John Kerry, will you ever learn??

[jcookc6]

For someone who wants to talk about the issues, why doesnt John Kerry talk about them. Less than 1 hour after the RNC was over, Kerry was talking about Cheney's 5 draft deferments. Why doesnt he explain that people who were in college got draft deferments. Why doent you say that I(he always says I) had graduated from college and tried to get a deferment to study at the Sorborne in Paris and was turned down. Why doen't you point out that your Vice President candidate did not serve in the armed forces either, so that should make that issue a wash.
Who cares what someone did 35 years ago, stop talking about it and the other side will stop pointing out inacccuracies in your service record. Maybe even they will stop talking about what you did when you came back in the anti war movement. Hell maybe the Republican's will give you a pass on the 1980's, but what the hell have you done since 1990?? I guess that era was not burned in your memory.

[filtherton]

Whoa, calm down buddy. It seems like you take the actions of candidate kerry personally. He hasn't personally wronged you anymore than bush has personally wronged any of his most passionate detractors. You can write your rants directed at kerry all you want, but i can guarantee that he doesn't read the politics board and so won't be aware of your personal issues with him. Take a few deep breaths before you post stuff like this. The politics board is not a tool for you to use to rant about things that don't really matter or have been beaten to death in any one of millions of threads already in the annals of the tfp politics board.

[Hanxter]

claiming to be a true red sox fan he relates the the sox are 2 1/2 games behind the yankees - uuuh no john, 3 1/2...

he's like a porn star - in front of a camera he's always changing positions

btw - monica lowinski is voting republican saying the dem's stained her rep and left a bad taste in her mouth

[jcookc6]

Whoa, I do take it personally when he calls veterans baby killers and worse. But anyways, I was saying the rules are the same for both sides, if someone is critical of him, he cries foul.
By the way Hanxter, when he was at the Yankee game that was on ESPN, he had to ask who the manager was. And when he was asked if he approved of the DH, he didn't even know what Jon Miller was talking about.

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by jcookc6

Whoa, I do take it personally when he calls veterans baby killers and worse. But anyways, I was saying the rules are the same for both sides, if someone is critical of him, he cries foul.
By the way Hanxter, when he was at the Yankee game that was on ESPN, he had to ask who the manager was. And when he was asked if he approved of the DH, he didn't even know what Jon Miller was talking about.

Um....I don't know who the manager is either, and WTF is DH.

Anyway, there WERE babykillers in the Vietnam War, on both sides. Whether we want to accept that or not is irrellevant. Kerry certainly deserves your disdain, as does Mr Bush, Should you decide to continue the rant. They are both Politicians, and dishonest bastards....is that okay with you?
Please don't pretend Bush is any better than Kerry, unless you really want the extent of this administrations' damage to this country listed.

I am sure there are a few TFP members who would be willing to make a list.

[smooth]

Was John Edwards even old enough to fight during Vietnam?

That's about the only thing in this thread that interests me; the rest has been discredited and I find it obnoxious that members would continue to post crap like "he calls veterans baby killers and worse."

Answered my own Q:

John Edwards was born June 10, 1953.

That put him at the ripe fighting age of 15 in 1968.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by jcookc6

Whoa, I do take it personally when he calls veterans baby killers and worse. But anyways, I was saying the rules are the same for both sides, if someone is critical of him, he cries foul.
By the way Hanxter, when he was at the Yankee game that was on ESPN, he had to ask who the manager was. And when he was asked if he approved of the DH, he didn't even know what Jon Miller was talking about.

I missed all this Baseball bruhaha.

He's a Yankee fan and he doesn't even know what a DH is????

Oh vey!

[filtherton]

Bush is president and he doesn't know what the word sovereignty means. Which is the bigger problem?

Whoa, I do take it personally when he calls veterans baby killers and worse. But anyways, I was saying the rules are the same for both sides, if someone is critical of him, he cries foul.

He didn't call all veterans baby killers, that's been debunked since forever ago, try paying attention to something other than your own hatred. He said some veterans testified to being baby killers. Are you trying to deny that baby killing went on during vietnam? I'd bet you a million dollars that there was even baby killing during our invasion of iraq. Did i dishonor veterans everywhere by saying that? Nope, sorry to dissappoint you, but i didn't.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by smooth

Was John Edwards even old enough to fight during Vietnam?

That's about the only thing in this thread that interests me; the rest has been discredited and I find it obnoxious that members would continue to post crap like "he calls veterans baby killers and worse."

Answered my own Q:

John Edwards was born June 10, 1953.

That put him at the ripe fighting age of 15 in 1968.

I've read his testimony and it seems pretty clear that is exactly what he is saying.

How is it "crap"?

[f00sion]

Originally Posted by jcookc6

For someone who wants to talk about the issues, why doesnt John Kerry talk about them. Less than 1 hour after the RNC was over, Kerry was talking about Cheney's 5 draft deferments. Why doesnt he explain that people who were in college got draft deferments. Why doent you say that I(he always says I) had graduated from college and tried to get a deferment to study at the Sorborne in Paris and was turned down. Why doen't you point out that your Vice President candidate did not serve in the armed forces either, so that should make that issue a wash.
Who cares what someone did 35 years ago, stop talking about it and the other side will stop pointing out inacccuracies in your service record. Maybe even they will stop talking about what you did when you came back in the anti war movement. Hell maybe the Republican's will give you a pass on the 1980's, but what the hell have you done since 1990?? I guess that era was not burned in your memory.

I think the picking at kerry's vietnam record has long since gone well overboard... even if he did apply for a deferment he still volunteered to go to vietnam, and then went back for a second tour... I dont give a fuck if one of his purple hearts was only a scratch, if the republicans care so much then they should change the criteria for who gets purple hearts from now on because there is no stipulation as to the severity of the injury. Just the fact that he volunteered when he probably could have weaseled his way around it speaks volumes about his character. It would almost be better if he had won no medals, it would keep the opposition from picking at the stupid inconsistencies that are irrelevant when compared to the vietnam-era of W.

[Seaver]

John Edwards was born June 10, 1953.

That put him at the ripe fighting age of 15 in 1968

Plenty old enough to fight considering the war went on until 1975. Not saying he was a dodger cause personally I dont care, just pointing out a flaw.

[jcookc6]

All I was saying was, he wasnt in the Armed Forces, Neither was Bill Clinton, but John Kerry wants to make out that because he SERVED in Viet Nam, he is better qualified to be our Commander in Chief. If my memory is correct a Swift Boat is about the size of a Lobster Boat and has 4 crewmen.
As for the Baseball, John claims to be a big Red Sox fan. On a radio show he was asked who had been his favorite Red Sox player growing up.He said Eddie Yost, who played for the Washington Senators and was only a third base coach for the Red Sox.
The DH is the designated hitter.

[brianna]

seriously folks this is drivel.

Kerry picks on Cheney about not serving in the military after cheney gave a whole speech that could have been called "why john kerry is not invited to my birthday party." petty and unimportant on both accounts.

Kerry might not know much about baseball! wow, i'm shocked, how will he ever run the country?!?!?

do you really care or are you just looking for a reason to bash the other side -- i see no reason why anything discussed in this thread thus far is important to anyone. It saddens me that this is what passes for political debate in the modern USA.

[phyzix525]

Originally Posted by brianna

seriously folks this is drivel.

Kerry picks on Cheney about not serving in the military after cheney gave a whole speech that could have been called "why john kerry is not invited to my birthday party." petty and unimportant on both accounts.

Kerry might not know much about baseball! wow, i'm shocked, how will he ever run the country?!?!?

do you really care or are you just looking for a reason to bash the other side -- i see no reason why anything discussed in this thread thus far is important to anyone. It saddens me that this is what passes for political debate in the modern USA.

It would be no big deal if he wasn't out there trying to act like he knows baseball and is a good ol'boy. Just shows someone's character. I will try to be anything as long as you like me. People like that just piss me off. They are fake. It is not a characteristic I would want in a president. And its not only baseball there are many things that he has said or done that shows he is fake.

[Zeld2.0]

Red Sox *are* 2 1/2 back now of the Yanks

And he's a Sox fan IIRC and honestly, who cares - how many people in this whole entire country know what the DH is? Hell, even casual viewers of baseball might not realize the AL has the DH only

And Seaver, though fighting went on til 1975, by January 1973, all U.S. troops were already pulled out.

In fact, by the time Edwards would've been 18 (1971), Nixon had already begun a large withdrawal of troops and so fewer people if any were being drafted and sent.

[smooth]

I picked age '15' for dramatic effect and I figured that even ideologues could get their chubby fingers around a nice round number. I was fairly confident that people could pick their most meaningful date of vietnamlessness and add a few years to Edward's entering high school.


Lebell, I've read the testimony, too. And I even asked someone to post it on the board. No one showed me, and I didn't read, where Kerry called servicepeople 'baby killers and worse.' Now maybe you did, but I saw him relate to Congress war crimes that others had told him about and some he may have witnessed or participated in. Regardless, it's a bunch of crap because it was thirty years ago and he's been continually serving the nation for 20 years. No one has made an issue of his past testimony to my knowledge and I can't think of too many reasons one would do so today--other than for political machinations.

jcook, kerry didn't argue his record to prove he was a better leader because he had been in country. He put his record on the block because right-wing ideologues were calling democrats cowards, treasonists, unpatriotic, and etc. Kerry's point was that it's pretty damn hard to be all that and be a Navy decorated officer and a 20 year senator. But who's counting? Somehow people just keep slinging shit at him--makes me wonder whether that's all they got--because I sure haven't seen anyone slinging issues at him.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Plenty old enough to fight considering the war went on until 1975. Not saying he was a dodger cause personally I dont care, just pointing out a flaw.

I think the draft ended in 69-70 I maybe wrong, but I do know by '72 we hed pretty much stopped sending troops over involunatrily. I maybe wrong but I seem to recall those as being the dates.

Besides, Edwards going to college would have put him at 22 in '75 when the war ended.

[seretogis]

Kerry is on the defensive and is wasting opportunities to set himself apart on the issues to defend his "war record" and attack Cheney's. Honestly, there is nothing that could affect Bush's candidacy less than Cheney's war record. Cheney's war record doesn't matter at all to third-party voters like me, because Cheney hasn't built his campaign on it. Kerry's "no man left behind" convention was absolutely wasted, and for some reason he took it as an opportunity to expose his most vulnerable bits.

[roachboy]

if it does not matter for cheney, then why is there anything relevant about anyone else"s war record exactly?
it look slike kerry is finally becoming more aggressive toward cowboy george and his band of frauds:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...297220,00.html

naturally, the better coverage of the matter comes from overseas.

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by roachboy

naturally, the better coverage of the matter comes from overseas.

naturally the best coverage aligns with what you thought before you read it.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

naturally the best coverage aligns with what you thought before you read it.

I suspect roachboy is referring to the style moreso than the actual content. He, like I am, would make a similar comment about an article that didn't mesh with his belief system if articulated in a deconstructive manner. That is, the coverage comment stems in part from the fact that it is even being covered at all, let alone free from innuendo.

But that's just my impression of roachboy, I could be wrong.

For example, this comment: "Both sides argued over the significance of new employment figures published yesterday showing a net creation of 144,000 jobs in August. The total was a little below most projections but still up on July" accurately provides both sides of the situation: that jobs have grown less than projected, yet they are in fact growing. This brings out both truths,. whereas coverage over here usually presents one position or the other (economy indisputably growing vs. net job loss over time) as the Truth.

[pedro padilla]

bush doesn´t seem to be too schooled in the baseball department either. sammy sosa?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

bush doesn´t seem to be too schooled in the baseball department either. sammy sosa?

You could not be more wrong

George has a umm...'bit' of experiance with baseball

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if it does not matter for cheney, then why is there anything relevant about anyone else"s war record exactly?

Because certain "anyone elses" brought it up as a major part of their campaign.

[raven12]

If John Kerry didnt focus every little thing on him being in Vietnam, i doubt we would be talking about anyone's war record and we could actually focus on the issues, not what someone did 30 years ago.

[Sparhawk]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You could not be more wrong

George has a umm...'bit' of experiance with baseball

so trading sosa wasn't a bad decision? keep laughing...

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk

so trading sosa wasn't a bad decision? keep laughing...

Sosa wasn't taking steroids then either. He was pretty bad on the Chicago
Whitesox as well. It wasn't until he played for the Cubs did he start to take the juice. This year he is apparently off it, he is MUCH smaller and doing pretty poorly over all.

[Zeld2.0]

Tsk tsk tsk the steroid issue...

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by raven12

If John Kerry didnt focus every little thing on him being in Vietnam, i doubt we would be talking about anyone's war record and we could actually focus on the issues, not what someone did 30 years ago.

Yeah.....he should never have brought this into the Campaign, Wait....he didn't ,did he?

[seretogis]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Yeah.....he should never have brought this into the Campaign, Wait....he didn't ,did he?

Did you even watch the Democratic Convention? Kerry's "heroism" in Vietnam was a central theme.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by seretogis

Did you even watch the Democratic Convention? Kerry's "heroism" in Vietnam was a central theme.

Of course, and that was the first time vietnam was ever mentioned in the context of any presidential campaign. It certainly wasn't used against clinton during any of his campaigns.

[tecoyah]

Yes...I did watch BOTH conventions. My point was the lack of this as an issue until the Republicans placed doubt on his record. He seems to me to be defending himself for the most part, and the Parties are making a huge stink of it.

[host]

<br><br><br>
<b>Bush supporters and Kerry bashers, are you really going to let Rove manipulate you and your vote again in 2004?</b>
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207591/posts">
But Rove has a record of attacking opponents' strengths, not weaknesses. Kerry has faced a full-frontal assault by Republican leaders and shadowy surrogate groups, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry, a triple Purple Heart winner, has been left desperately fighting allegations that he betrayed fellow veterans by turning against the war.</a><p>

<b>In addition to what has been reported in late August concerning McCain's motivation for immediately defending kerry against the Swift Boat Vet attacks on his
military record; that during the 2000 campaign, Karl Rove was the architect of a strategy of attacking McCain's strong reputation as a Viet Nam POW hero, vs. Bush's
questionable military record of spotty service in a Texas Air National Guard "champagne
unit", by publicizing information that questioned McCain's mental stability after a six
year period of incarceration and periodic torture conducted by the North Vietnamese
in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" prison for captured American pilots, there is this account, reported in 2000, as to the strategy used by the Bush campaign to destroy
McCain as the leading primary candidate:</b><p>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/02/21/knuckles.html"><h2>Read
my knuckles</h2>

<IMG SRC="cover.gif" ALT="cover image" ALIGN=RIGHT WIDTH="107" HEIGHT="138" BORDER="0" HSPACE="10" VSPACE="5">

<h3>To win big in South Carolina, Bush found his anger, battered

McCain--and moved sharply to the right. Will moderates still buy

his compassion pitch?</h3>

<SPAN class="byline">By Eric Pooley</SPAN>

<!-- date -->

<p class="timestamp">February 21, 2000<br>

Web posted at: 4:11 p.m. EST (2111 GMT)</p>


<!-- /date -->

<P>
The crowd in Hilton Head last Wednesday morning wasn't much to

brag about--roughly 250 people had shown up at a local marina to

hear George W. Bush--but the candidate was pumped just the same.

In the big debate the night before, he'd finally managed to get

the better of John McCain. More important, Bush had unleashed

the dogs of war against his rival--saturation TV and radio

attacks, hundreds of thousands of telephone and direct-mail

blasts, everything short of leaflets dropping from the skies

above South Carolina. The dogs were tearing into McCain, raising

questions about his character and dedication to the conservative

cause. Bush told the crowd, in his new fire-in-the-belly style,

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism, of polls

and principles, come and join this campaign." His slip of the

tongue about being tired of principles hinted at what happened

in South Carolina: Bush believed he would be finished if he lost

the state, so he did what it took to win. A country tune that

played at the Hilton Head rally neatly summed up Bush's

approach. Its refrain: "I'm really good at gettin' by."

</P>

<P>
Want a reformer? Bush asked his party in South Carolina. I'll be

your reformer--but a safer and more predictable one than McCain.

Want a fighter who can take it to Al Gore? I can play

rough--look what I did to my Republican rival. I can court the

radical right and come out shining brightly. I'm really good at

gettin' by.

</P>

<P>
So good, in fact, that Bush did more than get by in South

Carolina. He trounced McCain by 11 points overall, beating him

handily among nearly all age groups, both genders and most

income levels--among everyone, in fact, except veterans and new

G.O.P-primary voters. South Carolina Republicans rejected

McCain's message that "this party has lost its way," voting for

Bush almost 3 to 1. The independents and Democrats who made up

about 40% of the electorate went to McCain 2 to 1, but there

weren't enough of them to keep things close. Exit polls show

that a majority of voters saw Bush as the "real reformer"--an

astonishing coup for the Texas Governor, who adopted McCain's

mantle of reform just two weeks ago. Of those who believed

McCain was the true reformer, more than a third voted for Bush

anyway. For all its demographic changes in recent years, South

Carolina remains wary of mavericks and loyal to the G.O.P

establishment. It was the third consecutive time a Republican

front runner had lost New Hampshire and regained his balance in

South Carolina. The fire wall held.


</P>

<P>
Bush's slashing tactics--ferocious even by South Carolina's

down-and-dirty standards--don't fully account for the size of

his victory. Bush managed to drive McCain's negative ratings

from 5 to 30 in a month, but he also benefited from his own more

serious and improvisatory style. Gone were the photo ops of Bush

bowling and snowmobiling, replaced by substantive town-hall

forums that looked a lot like McCain's. What helped Bush most of

all was his hard charge to the right on social issues: he

boosted conservative Christian turnout to record levels and

collected two-thirds of their votes. But the things he said and

did to win them could cost him down the road.

</P>

<P>
The compassionate, big-tent Republicanism on which Bush

campaigned for months became threatening to him when the tent

started filling up with pro-McCain independents. So he called on

the right wing of his party to guard the doors of the tent,

warning that Democrats were conspiring to hijack the primary.

The man who prides himself on being "a uniter, not a divider"

won by pitting social conservatives against moderates. He kicked

off his South Carolina assault at Bob Jones University, a place

where interracial dating is officially prohibited. He all but

told listeners on Christian radio that openly gay people would

not find spots in his administration. He said he wasn't going to

"tear down" his opponent, but his campaign literature told

voters that "McCain says one thing but does another," and it

distorted many of McCain's positions--charging, for example,

that McCain wants to remove the pro-life plank from the G.O.P

platform. That isn't true, and among religious conservatives, it

was a napalm blast at McCain.

</P>

<P>
Those tactics helped Bush win South Carolina, but they could

alienate the voters he needs in the fall if he secures the

nomination. McCain hammered that message home in his unforgiving

concession speech, saying Bush's tactics would give the country

"Speaker Gephardt and President Gore." McCain was warning that

in the eyes of many Americans, Bush has become the candidate of

Bob Jones, the Confederacy, the National Rifle Association and

the National Right to Life Committee. And though Bush proved in

South Carolina that he can change his spots as nimbly as Bill

Clinton does, he must now show that he can change them

back--something that is a good deal harder to do.

</P>

<P>
Three weeks ago, when McCain began comparing himself to a Star

Wars hero--"I'm Luke Skywalker trying to get out of the Death

Star"--the analogy seemed overblown. But by primary day in South

Carolina, it seemed more than apt.

</P>

<P>
Bush's Death Star strategy was hatched on Feb. 2, the day after

he lost New Hampshire to McCain by 18 points. His top advisers

met in a panic at a hotel in Greenville, S.C. Not only was

Bush's air of inevitability shattered--McCain was galloping from

40 points behind in South Carolina to a dead heat--but all their

presumptions about the race had proved wrong. They had spent

months trying to plug the stature gap and build an image of Bush

as a candidate who could unite the party--and then they were

blindsided by a Republican at war with its leaders. At that

meeting, Bush's team realized he had to forget his promises to

run a "hopeful and optimistic and very positive"

campaign--promises that had been easy to make last fall, when he

seemed to be waltzing unopposed to the nomination. Bush agreed

to do whatever it would take to win. And in South Carolina,

"whatever it takes" has a colorful lineage.

</P>

<P>
The architect of whatever-it-takes politics, the late Republican

strategist Lee Atwater, helped turn South Carolina, his home

state, into the most reliably Republican place in the country.

He did so on behalf of George Bush's father in 1988 by

exploiting the fears of conservative whites and honing the

tactics of search-and-destroy politics--black arts he apologized

for in 1991 as he was dying of a brain tumor. Bush's South

Carolina team, led by former Governor Carroll Campbell and his

onetime chief of staff Warren Tompkins, are masters of

Atwater-style politics. Bush and his chief strategist, Karl

Rove, were both close to Atwater over the years. Atwater's

spirit was hovering over the meeting when Bush's advisers

decided it was time to "drive up McCain's negatives." Though

Bush had always prided himself on being a positive

candidate--even in 1994 when Governor Ann Richards of Texas was

calling him "Shrub" and goading him to fight--this time he let

his team go to work. "We play it different down here," one of

Bush's top South Carolina advisers told Time last week. "We're

not dainty, if you get my drift. We're used to playin' rough."

</P>

<P>
Bush's team devised a two-pronged strategy aimed at shoring up

his image and conservative credentials while carpet-bombing

McCain with attacks that portrayed the Arizonan as a hypocrite

and a closet liberal. The first part of the plan would be

carried out by Bush himself, who had a "wimp factor" to contend

with. To allay post-New Hampshire doubts that he wasn't tough

enough to go the distance, the Governor attacked McCain in a

series of press conferences beginning just days after New

Hampshire. Bush started out by calling McCain a Republican who

took "Democrat" positions favored by "Bill Clinton and Al Gore"

on issues from tax cuts to campaign-finance reform. He stepped

up the assault during the next week, holding bash-of-the-day

press conferences for four straight days. His barrage against

McCain was always the first order of business. He began one

press conference by saying, "I want to continue this discussion

about saying one thing and doing another."

</P>

<P>
Each of Bush's points was meant to show McCain as a hypocrite:

on public financing of campaigns; on allowing incumbents to

"roll over" their campaign war chests (and never mind that Bush

had done the same thing); on whether he favored tax hikes in the

past. On each occasion, Bush aides would pass out, fax and

e-mail memos documenting McCain's alleged hypocrisies. And

surrogates--Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Strom Thurmond,

Lieutenant Governor Bob Peeler, Attorney General Charlie Condon

and former Governors Campbell and David Beasley--were dispatched

to deliver the message in harsher terms on TV and radio. Outside

groups--the National Right to Life Committee, Americans for Tax

Reform, the National Smokers Alliance--were counted upon to

hammer McCain with incendiary radio and TV spots of their own.

</P>

<P>
The strategy carried risks--notably that Bush would start to

seem not just tough but Visigothic. That problem was solved when

McCain made his one colossal blunder of the campaign--a move

Bush aides call "a gift."

</P>

<P>
The gift was a TV commercial in which the Arizona Senator looked

into the camera and charged that Bush "twists the truth like

Clinton." The spot went too far--in South Carolina's Republican

circles, being compared to Clinton is worse than being compared

to Satan himself. Putting it on the air undermined McCain's

claim that he was above politics as usual and freed Bush to

amplify his attack strategies while muddying the waters on the

question of which candidate was hitting below the belt. Says a

Bush aide: "When he truly crossed the line, that's when we could

go after him. It was a huge opportunity."

</P>

<P>
For the rest of the campaign, Bush used the ad as a smoke screen

to obscure his assaults on McCain. His team quickly cut an

effective response ad, with a nice kicker: "Disagree with me,

fine," it said, "but do not challenge my integrity." It was his

best performance yet, and Bush used variations on the theme in

the final debate and in his press conferences. For instance,

when reporters challenged him on his failure to speak out

against the racist policies of Bob Jones University, he jutted

his jaw and said, "Don't you judge my heart." The Bush camp kept

the spot on the air through primary day--long after McCain had

taken his attack ad off the air--because it implied that McCain

was still playing dirty even after he had committed himself to

sending only positive messages.

</P>

<P>
Behind the smoke screen, Bush's allies on the right stepped up

their assault. The National Smokers Alliance warned that "if

straight talk is the issue, John McCain isn't the answer."

Christian-right leader Pat Robertson threatened that "a large

portion of the Republican base would walk away" if McCain was

the nominee. Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, chairman of

the House impeachment proceedings, taped a phone message for

100,000 voters, implicitly criticizing McCain for wanting to

change the G.O.P's abortion plank to include exceptions for rape

and incest--exceptions Bush also supports, though Hyde didn't

mention that. The National Right to Life Committee issued a mass

mailing warning that McCain "voted repeatedly to use tax dollars

for experiments that use body parts from aborted babies." On the

front of the leaflet was a photograph of a baby with the words,

"This little guy wants you to vote for George W. Bush."

</P>

<P>

Phone calls from Bush polling operations appear to have been

attacks masquerading as opinion surveys--so-called push polls.

These calls distorted McCain's record--exaggerating his role in

the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, for example--in an

attempt to push voters away from him. Though the Bush campaign

claims only 300 of the calls were made in South Carolina, Bush's

Michigan pollster, Fred Steeper, told Time last week that his

firm had placed several thousand such calls in his state.

Steeper says he has stopped making the calls.

</P>

<P>
Former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed, a Bush

strategist, used his firm to smother the 400,000 self-described

Christian conservatives in the state with negative phone calls

and mailings about McCain. ("He claims he's conservative, but

he's pushed for higher taxes and waffled on protecting innocent

human life.") In this blitz of mail and phone calling, Bush was

portrayed as far more socially conservative than he describes

himself at rallies. Asked why Bush almost never brought up his

pro-life position in his appearances before South Carolina

voters, a top Bush adviser said, "This is a message that needs

to be narrowcasted." In other words, they didn't want moderates

up North hearing what they were saying to conservatives down

South.

</P>

<P>
To see how Bush's words went further to the right as he

narrowcast them, consider the way he worked the issue of gay

rights. In the debate last Tuesday, Bush said he had refused to

meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, the G.O.P's largest gay

organization, because "they had made a commitment to John

McCain." When McCain said the group had not endorsed him, Bush

replied, "It doesn't matter." To conservatives, though, it

mattered a great deal. A few days later, a Baptist church in

Kentucky began faxing a flyer to South Carolina radio stations,

railing against "John McCain's fag army." (Both McCain and Bush

support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the

military.) The Bush campaign said it had nothing to do with the

flyer. But the Governor repeated his anti-gay message during an

on-air interview with a Christian radio station in Charleston,

implying that he wouldn't appoint openly gay people to spots in

his administration. "An openly known homosexual is somebody who

probably wouldn't share my philosophy," he said.

</P>

<P>
The most corrosive material of all came from groups and

individuals independent of Bush's campaign. A Bob Jones

professor named Richard Hand sent out an e-mail falsely alleging

that McCain had sired two children out of wedlock. A flyer

distributed at McCain rallies went after Cindy McCain for her

addiction to pain killers a decade ago and her admission that

she stole them from a clinic where she worked. Phone-call

campaigns targeted McCain's broken first marriage. And a

pro-Confederate flag group called Keep It Flying, founded just

last week, sent out 250,000 pieces of misleading mail about the

candidate's position on the flag flying above the state capitol.

Both McCain and Bush ducked the issue, but the flyer said, "Of

the major candidates, only George Bush has refused to call the

Confederate flag a racist symbol." In a bit of payback last

Saturday, McCain's camp decided to send copies of the flyer to

African-Americans throughout Michigan. "We'll see if Bush can

run as a Dixiecrat in Michigan and everywhere else," says McCain

political director John Weaver.

</P>

<P>
Against this deluge, McCain fought back with a positive TV ad

comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But McCain's

morning-in-America spot was airing once for every six Bush

commercials. McCain got some help from Gary Bauer, the Christian

conservative candidate who folded his campaign after New

Hampshire and endorsed McCain last week. Bauer is fighting Reed

for supremacy among Christian conservatives, but last week he

lost the battle. He wasn't popular enough to sway many votes.

McCain's network of veterans tried to counter Bush's carpet

bombing with a grass-roots ground campaign, but by Saturday

morning, McCain knew in his bones that it was over.


</P>

<P>
In the hallway outside his hotel room that morning, McCain

turned to his closest aide, Mark Salter. "We're going to lose

this, aren't we?" McCain asked. Salter didn't have to answer.

Inside the room, people started eating cold pizza from the night

before, shaking their heads over reports that the state G.O.P

had failed to open 21 polling places in black areas of

Greenville. Later the team sat down and went over the exit

polling. The candidate wanted to know about the attacks, so his

ally, South Carolina Representative Lindsey Graham, ran through

the list of the body blows McCain had absorbed. Cindy McCain

broke into tears. "It's all right, Cindy," said McCain. "We can

take it." By the time he had digested the results, McCain was

smiling broadly--the mirror image of primary night in New

Hampshire, when he had won so big yet couldn't manage a smile.

</P>

<P>
McCain still sees the battle that raged in South Carolina--and

that this week spreads to Michigan and beyond--as a chance for

an epochal party realignment, a ritual of G.O.P purification.

But his party may not be ready for the purity he has in mind. As

Bush and his aides see it, the party feud caused by McCain's

surge is merely a minor, passing unpleasantness, not a long-term

problem. And they believe the damage Bush did to his own image

in South Carolina can be easily fixed. Says a senior Bush

adviser: "We'll patch things up pretty quickly."

</P>

<P>
Not if McCain can help it. Despite the stinging loss, he went

roaring out of South Carolina vowing that "our crusade grows

stronger" and pitting "my optimistic and welcoming conservatism"

against Bush's "negative message of fear." He added, "I want the

presidency in the best way, not the worst way." Bush, stripped

now of all his laid-back affectation, wants it any way he can

get it. He's very good at gettin' by.

</P>



<h5>--Reported by James Carney

with Bush, John F. Dickerson with McCain and Maggie

Sieger/Detroit


</h5></a><p>
<b>Do you Bush apologists really know who you cheerlead for ? The president only makes public appearances at presumably supportive military installations and at
rallies where all attendees indergo background checks and are pre-screened for
loyalty and to submit questions in advance that they will ask Bush. As of April, 2004, Bush gave only 1/7 the number of press conferences that his father held in the same number of months in office. Even at the eleven press conferences which Bush held, some were limited to pre-submitted reporters' questions.....no spontaneity, no surprises, just carefully scripted performances.....a president packaged for the media, designed, IMO, to make up for severe deficiencies in ability, to deceive the people.</b><p>
Jefferson said:
<i>
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
</i>
<b> Is Bush facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not:</b><p>
<a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html">
(As of April 2, 2004.....)
The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a><p>
<b>As for your buying the oft repeated Rove designed strategy (if something is repeated often enough, the sheeple will believe it) to smear Kerry as the "flip-flopper":</b><p>

<FONT FACE="VERDANA" SIZE=2>

Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.

<BR><BR>
Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.
<BR><BR>
Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
<BR><BR>
Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
<BR><BR>
Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency); then he doesn't.
<BR><BR>
Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.
<BR><BR>
Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.
<BR><BR>
Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.
<BR><BR>

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.
<BR><BR>
During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage of Florida law to ask for a recount.
<BR><BR>
On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26 Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts. Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.
<BR><BR>
Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly appointed judges who were against abortion.
<BR><BR>
In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington, Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned; he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases – after he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy campaign contributor.
<BR><BR>
Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports it.
<BR><BR>
Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.
<BR><BR>
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
<BR><BR>
Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.

<BR><BR>
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.
<BR><BR>
Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
<BR><BR>
Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the election, after all.
<BR><BR>
Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's
saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?
<BR><BR>
The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.
<BR><BR>
Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.
<BR><BR>

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
<BR><BR>
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
<BR>
</td>


</tr>
<a href="http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bushflipflopper.htm">http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bushflipflopper.htm</a>

[crthiel]

Not much else to say. Looks like you've made quite a case. I like it.

It'll be interesting to see what many of the staunch of Bush supporters on this site have to say in defense. Will they defend Bush with factual evidence or just say "Well Kerry did this...." or "Well Clinton did that too...its nothing new so we shouldn't be concerned with it."

[irateplatypus]

wow... what an unnecessarily long post. i won't pretend to have the time to respond to all the "flip-flops"... but if you think one is particularly compelling please bring it up for discussion.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.
Legit.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.
like actually for deficits? as in, he creates deficits in his spare time? i'm certain that he isn't for deficits but realizes that in order to cope with the WORLD TRADE CENTER being knocked over and prosecuting two major wars... deficit spending is necessary. this isn't anything new.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.
Bush was never for free trade at all times in all places. "Free trade" is a trade philosophy that puts the limitation of federal involvement as primary goal. Bush did levy steel tariffs... would you rather him not and leave our steel industry vulnerable? i guarantee you all the democrats would be using Bush's inability to act on behalf of the poor steel worker as a platform in their campaign if he had not. Do you honestly think Bush was against all tariffs at all times from all countries? surely not.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
An American President advocates complete isolation from the Isreali-Palestinian conflict? come on, you're just making this stuff up.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.
I clearly remember Bush coming out of the box with a proposed Consitutional amendment. I remember because I was against the President on this.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.
I'm in the Air Force and am pretty sure I would have heard about it. He may have cut some programs... but I do know that the military is very happy with the support they're getting from their commander in chief.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.
This one has quite a few holes in it. Does drilling in and of itself indicate poor environmental policy? It's certainly implied. What made it secret... the fact that no one cared about it? Is sound environmental policy necessarily betrayed by this one stated fact? Methinks not.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.
Bush passed the biggest education reform bill (written in a spirit of bi-partisanship by democrat Ted Kennedy) in over thirty years. If you're going to attack the President on something, education isn't your most effective battle.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.
I don't have a clue when this was said or in what context. Frankly... I think it's made up though it'd be a decent point if it were true.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's
saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?
Now it's getting really silly. Why does leaving when the provisional authority asks necessitate it being premature? Why is it that when the Iraqi's ask us to leave it must be premature? It doesn't... poorly conceived.


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Politicking... legit complaint.

Some of the other ones were just too strange for a cogent response. People moan of Bush's "cowboy uncompromising divisive attitude" but complain when genuine compromise is exhibited, equating it with a Kerry flipflop. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's not about the issues for many people, it's a deep personal distaste for the President. If you're voting for Kerry... fine, doesn't bother me. Just don't let something this poorly written sway your vote.

Edit: some spelling mistakes that were bugging me.

[host]

<br><br>
<b>irateplatypus, I am sorry if my last post is "long", Bush's performance
demonstrates that people don't notice and don't care that he almost never holds press conferences, but does give "long", carefully scripted public
performances, where he never has to answer a spontaneous question. The Karl Rove powered Regime is easy to recognize as a fraud and a threat to Consitutionally guaranteed democracy....but I'll keep it shorter.....just some articles and links to counter your skepticism about Bush misleading on financial support of the Troops, and....after they are severely wounded, or simply discharged, the Veterans that the ulitmately become, and more
documentation about Bush asserting that 6 years as Texas guv qualified
him foor the Presidency, but Edward's six years in the Senate does not:</b>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1"><a name="TOP"></a>July
02, 2003</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="4"><b>Editorial: Nothing but lip service</b></font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"></font><p></p> <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="2">In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.<p>
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.<p>
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.<p>
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.<p>
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.<p>
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.<p>
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.<p>
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill..............................<p>
</font>
<a href="http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php">http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php</a>
<p>
<font size="2" face="geneva,arial,sans-serif">
<p><strong>Washington</strong> --
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq,
who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120-
degree-plus heat.
<P>Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns
after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan
will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent
danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
<P>The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain
the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts
have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even
prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for
military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.
<P>Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they
are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress
votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.
<P>Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in
combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation
allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other
expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.
<P>Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the
extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million
more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying
out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation,
Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special
pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming
months.
<P><H3>WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE</H3>
<P>A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view
on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.
<P>Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions,
and many aren't happy................<br><hr></font>
<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL</a>
<p>
<td colspan="4"><img src="images/spacer.gif" height="5" width="1"></td>
<td width="10" rowspan="10"><img src="images/spacer.gif" width="10" height="1" border="0" alt=""></td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="349" valign="top" colspan="4"><span class="blueheader">VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans <br> VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief</span><br><br></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="4">

<i>Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004</i>--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."<br><br>VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.<br><br>"This deplorable budget will do nothing to alleviate the many thousands of veterans who are waiting six months or more for basic health care appointments with VA. Instead, the budget seeks to drive veterans from the system by realigning funding, charging enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug copayment. This is inexcusable, especially when no member of this administration or Congress would wait this long for their health care.<br><br>"What the administration is proposing for veterans is a shell game. Veterans are being asked to pay for their own health care to make up for shortages in the budget. We are adamantly opposed to charging veterans an enrollment fee and we are opposed to increasing payments that veterans make for prescriptions and for other health care services, especially when millions of this nation's veterans are already locked out of the system," Banas said. "To ask this nation's veterans to subsidize their health care is outrageous. They have already paid for their health care with their sweat and with their blood.<br><br>"This budget indefensibly will not meet the increasing health care needs of our veterans, nor will it lessen the many months they wait for disability benefits. <br><br>"As our veteran population ages and service men and women return from Afghanistan and Iraq, we must have a system that meets the health care needs of all veterans. It is clear that, just as we fought on the battlefields, we must now bring the fight to the halls of Congress to rectify this disgraceful budget. Having traveled throughout the nation, I know that the American people will not tolerate this shoddy treatment of America's veterans, especially at a time of war," Banas said.
<p>


<a href="http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576"> http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=1576</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<b>In the first Gore vs. Bush debate in October 2000, Bush said,"And he's got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second-biggest state in the union." At that time, Bush had served as
Texas Governor for less than 6 years.</b><a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html">http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html</a>
<p>
<b>I am trying to link sources that, if anything, could be presumed to be biased towards Bush. The armytimes.com and vfw.org, above, and the newspaper that has been accused of being a press organ of the White House,
the washingtontimes.com, is linked below. If your mind is open to comparing
more of Karl Rove propaganda politics 2004, vs. linked and presumably more
accurate information concerning Bush and Kerry, I'll post it on request:
<p>
"Mr. Bush was particularly terse when asked about how Vice President Dick Cheney will stack up against Mr. Edwards, who is retiring after this year, when his single term in the Senate ends.
"Dick Cheney can be president. Next?" the president said."</b>
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r">http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040708-121746-8980r<a/>
<b>Bush's comments make it clear that he believes that 6 years in the U.S. Senate did not qualify Edwards to run for V.P., yet Bush is on record saying that his less than six years service as Texas Governor, who presides over
a part time legislature (meets 140 days, every two years, legislatures salary is
$7,200 year, qualified him in 2000 to run against Gore for the presidency!</b>
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/robison/2735445">Gov. Schwarzenegger, take look at Texas for an answer</a>

[smooth]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.
like actually for deficits? as in, he creates deficits in his spare time? i'm certain that he isn't for deficits but realizes that in order to cope with the WORLD TRADE CENTER being knocked over and prosecuting two major wars... deficit spending is necessary. this isn't anything new.

irate,

there is something new about the current deficit in relation to wartime expenditure--this is the first time in our nation's history that tax cuts have been enacted while we are at war.

At all other times we have raised taxes on the wealthy, in particular, in order to finance wartime efforts. I don't know enough to say whether such increases were framed publicly as part of the wealthy's civic duty to pay higher taxes during wartime, but we definately raised them to finance our wars.

[scout]

Originally Posted by brianna

seriously folks this is drivel.
do you really care or are you just looking for a reason to bash the other side -- ............. It saddens me that this is what passes for political debate in the modern USA.

This is exactly how I am starting to feel about this election.

[dy156]

is host doing something funny with the settings for his posts? like no borders?
they look very different to me.

Anyway, I thought it was a huge tactical error for Kerry to respond to the Republican convention criticism by criticizing Cheney's lack of vietnam experience. Seriously, what were his advisors thinking?

Kerry-"Alright, we've had enough! it's time to take the gloves off! We're really going to let them have it after all those mean speeches"
"well, what do you want to do? They've criticized your record of voting against the military and flip floping stances on the issues. How should we let them have it?"

"Let's give them a good explanation for the supposed flip-flopping, and how Bush doesn't see both sides of any issue, just goes with his 'gut' whether it's wrong or right, and it has been wrong plenty of times, but he's too stubborn to admit it!"
Kerry-"No, the voters don't really understand the issues, and we have a problem looking too intellectual anyway"

"Or we could harp on the fact that Bush led us to war when he was wrong"
Kerry-"No, I was in favor of the war, and still am, I think."

"we could criticize his policies and how they haven't worked and built up a huge deficit"
-Kerry " No, they'll just ask if the voters really trust a Mass. democrat to reduce the deficit. I don't want to go there."

"Oh, Oh, I Know, let's beat the dead horse vietnam issue again, yeah, that's it!"
Kerry- "Sounds like a plan!!"

I think Kerry had a golden opportunity to counterattack after the attacks of the Republican convention, and could have faught plenty hard and dirty on the real issues, but he and his campaign blew it.

[Ustwo]

dy156 - I think you basicly summed up how it went, and I mean that honnestly.