If I’m the GOP and I’m seeing all the over-the-top plans for protestors, I’d be salivating. I’d be saying, “Bring it on.”
I am VERY concerned over this orgy of protesting. I’m not entirely sure of the purpose of it. It comes across to me as massively self-indulgent in that not only will it accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company, but it may well swing undecided voters to the Bush camp. Why? Because Americans lean toward underdogs, and as protestors do everything they can to make the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible, all they’re gonna do is make the GOP come across as sympathetic. “Those poor Republicans, can’t even have their convention without demented naked Kerry supporters trying to hog the spotlight.”
It’s bad enough with these garbage Swiftboat commercials (although if Kerry expected anything else, he was being naive. The GOP successfulyly painted John McCain, a POW, as “loony,” and Max Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm to a war, as being soft on American security issues, so Kerry thought…what? They wouldn’t pull the same crap on him?) eroding Kerry’s numbers. But Kerry’s own supporters may be the GOP’s best friends.
PAD
• 
I am VERY concerned over this orgy of protesting. I’m not entirely sure of the purpose of it.
Er, to protest the current administration.
It comes across to me as massively self-indulgent in that not only will it accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company, but it may well swing undecided voters to the Bush camp. Why? Because Americans lean toward underdogs, and as protestors do everything they can to make the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible, all they’re gonna do is make the GOP come across as sympathetic. “Those poor Republicans, can’t even have their convention without demented naked Kerry supporters trying to hog the spotlight.”
Underdogs? These people are going around in bunkers and avoiding any actual contact with the city as they move back and forth between their fortified hotels and the war zone that West 33rd Street has been turned into. How, exactly are they underdogs?
And what’s the alternative? Sit at home and let the Republicans have all the press? Just be sheep and let the people with political power control the process? The hëll with that.
Besides, the protestors aren’t making “the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible,” they’re just protesting, amiably and peaceably. And I have no problem with the press paying more attention to them and regularly showing the anti-Bush signs on camera.
—KRAD
Tim H.,
I did look stuff up. That’s how i found out. The Khe Sanh myth/story is the lie.
“Umm…that’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was “high.” “
No, but he was accused of doing it to distract from the Lewinsky nonsense.
“Most soldiers want to be involved in some form of military operation. I know thats hard to believe if youre a democrat but not all people who join the army do it for the money”
I agree. Most join to defend our country. The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with that.
“As for people who say that troops are going to be in Iraq a long time. WELL no Sh*t they are. We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Those wars have been over well over 50 years! “
Yes, but how many of those troops are being shot at, maimed, and / or killed?
“there are probably at least 4 million Democrats in the city proper alone. If anything, that’s a pretty apathetic turnout given the huge pool of Democrats who live within a couple of hours of the city “
Yes, but how many of them have to work, or want to spend time with their families after working the rest of the week?
Besides, Americans are the most individualistic people on the planet. To get several hundred thousand of us mobilized at one time in one place takes some serious provocation.
Re: Max Cleland:
Jerome, the only person who honestly believes that bûllšhìŧ is Ann Coulter, who wrote it. Not one single source, to my knowledge, other than her has ever been cited to give it credence. I’m surprised that you left out the part about him being on the way to a beer party what the grenade went off.
“I did look stuff up. That’s how i found out. The Khe Sanh myth/story is the lie.”
Provide a scource other than Ann Coulter.
PAD said:
“the Swift Boat ads are being stage managed by the Bush and GOP machines, as the “New York Times” so impressively proved.”
Oh, this is just flat out BS, and I’m surprised you can even say that with a straight face. The NYT pointed out connections, and there are far more connections between the DNC and the Democratic 527s. For the record, John O’Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN. He voted for Gore. He supports Edwards. He does not like George Bush.
Regardless, from the Washington Post last week:
“[Ginsburg] said two prominent Democratic lawyers are doing the same thing. He said Robert Bauer, the top legal counsel for the Kerry campaign, also is the attorney for an independent group, America Coming Together, that has been mobilizing voters in support of Kerry. In addition, Ginsberg said, Joseph Sandler is a lawyer for both the Democratic National Committee and for the independent group MoveOn.org, which has run advertisements attacking Bush.”
What’s good for the goose.
If all of that wasn’t enough, what about the fact that the ads have forced Kerry to admit his lies? And that Kerry tried to censor them?
“John O’Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN”
oh, you must be talking about a John O’Neill other than the one hired by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry during his first successful senate run.
You know, the John O’Neill who was part of the Republican Nixon’s Dirty Tricks campaign who went on the Ðìçk Cavett Show to “debate” Kerry?
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml
If all of that wasn’t enough, what about the fact that the ads have forced Kerry to admit his lies? And that Kerry tried to censor them?
See, I’m wondering when the shift in this country went from examining Bush’s lies and BS to Kerry’s potential lies and BS.
From Bush’s military non-service to Kerry’s factual service (in so far as he atleast was in Vietnam).
I think it shows that we’re in for another 4 years of lies and BS regardless of who wins the election.
And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN…oh, wait. He didn’t.
But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush’s unprovoked war efforts
“If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement …” – Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, “We Still Have A Choice On Iraq,” The New York Times, 9/6/02)
“…even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.” – Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, “We Still Have A Choice On Iraq,” The New York Times, 9/6/02)
John Kerry…Republican Pundent????
PAD wrote: “The point is that the war on Iraq wasn’t about making it better off. It was about protecting America. It was about a threat to security so urgent that the UN weapons inspectors were not allowed to finish their work. It was about WMDs that weren’t there. It was about an imminent threat that Saddam posed, which he didn’t. It was about convincing Americans that Saddam masterminded 9/11, which he didn’t. “
You are reading into what I said. The protesters are upset of the “loss of life” in Iraq, etc., and are protesting the war. My point is that they are out ot lunch on this issue. Many refugees are RETURNING to Iraq. And there is not a flood of people leaving. (Some, yes, but a very small percentage.) That is a totally different issue than why we went to war.
But that brings up another point. It is wrong to say we only went to war over WMD’s. There were 3 reasons consistently given, and one of them was to free Iraq. Obviously, because of the threat to our security, the WMD’s was the largest reason, but not the only. (Go read Tommy Frank’s book to see a military — not a politician or pundits — viewpoint on what we thought we knew and whether the WMD’s were a threat. Unless you want to write off yet another person as a puppet for Bush or Rove, it makes for fascinating reading.)
Furthermore, I am amazed by the many people on this post who do not understand a fundamental point: A free Iraq DOES protect US security. You don’t find the hotbed of terroism in any truly free society as you do in dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. It may exist, but it is on the fringe. A free Iraq does help us.
You are free to come to the conclusion that Bush had planned to bring down Iraq since before 9/11. That conclusion, in my opinion, is what is based on a tissue of lies. We will have to disagree on that. But I am sick of hearing how Iraq is not better now than 4 years ago. Go tell that to the women who for the first time in at least 40 years (if not more) have the right to not only vote but to serve in their government. Go tell that to the kids who are not being starved while Saddam builds yet another palace with the money from the UN sponsored “oil for food” program (either to build up his ego or to hide his WMD program — does it really matter?). Go tell that to the families who had their husbands and fathers stolen in the middle of the night and executed. Go tell that to the truly thousands of vicitms who were massacared by Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.
Don’t give me this idiotic nonsense about a stray shot by our troops killing someone. While I hate the loss of life, the crucial difference is that it is an accident, not a deliberate policy to terrorize. And yes, while for the person grieving it may not matter, for the majority of the country, it does. Enormously.
This area of the world was under a brutal dictatorship led by the Ottoman Turks (an Islamic regime) for hundreds of years. It was under a better, kinder European rule (Britain, France, etc.), but an outside rule none the less, for under 100 years. For the most part, the Middle East has been under self rule for 60 to 80 years. That is not a long time. And Iraq was under a brutal dictatorship for at least 20 or more years. My point? Freedom is not a concept they are familiar with. They will struggle with it for a while. Those who were in power will fight hard to regain it — at the expense of those around them. While we did go to war in part to defend our own security, it was not done at the expense of the Iraqi people. The intent — and I believe the very possible outcome — is that both sides will be better for it (as can be seen my our victories over Japan and Germany over 50 years ago).
Jim in Iowa
PAD,
I forgot to mention I am tired of the other lie in your response. Bush has never, ever said that Saddam masterminded 9/11. He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion. He DID say Saddam was a possible threat to conduct another 9/11 type attack. I believe that was true. You do not. Fine. But quit saying Bush said something he did not.
Was there any link between Saddam and Bin Laden? I think they were. So did Bush. That is a conclusion based on some facts (facts much, much sronger than the supposed “web” of connections some claim Bush has with Saudi Arabia). That does not mean he said Saddam masterminded the attack, or even that he knew about it. But clearly, Saddam would have done nothing to prevent it and everything to help it given the chance. That is what made Saddam a threat to us.
Jim in Iowa
Welp, like my father always said, “If someone is determined to show their ášš (in public literally and comedians are joking, this is the first time NYers asked people to put their clothes back on), get out of their way…”
Lot of replies to be made here:
“And I don’t recall the Bush Campaign threatening movie theaters who were running F9-11”
See http://www.moveamericaforward.org, a web site run by a Republican PR firm.
“Republicans pressing the Swift Boat issue? Why not? You Kerry Supporters…were all having a blast with the National Guard thing.”
Bush could end it by simply saying, hey you know, “[insert National Guardists names here] saw me a lot while I was serving. Ask them if I went AWOL.”
“Now it’s my turn and I’m having a blast”
That’s a childish attitude.
“and I bet a lot of the Swift Boat stuff is true, to boot.”
Can I take that bet?
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
“In Kerry’s case, nobody looked at what he did and said, ‘Son, you deserve a medal.’ Kerry himself started the paperwork that got him most of his medals, because he was the CO of his swift boat.”
You can get a Purple Heart without an injury? George Elliott (now one of the SBV) reccomended Kerry for his Bronze Star. Kerry’s signature does not appear on the official report for that medal, BTW.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
“I know it’s been popular for years now to gripe about the media being left-wing and that may have been true at one point, but I honestly don’t see it.”
Good for you. The right has been “working the refs” – complaining about media coverage – they’ve got journalists running to the right. Media “critics” like Media Research Center are paid big money to publicize the idea the media leans to the left.
“Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH”
I’ll dispute that.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryswift17aug17,1,6210087.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=3&hp
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-swiftpress24aug24,1,3137952.story
“They’ve switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue.”
Sure it is. The guy who claimed he wasn’t fired at got a Silver Star for the SAME ACTION. I guess it took him 30+ years to realize the ‘V’ was there.
In scanning the posts quickly, I might have missed this, in if I did, sorry, but apathy seems to be George W.’s greatest aide in him elected and re-elected. Alot of people will rights and freedoms, but most seem to miss out on responibilities. I wonder what would happen if the government offered a tax deduction for proof of voting?
“We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic.”
Of course I meant “dissent”, dámņ that spellcheck!
The aggression was from a small group called tha Protest Warriors who went right into the midst of the march with some rather provocative signs and yelled at the marchers.
Those of you who choose to believe the lies about the service to our country of Kerry and Cleland, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. John O’Neil has hated Kerry since the Senate hearings and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The US Navy investigated these same claims about Kerry’s service back then and found them totally unfounded. Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527’s. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent. If you are not for them, you are labeled unpatriotic. I am glad there are protesters in NYC. Protests before the war weren’t covered and the women’s march on the White House was only partially covered in the news. At least now other Americans can see they are not alone in opposing the policies of the people currently in office.
“The aggression was from a small group called tha Protest Warriors who went right into the midst of the march with some rather provocative signs and yelled at the marchers.”
If yelling at people is aggression then the protest was far more aggressive than you think. Just as an experiment, try holding a pro-Bush sign at the next big protest. Don’t say a word, don’t glare, don’t make faces. just stand there with a sign as the marchers go past.
the level of aggression you have directed at you may be disheartening.
A lot of this thread has devolved into partisan bickering, so I’m going to go back to your original post, Peter, and take it from there. I’m writing this as someone who has marched in two protest marches – the March for Women’s Lives in DC this April, and again two days ago in NYC.
Re: protest having neither purpose nor point. The point is to make the “right to peaceably assemble” a reality in modern politics. The purpose is to draw attention to whatever the theme of the march is. True, it will “accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company.” Nothing affects them once their collective mind has been made up; even when the chosen course of action has been wrong, they simply spin, spin, spin in a new direction.
However, that’s all the more reason to march and protest – to prove that it’s not just one or two cranks who want to be in the newspapers, but masses of citizens who are deeply concerned about issues. The administration and Clear Channel and Fox News are all pretending that only one or two hippie freaks are against the war — and then hundreds of thousands of people show up to protest. The religious right redefines medical abortion procedures as “unnecessary” and Ashcroft pilfers the records of anyone who objects — and then over a million people show up on the mall. When things like this happen, whether the administration does anything about it or not, it lets the rest of the country know that people care. It lets the folks who are against the protest know that there is massive opposition to their policies, and it lets the folks who are for that issue know that they are not a lone voice in the wilderness – and frankly, it motivates them both to go DO something about it at the polls!
Anything that gets the vote up is a good thing.
As for the Republicans being treated like underdogs because of this harassment, well, the Rs weren’t too kind during the Democratic convention and it doesn’t seem to have done much about public perceptions. So I’m not worried there.
Bottom line, why did we march? Faith in the old poem – “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing.” So we did something – something that made it very clear that we are not alone, we will not be dismissed, and we will be voting on our issues in November.
He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion.
Man, I guess the 50% of Americans who think Saddam was behind 9/11 must really be ignorant and stupid then.
But hey, that plays right into Bush’s hands, doesn’t it?
Craig:
>>He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion.
>Man, I guess the 50% of Americans who think Saddam was behind 9/11 must really be ignorant and stupid then.
>But hey, that plays right into Bush’s hands, doesn’t it?
That is why implication and allusion are so often ustilized in politics with this administration in particular. When called to the carpet on something, the very ready response is, and not incorrectly, “I never said that!”
Fred
A few points here and there:
“”They’ve switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue.”
Sure it is. The guy who claimed he wasn’t fired at got a Silver Star for the SAME ACTION. I guess it took him 30+ years to realize the ‘V’ was there.”
Irrelevant. The problem is the V. You don’t get Vs on Silver Stars. Perhaps it is a simple error; if so I’m sure the Kerry folks will be grateful for setting the record straight.
“”John O’Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN”
oh, you must be talking about a John O’Neill other than the one hired by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry during his first successful senate run.
You know, the John O’Neill who was part of the Republican Nixon’s Dirty Tricks campaign who went on the Ðìçk Cavett Show to “debate” Kerry?”
Don’t know why you would put “debate” in quotes. It was an actual debate and both guys pretty much held their own. I suspect that Kerry would much rather people not see the debate now, since his attitude toward the war seems to have changed a bit (I hear pro-Kerry people talking about how he “defended America”–an interesting point of view regarding Vietnam. Used to be that kind of talk was reserved for real hardcore Conservative types.)
At any rate, hating Kerry does not make one a republican any more than hating Bush instantly makes on a Democrat. One could be a yellow dog democrat and find Kerry
edhopper wrote:
“I understand your feelings, but I must disagree. I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some “anti-protesters”.”
So, now the protest numbers are swelling to 500,000… sorry, I’m still seeing numbers put at around 100,000-120,000… Of course, the NY Times wouldn’t be inflating the numbers simply because they’re known to have an axe to grind against Bush, eh? Nah! I wonder if the first day numbers will mysterioulsy climb to a million soon?
NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers.
They just did a story on the radio about the protestors that were arrested. They are being held without access to lawyers or anyone else. New York City Council members asked to see the proetestors being held cause they heard of this, and they were DENIED access to the protestors. Being detained for protesting usually consist of standing before a judge and then released. IT IS OUTRAGES that anyone is being held for unspecified time for protesting.
“That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?”
I’ll tell you what, if someone can actually *find* Bush’s complete national guard records, I’ll call for Kerry to produce his.
“Irrelevant. The problem is the V. You don’t get Vs on Silver Stars. Perhaps it is a simple error; if so I’m sure the Kerry folks will be grateful for setting the record straight.”
I was wrong. The V was for his Bronze, not Silver Star.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH31Aa03.html
Thank-you Jason. Instead of watching footage and assuming what was going on this reporter actually talked to people to see what was behind their actions. A good article.
One thing the GOP definitely doesn’t need but are gonna get anyway is the leftovers of Tropical Depressiom Gaston tomorow. But then again, all that rain will probably help wash away all the elephant dung and b*llsh*t. 😉
“If yelling at people is aggression then the protest was far more aggressive than you think. Just as an experiment, try holding a pro-Bush sign at the next big protest. Don’t say a word, don’t glare, don’t make faces. just stand there with a sign as the marchers go past.
the level of aggression you have directed at you may be disheartening.”
Sorry I guess you weren’t there. There were quite a few folks standing along the route holding Bush signs. Mostly they were ignored. These “Protest Warriors” pushed their way into the midst of the march. They were provocative. I assume they wanted to start something more violent, since their stated claim on their website was to distrupt the rally.
“So, now the protest numbers are swelling to 500,000… sorry, I’m still seeing numbers put at around 100,000-120,000… Of course, the NY Times wouldn’t be inflating the numbers simply because they’re known to have an axe to grind against Bush, eh? Nah! I wonder if the first day numbers will mysterioulsy climb to a million soon?”
NY Times. Knight Ridder, NBC all getting it wrong, huh? I was there. I’ve been to other protest here that had 100,000 to 200,000 and this was much bigger. The Times underreported those. Maybe they decided to get it right this time?
Karen said:
“Those of you who choose to believe the lies about the service to our country of Kerry and Cleland, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. John O’Neil has hated Kerry since the Senate hearings and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The US Navy investigated these same claims about Kerry’s service back then and found them totally unfounded. Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527’s. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent. If you are not for them, you are labeled unpatriotic. I am glad there are protesters in NYC. Protests before the war weren’t covered and the women’s march on the White House was only partially covered in the news. At least now other Americans can see they are not alone in opposing the policies of the people currently in office.”
Allow me to rephrase.
Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. Terry McAulife has hated Bush since the Democrats lost the 2000 election and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The press investigated claims about Bush’s service back then and found them totally unfounded. Kerry, instead of condemning Democratic 527s, wants to limit our free speech by banning only Republican-sponsered ones. Not surprising, since Kerry has a problem with anyone telling the truth about his past. If you are not for him, even when proved true, you are accused of calling him unpatriotic. I am curious about how the protestors in NYC are going to be covered. The protests in Boston, which the Democrats tried to block (such as a business owner asked to take down an anti-Kerry sign and people forced into small, out-of-the-way protest zones) were very rarely covered by the left-leaning media. The Democrat-controled media does not want anyone to know that people are opposed to Kerry.
spike wrote:
“NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers.”
It could very well be that the numbers given the the authorities are somehwat low, but couldn’t it very well be that the numbers being given by the NY Times and NPR (and who’s their source? The NY Times?) being way too high?
edhopper wrote:
“NY Times. Knight Ridder, NBC all getting it wrong, huh? I was there. I’ve been to other protest here that had 100,000 to 200,000 and this was much bigger. The Times underreported those. Maybe they decided to get it right this time?”
Then how do you explain such a huge difference in the numbers being reported? Is it 500,000 or 100,000? Curious, where is Knight Rider and NBC getting their numbers from? The NY Times? Or a different source? Or are all of these places, which you cite, getting their numbers from just one place?
(Of course, anything the NY Times reports I’ll take with a grain of salt.)
Allow me to rebut:
“Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites.”
What lies? I am strictly talking about service to the country in the military. Are you trying to tell me that Bush DID see combat and the Democrats are saying he did not deserve his medals?
“Terry McAulife has hated Bush since the Democrats lost the 2000 election and is doing what he can to damage his reputation.”
Hmmm. 30 years of hatred to 4 years of working against a Bush re-election. There is ample evidence that O’Neil hates Kerry. What is your evidence that McAulife hates Bush?
“The press investigated claims about Bush’s service back then and found them totally unfounded.”
There are still missing pieces. His service records have not all been found.
“Kerry, instead of condemning Democratic 527s, wants to limit our free speech by banning only Republican-sponsered ones.”
He asked Bush to condemn the lies about his service. He did not call for a ban. When McCain asked that ads with him complaining about Bush’s treatment of him be pulled, they were. Kerry took responsibility for those ads, even though McCains words are a matter of record. Has Bush called for pulling ads which have been proven false?
“Not surprising, since Kerry has a problem with anyone telling the truth about his past.”
Again, where is your evidence? Most of his past is a matter of public record. What lies are you talking about?
“If you are not for him, even when proved true, you are accused of calling him unpatriotic.”
And what evidence do you have for this statement? I have not heard any Dem call anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.
“I am curious about how the protestors in NYC are going to be covered. The protests in Boston, which the Democrats tried to block (such as a business owner asked to take down an anti-Kerry sign and people forced into small, out-of-the-way protest zones) were very rarely covered by the left-leaning media. The Democrat-controled media does not want anyone to know that people are opposed to Kerry.”
Are you kidding? Do you truly think we don’t know there is opposition to Kerry? The protest-zone story was all over the media. I think it more likely that Republicans didn’t bother to protest because they think they will win the election without having to resort to that.
As for how many protesters there were, just look at a picture in ANY newspaper. Without an exact count we can all believe that there were A LOT.
I mentioned this before but here is the actual quote from the New York Times:
“The protest organizer, United for Peace and Justice, estimated the crowd at 500,000, rivaling a 1982 antinuclear rally in Central Park, and double the number it had predicted. It was, at best, a rough estimate. The Police Department, as is customary, offered no official estimate, but one officer in touch with the police command center at Madison Square Garden agreed that the crowd appeared to be close to a half-million.”
So the Times quotes the organizers and an unnamed cop. I don’t see this as particularly biased since they make it clear that these are very rough estimates. Anyone who says that “the Times is reporting that there were 500,000 protestors” is either deliberately being misleading or just doesn’t have the facts. It would be like saying that the Times is reporting that Kerry lied about Vietnam when they are actually just quoting the Swift Vets For Truth.
And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN…oh, wait. He didn’t.
But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush’s unprovoked war efforts were uniliterally behind Clinton when he…oh, wait. They weren’t.
Well, hey, color me convinced…PAD
The point of my statement is not if the Republicans “pundits” supported Clinton when he bombed Iraq. The point is Clinton did it without all the hand wrangling from DEMOCRATS. It seems that dems and hundreds of thousand of protestors dont mind Iraqis and us soldiers dying as long as it’s by a DEMOCRAT.
The US didnt defy the UN. Resolution 1441 gave power to the colitian to remove Saddam. But since a Republican did it, its wrong in the eyes of PAD. Clinton can bomb the Sudan, Iraq, and Bosnia(our national interest and security were at risk there) back to the stoneage but as long as a D is next the President’s name everything is cool.
Oh Micheal Moore was in president’s box sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Dems convention. Can you image if any of the Swift Boat vets were invited to the Republican convention the outrage that would ensue.
As far as what Bush said and what he didnt say. Its all online. His public speeches, the speeches after 9-11 etc. No need for distortions PAD
“That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?”
I’ll tell you what, if someone can actually *find* Bush’s complete National Guard records, I’ll call for Kerry to produce his.
So the fact that some of Bush’s records have been lost allows Kerry to deliberately hide his? Sounds to me like he may have something to hide, though I suspect that it may be more likely a health issue than anything really involving his service in Vietnam (Kerry has lied at least once about his health to the press).
I don’t mean to really pick on Kerry over this, since one only has limited control over the capricious whims of fate where health is involved but given the powers of the presidency, given the fact that we give this person powers once reserved for the Greek Gods, I think that a full, 100% un-redacted release of all health records should be demanded of all candidates.
I’m going to make a prediction: When Bush wins the 2004 Election, it will be because, according to the Left, of the Swift Boat Vets and their “lies” and because of the “vast right wing conspiracy.”
I, myself, feel that, in contrast, the Democrats can blame their upcoming failure in significant part on Michael Moore and Richard Clarke and their lies and the partisan media bias.
DW
James:
>Oh Micheal Moore was in president’s box sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Dems convention. Can you image if any of the Swift Boat vets were invited to the Republican convention the outrage that would ensue.
I’ve actually heard that Moore was not formally invited to the convention and he raised quite a stink to get in and around while there. Knowing quit a bit about Carter’s character, it isn’t a far strtch to imagine him playing the hospital and charitable type, letting Moore sit there to avoid problems.
As far as a possible loss in the upcoming elctions being in large part to Moore, I’d like to hear your reasoning Darin. Although Moore tends to be a lightening rod for controversy and his films largely questioned, I haven’t made note of anything he has done to effect Kerry in any other way than to raise issues to a boiling point for the electorate a few months before it would have happened anyways. Certainly can’t figure out any way in which Moore has hurt Kerry. If anything, Moore has only hurt Moore as far as most critics that I’ve talked with.
Fred
“I, myself, feel that, in contrast, the Democrats can blame their upcoming failure in significant part on Michael Moore and Richard Clarke and their lies and the partisan media bias.”
Please give examples of Clarke’s lies.
Iraq seeking uranium?
Meetings dealing with Iraq invasion in Jan O1?
Diversions of millions from the Afgan War to Iraq without congressional approval?
And the media really exposed hoe flismy the case for WMDs was before the war.
Give me a effing break.
Please give examples of Clarke’s lies.
try
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html
At the very least, he seems to alter stories to fit whatever is useful to him at the time he tells them.
I was going to post a long response here. Someone really pìššëd me off.
But, I caught myself.
All I can say is this:
If people were looking for an intelligent conversation from two different parties to understand which person they would vote for. Well, if they came here, they’d end up voting for Green Part or Nader. But they’d definitely not vote for the jáçkáššëš or the pachyderms.
Travis
Just watched McCain’s speech. How refreshing. Support for his candidate without attacking his opponents. I liked his speech very much. Hasn’t changed my mind, but more positive politics is always appreciated.
Sorry I guess you weren’t there. There were quite a few folks standing along the route holding Bush signs. Mostly they were ignored. These “Protest Warriors” pushed their way into the midst of the march. They were provocative. I assume they wanted to start something more violent, since their stated claim on their website was to distrupt the rally.
Just to show an alternate view– try http://blindpig.blogs.com/outside_the_perimeter/2004/08/when_anarchists.html
It’s a video so you don’t just have to take someone’s word on it.
Just out of curiosity…when you say that they “pushed their way into the midst of the march”…exactly what WERE the ground rules for marching? I assumed that anyone could march–was there some kind of registration? Loyalty oath?
Nice speach by McCain, BTW
Karen wrote:
>>>Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527’s. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent.
Face it… Bush has been hammered by the left in films, newspapers and on TV since he took office, but in the past six months, the anti-Bush fervor has reached unprecedented proportions — including in what once was, for a while, somewhat of a refuge from the back-biting and name-calling — the venerable book store. My second home is in book stores, and I can’t walk anywhere in one now without passing row after row of books demonizing Bush. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but it’s to the point now I feel sorry for the guy, because I know that the majority of attacks are just far-left crap.
One anti-Bush book, for example, is by a New York Times columnist whose column was once recommended to me as a “must read” by an acquaintance. Well, I read it, and my journalism school alarm bells suddenly started clanging like crazy. So I went to the columnist’s Web site and read another. Then another. And another. Soon, I had a revelation. In the four years this columnist had been writing about Bush (generally a couple of times a week), he never ONCE had a positive word to say about Bush or Bush’s administration.And so it goes with many of these other authors.
And now that the Republicans are striking back with just a fraction of the fervor as the leftists, the cries of “Republican Spin Machine” are suddenly everywhere. As an independent, I find this quite humorous, because, by comparison, the Republican “machine” is a mere Tinkertoy compared to the Democratic Spin Machine.
And the irony of it all is that despite the fact that the Democrats are outspending the Republicans in combined hard/soft money, they are actually losing ground.
Yep! Free speech works both ways, even if you don’t like the outcome.
Whoa…I thought McCain was good but Gulliani hit the ball out of the park.
Karen wrote: “He asked Bush to condemn the lies about his service. He did not call for a ban. When McCain asked that ads with him complaining about Bush’s treatment of him be pulled, they were. Kerry took responsibility for those ads, even though McCains words are a matter of record. Has Bush called for pulling ads which have been proven false?”
You clearly don’t understand the new laws that ironically a moderate (McCain) and a liberal (Feinberg — sp??) wrote. Bush could not ask for the ads to be pulled. In fact, according to the letter of the law, that would be coordination and would be gainst the law. My memory is that the ads Kerry pulled were ones he approved.
For the wishful thinkers who blame Bush for this law, go recheck the record. This was opposed by many of us conservatives. It was moderates and liberals who wanted this and Bush gave them what they wanted (believe it or not, I can make a list of things Bush does I do not agree with, even though I support him!!).
It is amazing the way there is a double standard. I don’t know the exact figures anymore, but Democrats have spent at least 80% more (I think the exact figures is 150 million versus about 20 million) on attack ads. The difference is, the Republicans “attack machine” ran ads that must have hit close to the truth. They did not have to spend 3 years promoting a lie (such as that Bush “stole” the elections). They just had to point out the historical fact that Kerry was anti-war when he returned from Vietnam. They just pointed out the fact that Kerry himself made contradictory claims about his time in Vietnam. They just pointed out that Kerry has no record to run on for his 19 years in the Senate. And the list goes on.
Ignore the fact that Bush called for all ads to be pulled. He is clearly, and without nuance or wiggle room, stating repeatedly on the record that John Kerry served honorably. Comapre that to Kerry who continues to raise false allegations about Bush. Their actions speak for themselves.
Jim in Iowa
b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using.
Funny. I don’t remember the Bush campaign or the Republicans demanding that F9/11 not be shown in movie theaters because it “contains falsehoods.” In fact, until McCain’s speech today at the RNC, Moore and that crapmentary had went largely unmentioned by the Republicans. Outside of the inevitable few protest groups, the Republicans have been largely pro free speech regarding all the anti-Bush, anti-Cheney, and anti-Republican books/movies/etc.
Compare and contrast this with the Kerry campaign. They have actually resorted to legal threats in order to prevent TV stations from airing those SwiftBoatVets ads. And they’ve outright tried to prevent anybody from publishing “Unfit for Command.”
And hey Peter David? You’re the biggest First Amendment supporter around here, even to the point of allowing somebody like that “shrouded” troll run around amok for way longer than it deserved to. Heck, you even let me post on your blog despite my nasty actions to you several years ago. There is no question how highly you value the First Amendment. So why have you been absolutely mum on this subject? The Kerry campaign is outright attempting to supress free speech! But not a peep from you.
Second, Kerry is running a far more negative campaign than Bush is. His whole acceptance speech at the DNC was basically “I’m better than Bush! BETTER! You hear me, BETTER!” without explaining why. Thus far, I’ve seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard, the “infamous” seven minutes (nevermind the fact that Kerry admits to sitting there in stunned silence for thirty-five minutes), and his so-called “web of connections” to the Saudis. Kerry has not really debated any of Bush’s policies (perhaps because just about all of Kerry’s policies echoes Bush’s policies — Kerry really is Bush-Lite when it comes to his policy).
On the other side, Bush has had nothing but glowing praise for Kerry’s Vietnam stint. Bush’s attacks on Kerry thus far has been contained to Kerry’s extremely poor Senate record. Which *is* fair game. Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads, but when he challenged Kerry to do the same thing and condemn 527’s all Kerry could do was mutter “well you didn’t say it exactly the way I wanted you to!”
Let’s not forget the fact that roughly 80% of the money spent by the 527 groups have been anti-Bush. Kerry benefits from the 527’s far more than Bush does, which is why he refuses to condemn those groups. But he has no problems at all condemning the pro-Republican 20%.
As far as the SBV attacking Kerry on Vietnam … it was Kerry who made it an issue by “reporting for duty” at the DNC. He made the bed, he can sleep in it.
And finally, this piece of idiocy:
Better yet! Maybe the President who spent more than 40% of his time on vacation in the months between his inauguration and 9/11 can accuse Kerry of missing too many senate meetings, and the ditto-heads will echo that one, too!
Please, stop getting your facts from F9/11. That “42% vacation time” figure has long since been disproved. That figure included weekends (which, assuming you worked the standard five-workdays week, would automatically give you 29% “vacation time” right there) and “working vacations” at Camp David and his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The actual “vacation time” figure is about 13%.
Stats taken from: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
In short, don’t take your cues from F9/11. That movie has been proven worthless.
I don’t think Bush should pull the ads. They are not his to pull. I think he should condemn the ads. The military had already investigated the swiftboat vets for “truth”s claims 30 years ago and they were unfounded then as they are now. There is no double standard. How much has the Bush campaign raised? If you want to talk money then moveon.org’s contribution is a pittance compared to what is in the Bush war chest. You are comparing apples and oranges. What false allegations has Kerry raised against Bush? I’d like to know because I’ve heard about underfunded education, job loss, an economy in shambles, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Which ones are you considering lies?
I don’t believe for one second that President Bush’s military records are “lost”. No way, no how, not with all the record keeping in the government. How convenient that they are not to be seen. Just like the missing segment of the Nixon tapes. Hmmm….
Hermann way above wrote:
” I wonder what would happen if the government offered a tax deduction for proof of voting?”
The Australian system goes one better: anyone NOT voting gets a fine (which I believe shows up on their tax bills so it can’t be avoided). They get 95%+ turnouts every time.
If this years election doesn’t get a decent turnout, then I don’t know what will motivate Americans.
PAD responded to “Bush, for the most part, has attempted what he promised.”
by saying
“Yes. That’s the most horrifying thing of all.”
Personally I think the horrifying thing is how badly he’s bungled all of it. Afghanistan stumbles back into the situation that created the Taliban rule, atrocities at Abu Ghraib, needless casualties, cost over-runs… I was disgusted in 2000 to see a fake Republican run against a real one, who knew it would turn out that Gore/Lieberman were the real Republican candidates in that race?