, Terri was dead wrong.
Cheeze Whiz
> >
> > > > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > T.Carr
Another Freeper.
A Freeper is a guy who knows from first-hand experience that Bush never wipes.
cw
Gandalf Grey
"Cheeze Whiz" <mbre...@genesyslab.com> wrote in message
news:7d7f81d3.04081...@posting.google.com...
And they love him for it.
>
> cw
zepp
wrote:
And thanks to Dana, he doesn't need to.
>cw
-
"And I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton’s willingness to go into a state she doesn’t even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn’t imitate it.”
Alan Keyes (R-Hypocrite) on Fox News, "Special Report with Brit Hume," March 17, 2000
"Pre-emptive war was invented by Adolf Hitler. To be perfectly honest,
I wouldn't take anyone who came up with such a thing seriously".
Dwight Eisenhower (legitimately elected President), 1953
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Gandalf Grey
"zepp" <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:rrflh0li8iecm41h7...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Aug 2004 16:17:45 -0700, mbre...@genesyslab.com (Cheeze Whiz)
> wrote:
>
> >jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater) wrote in message
news:<b4bed0cf.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >
> >> > > > So tell us "gandalf"..do you support the idea of enforcing a ban
on
> >> > > > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > T.Carr
> >
> >
> >Another Freeper.
> >
> >A Freeper is a guy who knows from first-hand experience that Bush never
wipes.
> >
>
> And thanks to Dana, he doesn't need to.
Oh, Damn! I just did a spit take on the monitor. You know you could warn
me about this kind of thing.
LOL!
T.Carr
> >
> > > > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > T.Carr
> > >
> >
> > jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
> >
> > > The point isn't barring third party ads--that would be a horrific
> > > infringement on freedom of speech.
> >
> > The problem is that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the speech
> > limitations imposed under MCCain Feingold are constitutional.
>
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
> True, but that doesn't mean that it would be Constitutional to
> completely ban anyone besides the candidates or parties themselves
> from making ads to support certain candidates or causes. And I can't
> believe that you personally would support such a law even if it was
> Constitutional--I know I wouldn't.
I didnt support that aspect of McCain Feingold. Yet the SCOTUS saw
no problem with it.
>
> > The point is that this PARTICULAR
> > > third party ad is so obviously offensive, unreliable, and wrong.
> >
> > Just like the ads from the NAACP linking Bush with the Byrd lynching
> > in 2000?
>
> I haven't seen that ad, so I can't comment on it.
It was 4 years ago, and pretty outrageous (imo)
>
> > Any
> > > such ad made by a group supporting either side should be condemned.
> >
> > Should be..but it wont..by either camp
>
> > > Bush should specifically condemn this ad, and if, in the future, Kerry
> > > supporters ran some ad saying that Bush murdered little babies in
> > > their cribs when he lived in Texas, Kerry should denounce that too.
> >
> > Kerrry spoke on the record about not being critical about how one
> > served during Vietnam in 1992..He didnt speak out against the AWOL
> > attacks on Bush
> >
> > Hell, Kerry attacked Bush on his initial response after the 9/11
> > attacks, yet admitted he "couldnt think" after the attacks himself
>
> It's a matter of degree, and also where the attacks are coming from.
> The "initial response" point hardly rises to the slanderous level of
> the swiftvets crap--
It is a "matter of degree"
When Kerry lifts claims verbatim from Moore to attack the Presdident
over the most irrevalant aspects
candidates should be able to criticize each other,
> even when it's a bit hypocritical. Also, there's been no major ad buy
> accusing Bush of being AWOL, that I know of (plus, that charge has
> more credibility than the "swiftboat" crowd, IMHO).
There is no "major ad campaign" however, there has been
"documentaries" like F9/11 that did exactly that.
>
> Look, politics is a contact sport, but at some point, things can get
> "too dirty"; where that point is can fairly be debated, but a number
> of Repubs. think the "swiftboat" stuff crossed the line.
Its a distraction from the real issues. Does it really matter if
Kerry was or was not in Cambodia in Christmas 1968?
Bottom line..Kerry served, and served honorably. Picking the nits is
easy, but really not revelant to the campaign.
However the "AWOL" charges have been in and out of the media for
over a year, with microscopic examination of the the details of Bush's
National Guard service. I think its no suprise that partisans on the
other side would not do the same wrt Kerry's record.
>
> > This is going to be another dirty, nasty campaign I'm afraid
>
> I sadly agree with you here.
>
> > We (the electorate) get what we deserve (imo)
>
> I would like to think that isn't true, but I'm not sure I can come up
> with an argument why it's not.--Joe
As ususal, its a pleasure discussing a topic with you
T.Carr
jslater
> > > > > ALL 3rd party attack ads..or just those against your candidate?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > T.Carr
> > > >
> > >
> > > jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
> > >
> > > > The point isn't barring third party ads--that would be a horrific
> > > > infringement on freedom of speech.
> > >
> > > The problem is that the SCOTUS has already ruled that the speech
> > > limitations imposed under MCCain Feingold are constitutional.
> >
>
> jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu (jslater)
>
> > True, but that doesn't mean that it would be Constitutional to
> > completely ban anyone besides the candidates or parties themselves
> > from making ads to support certain candidates or causes. And I can't
> > believe that you personally would support such a law even if it was
> > Constitutional--I know I wouldn't.
>
> I didnt support that aspect of McCain Feingold. Yet the SCOTUS saw
> no problem with it.
>
specific candidates within X number of days of an election. I share
your skepticism of this.
> > > The point is that this PARTICULAR
> > > > third party ad is so obviously offensive, unreliable, and wrong.
> > >
> > > Just like the ads from the NAACP linking Bush with the Byrd lynching
> > > in 2000?
> >
> > I haven't seen that ad, so I can't comment on it.
>
> It was 4 years ago, and pretty outrageous (imo)
>
> >
> > > Any
> > > > such ad made by a group supporting either side should be condemned.
> > >
> > > Should be..but it wont..by either camp
>
> > > > Bush should specifically condemn this ad, and if, in the future, Kerry
> > > > supporters ran some ad saying that Bush murdered little babies in
> > > > their cribs when he lived in Texas, Kerry should denounce that too.
> > >
> > > Kerrry spoke on the record about not being critical about how one
> > > served during Vietnam in 1992..He didnt speak out against the AWOL
> > > attacks on Bush
> > >
> > > Hell, Kerry attacked Bush on his initial response after the 9/11
> > > attacks, yet admitted he "couldnt think" after the attacks himself
> >
> > It's a matter of degree, and also where the attacks are coming from.
> > The "initial response" point hardly rises to the slanderous level of
> > the swiftvets crap--
>
> It is a "matter of degree"
>
> When Kerry lifts claims verbatim from Moore to attack the Presdident
> over the most irrevalant aspects
You know, I'm sure I liked "F-9/11" much more than you did--I think it
made a number of good points. But in all honesty, I don't think the
"he continued to read for another 7-10 minutes" is such a big deal, so
I guess we mostly agree there. Of course we probably disagree on some
of the OTHER criticisms of Bush's policies.
> candidates should be able to criticize each other,
> > even when it's a bit hypocritical. Also, there's been no major ad buy
> > accusing Bush of being AWOL, that I know of (plus, that charge has
> > more credibility than the "swiftboat" crowd, IMHO).
>
> There is no "major ad campaign" however, there has been
> "documentaries" like F9/11 that did exactly that.
>
Right, but then the question becomes "how closely linked is this
third-party attack to the candidate"? Obviously, Bush shouldn't have
to denounce every person on usenet that calls Kerry a communist and
Kerry shouldn't have to denounce folks here that call Bush a nazi.
The Bush campaign has denied any connection between the swiftboat
folks and the Bush campaign. A number of Kerry supporters suspect or
claim that these folks really are being supported by Rove, the
Republican machine, etc. If the Kerry supporters are right--and I
personally can't prove it one way or another--that's a distinction
between the swiftboat ads and "F-9/11" that would make it more
plausible to call for Bush specifically denouncing it.
> > Look, politics is a contact sport, but at some point, things can get
> > "too dirty"; where that point is can fairly be debated, but a number
> > of Repubs. think the "swiftboat" stuff crossed the line.
> >
> > > This is going to be another dirty, nasty campaign I'm afraid
> >
> > I sadly agree with you here.
> >
> > > We (the electorate) get what we deserve (imo)
> >
> > I would like to think that isn't true, but I'm not sure I can come up
> > with an argument why it's not.--Joe
>
>
> As ususal, its a pleasure discussing a topic with you
>
>
> T.Carr
Assuming that was sincere, same to you.--Joe