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
• 
PAD,
I love coming to this blog. I really like to read your comments. Since I get my comics from Westifield a month after they come out, I don’t even read the comics related threads so I can avoid spoilers. I love to read the give and take of everyones opinions, even the ones I vehemently disagree with. Everything I know about you personally comes from reading this blog and some of your CBG columns. You should in no way be receiving this harrassment. I think, since you allowed the shrouded one so much leeway, that you must have been putting up with this for quite some time. (I am extrapolating from prior behavior, but am in no way implying that I DO know you.) If you ended this blog tomorrow, I would miss it greatly, but I certainly would understand. Your home and family are off limits and should always be off limits. There is a separation that should have been inferred. For those of you using this blog as a jumping off point for your childish and rude behavior, shame on you all.
PAD,
I am sorry so many people give you a hard time and screw you over, but am not one of them. In Fact, I have done four stories promoting your work:
1.) A story on Star Trek novels and comics in whch I stated that “two writers stand out from all the rest, Peter David and Michael Jan Friedman”. then proceeded to plug your comic run, urged readers to pick up your comc run, and urged them to pick up “The Best of Star Trek” and “The Modala Imperative” trades, as well as “Imzadi”.
2.) In my Phladelphia Daily News “Nemesis” package, I did a story on the Top Ten “Next Gen” Books Ever”, and chose your work for the first 8 slots: “Vendetta”, “Imzadi”, “A Rock and a Hard Place”, “Q-Squared”, “Q-In-Law”, “New Frontier:House of Cards”, “Wrath of the Prophets” and “Imzadi II”
3.) Around the time of the Hulk movie, I did a story on your career based on your interview with me at WizardEast, and it appeared n both Allentown’s “Mornng Call” and the “Daily News”
4.) and both also carred my “Top Eleven Hulk Comic Stories Ever”, in which I chose your tales for the top five slots and seven overall, and also urged people to go to their local comic shop to track them down.
I am sorry many people have hurt you PAD, but I have done none of the things you mentioned or anything similar. I am sorry you are so angry, but no matter what you will always be one of my favorite writers.
Peter, I cannot say strongly enough how dismayed I am to hear about the level of personal and family harassment you are enduring. In your other thread, I wondered about the degree of venom and vitriol that seemd to be infecting American politics and life in general. I was assured by another of your correspondants that that type of destructive behaviour disappeared in times of need and Americans pulled together in when things got rough.
Frankly, I’m not sure I believe it. I’ve studied too much history, follow too much news (from a variety of sources)to accept that this is just a big food fight, forgotten in the morning. When a people whose very nation is ostensibly predicated on freedom and mutual respect starts practicing the kind of assault (because that is exactly what it is) on someone who is doing what your founding fathers so wisely saw was the sanest and most rational way to foster civilisation and civilised behaviour, then the jackboots and the brownshirts are not too far down the road.
Every major power in history has fallen. Every single one. America could be an exception but as Abe liked to say “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I fear America has become that house.
Please keep doing what you are doing as long as you can. I don’t envy you the task (things are a tad less divisive up north despite the efforts of some of our own Neanderthals to turn back the clock) but nonetheless, I find myself listening to some of my fellow Canadians spout nonsense that undermines the essence of what we are supposed to be – a gentle, polite, mutually supportive people. Should you decide that Genucht ist genucht, we’ll have to settle for your books and your comics, but, hey, that ain’t too shabby.
Keep well. The Reverend Mr. Black
Oh hëll no! Nuh-uh, no one, NO ONE is making me give up my love of PAD and his books!!! Not me, not politics……. not even Mr. David himself! Mr. David, man, I got to meet you at Dreamcon and you are one of the nicest guys in the biz and your kids were just darling. Anyone that messes with the family is lower then a racid snake snotrag and should be beaten with a wet knotted rope. I hope things get better, I hate to see this get personal and upsetting to you guys…
Carl Booth II aka MIB44
Was that rancid snake snotrag or rabid snake snotrag? I agree with your sentiments. It’s one thing to come here and join a discussion against whatever topic PAD has chosen. It’s quite another to make it personal. I wonder what all those wonderful writers and artists of yesteryear would have done if someone who did not agree with them followed them home from one of the salons? I bet we’d be missing much wit and wisdom right now.
I am sorry so many people give you a hard time and screw you over, but am not one of them.
And there are tons of people who protest stuff that don’t do something stupid to make the front page news.
Yet, all liberal protestors in NYC right now are getting painted by the same brush due to the actions of a few. Indeed, conservatives seem to be getting a laugh out of the whole thing, commenting on how it should hurt Kerry in the long run (this is on another forum, btw).
So, it goes both ways.
Craig,
What is your problem lately? The post I made above was not to “make it about me” but to let PAD know that he does have some people here who, rather than screw him over, support him. And you launch a parrallel with NYC protestors. You seem very bitter lately, which is a shame, because I remember when only a short time ago the two of us could have a reasoned discussion. Now Gulian is an “idiot”, and you take a personal sentiment toward PAD and make it political. It’s really a shame.
But the last time I suggested people donate to the tip jar to show their appreciation for all the work he puts into this place, not only did I catch flack about it, but the total amount left was under ten bucks. So frankly, I’m losing patience with everybody.
Considering that I’d entirely intended to donate at the time and had it slip out of mind, I felt guilty this time. 🙂 So I just attempted to donate over at the tip jar…
only to have PayPal crash out on me and say “please try again later.”
One hopes this doesn’t happen often — I’ve never used them before.
In any case, I’ll second other people — have a good time at DragonCon, and I hope you find your spirits lifted by the time you return. I understand the bitterness in some ways (both the political and the ongoing attempts to keep Fallen Angel thriving), but I hope both ease enough to get you some equilibrium back.
TWL
staying out of politics for a while
I’d hate to see this board cease to be as it is…but if Peter requested that conservatives or anyone else who disagrees with him take it elsewhere, I would. This is his house and when you are invited to someone’s home (or, as in this case, just show up) you can’t get too huffy about any “my way or the highway” rules.
But I’d really miss it. My wife and kids are so apolitical it’s almost scary so I can’t get into any discussions with them before I see the Glossy Eyes Of Death. I enjoy the passion expressed, even if it isn’t always tempered by reason (and I may be guilty of that myself on occassion but we are sinners all).
However I also realize that some folks take this a good deal more personally than others. Also, while I’d like to think that if the situation were reversed, if some liberal Democrats were trying to get me kicked out of my school (unlikely, since around here I am practically a tree hugging hippy in comparison to most here), I would be able to avoid regarding all liberals “with suspicion”, well, that’s easy to say when you aren’t the one being harassed.
Just hate to see a few dìçkhëádš spoil it for everyone but that has been the way of the world.
Tim,
Glad to see you back, man. How are mom and the little one doing? If, at any point in the last few weeks, you have found yourself at some obscene hour of the night awake, wondering “What the hëll have I done?”, don’t worry, that’s pretty normal. It gets better. You’ll wonder one day what exactly you did before you had kids.
First I asked: “Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore’s crockumentary, which shows a “reckless disregard for the truth” (as many websites have documented), you would’ve been OK with it?”
Then Peter David said: You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it.
That doesn’t answer my question at all. I even worded my questions very carefully as to not attempt to put any words in your mouth.
First, the Reagan biopic did had a “reckless disregard for truth.” It had the Reagans saying lines that they never did say in an effort to paint them in a negative light. Even then, the Republicans in the government did nothing to shut that movie down. CBS folded under pressure of boycotting from customers and adversiters and put it on a pay-only channel instead.
Second, got any proof for the claim that Jeb Bush tried to get Disney to dump F9/11 by threatening legal problems? I’d like to see a link on that. Preferably from somebody NOT Michael Moore.
And finally … if I were to accept your version, which I don’t, here we have two so-called examples of Republicans actively trying to prevent movies they disagree with from being aired. Both movies, without question, show a “reckless disregard for the truth” which you seem to feel is not protected by the First Amendment, as reflected by your earlier comments regarding you being OK with the Democrats trying to prevent TV stations from airing SBV’s political ads by threatening legal action (and this we know to be true, we have the memo on record) and attempting to prevent “Unfit for Command” from being published.
Are you then perfectly OK with the Republicans attempting to shut down the Reagan biopic and Moore’s F9/11? Do you think it is not a First Amendment issue at all?
And if you want me to leave your blog, just say it. Say “Starving Writer, please leave my blog and never come back” and I will do so. Or ban me. It is your weblog to do as you see fit.
What is your problem lately?
Well, as I said, Bush is an idiot, Guiliani is an idiot for supporting Bush, so I think you know part of my “problem”.
As for bitter, you haven’t seen nothing yet, particularly if Bush wins the farce… err, election.
As it stands, you may not have anything against PAD and what he says, but to many he’s just another crazy liberal, and the NYC protestors bear that out. PAD’s comments regarding what he’s had to put up with lately bear that out as well.
Apparently the idea of posting what I see on other boards about how some react toward liberals didn’t sink in, and people probably just dont’ give a dámņ.
Besides, the title of this thread is “Protestors: Just what the GOP ordered”.
Bill,
while I’d like to think that if the situation were reversed, if some liberal Democrats were trying to get me kicked out of my school (unlikely, since around here I am practically a tree hugging hippy in comparison to most here)
Reminds me of what a friend of mine said last New Year’s Eve, when we were all up at his place in San Francisco. “I love living in this town. Here, I’m considered a moderate or even borderline conservative. Other places I’d probably be burnt at the stake.”
[And just for those who equate liberals with “godless atheist types”, said friend is also one of the most deeply devout Christians I’ve ever met. He and his wife simply use their faith as a blueprint for their own life, not a bludgeon for others’.]
Tim, glad to see you back, man. How are mom and the little one doing?
So far, so good. My mother-in-law got in Tuesday night, just in time for me to start school on Wednesday, so the support system is still there. Katherine is very well — the plumbing certainly works (lots coming in, f*ing wheelbarrowloads coming out :-), she’s comfortably gaining weight, and while she’s got fussy moments we’ve only had a couple of parental meltdowns so far.
All is well. (We are looking forward to her getting a bit more interactive, when we can get genuine smiles and feedback other than “hmm. She didn’t cry for THIS five-minute period…”)
You’ll wonder one day what exactly you did before you had kids.
It’s already getting difficult to remember the B.K.E (Before Katherine Era), and it hasn’t even been two weeks yet. I’m chalking that one up to sleep deprivation…
TWL
Had lots to say but Pad’s last comments have tempered them. I enjoy your forum, Peter, first because I respect the hëll outta your writing and buy everything of I can written by Peter David, and secondly because you have taken the time to interact with your public and given us a forum that we can use for discussion and debate. I mostly agree with your politcal viewpoints and appreciate your comments. I do tend to get heated when discussing politics but as one other person stated, the rest of my family is apolitical and its energizing to find a forum for discussion. My apologies if I’ve ever made your situation worse by what’s posted here.
Man, I hate mangling an edit..
Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn’t a matter of “flip-flopping” or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.
Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.
Posted by Joe Nazzaro at August 29, 2004 09:34 PM
If there’s one canard that really drives me nuts, it’s ‘Iraq is better off now…’ Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now… If you want to send us into war to topple Saddam, fine. If you want to go to war because of weapons programs, or UN violations or whatever, that’s fine. But don’t tell me one thing and change the story after the fact.
Well said!!
Posted by Denis V. at August 29, 2004 11:06 PM
As for the WMD’s, you’re making it sound like Bush made this up all by himself.
But he is insisting they existed even after so many have said they weren’t there, they were never there and we were wrong.
And also, you’re over exagerating when you claim the rationale is changing…
No, he isn’t.
all that have you mentioned was part of the reason for invading Iraq. Sure, from the WMD’s, to me anyway, was the most paramount being touted, but don’t pretend the other reasons were not brought up before the toppling of Saddam took place
No pretense. We were told that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US because it possessed WMD. That was the only reason we went to war. It was suppose to be to protect our nation from further attack. Anything more is your presumption and was not the national position.
Posted by Joe Krolik at August 30, 2004 12:42 AM
Like many others I believe that Saddam DID have WMDs, but that he somehow disposed of them to other location(s) during the continual back and forth “negotiations” that took weeks during the UN’s fiasco with inspectors.
There is No, nada, zip, none, nein, NO evidence of that.
Posted by Gorginfoogle at August 30, 2004 02:33 AM
More importantly, Jason, do you then mean that if Bush doesn’t mention 9/11 at all during the Convention then you won’t have a reason to protest? Yes, I realize how unlikely that is, but still.
That was blown when Rudy presented us with an if/then proposition. IF you want to honor those who dies on 9-11 THEN you should vote for George Bush. I found that offensive. I will NOT dishonor those who perished on 9-11 just because I vote for Kerry.
Posted by Jerome Maida at August 30, 2004 11:30 AM
Re: McCain
As far as the liberal media is concerned, McCain’s critique of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads is devastating. Because what the media and the liberals who seem to swoon over McCain every time he acts like a Democrat fail to realize is that many – especially his fellow Republicans – don’t like his voting record, feel he panders to the media, comes off self-righteous and appears to be thin-skinned. In fact, Cleland and he seem to be forming a group – Thin-Skinned Vietman War Veterans Adored by the Media. of course, the acronym, TSVWVAM isn’t really catchy, so maybe they’ll change it.
And yet the republicans chose to give him one of the most visible speech times. Perhaps they see his popularity far exceeds their own.
Posted by Jerome Maida at August 30, 2004 11:59 AM
Oh, and The New York Times “proved” a connection between the Bush campaign and The Swift Boat ads? The paper whose publisher has gone on record as saying the Times is liberal and that he doesn’t like Bush?
Yep, I believe they did.
Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president’s private box at the DNC? But no, he’s still an “independent” voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
Sigh.
Moore was there for USAToday
Posted by Jim in Iowa at August 30, 2004 01:13 PM
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.
Of course they are, Jim. It’s their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild. It doesn’t make the destruction any more beneficial.
Posted by Jim in Iowa at August 30, 2004 01:19 PM
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
What facts? There were no facts that suggested any connection between Hussain and 9-11. As far as the administration wanting us to connect the two? Lemme give you a recent fer instance. Cheney’s speech. Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that included the word: Sensitive. Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war. The use of the two situations interchangably are exactly why at one point 72%, NOT 3o but 72% of all Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 30, 2004 03:48 PM
As far as the Swift Boat Vets go, let’s see how they have done so far with their 3 ads: 1– They claimed that Kerry did not deserve his medals–highly debatable. A few inconsistencies have turned up but nothing that seems to me to have reached the level of importance given to it. (That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?).
Kerry has an obligation to a contract made with a writer, I won’t say biographer because I’m not certain that’s what the book was, concerning his records and diaries. he DID release them to a number of reporters although he wouldn’t allow them to be removed or copied. Those reporters found no surprises.
Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
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.
First, I haven’t seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone’s politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.
Posted by Dennis V. at August 30, 2004 07:09 PM
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
The number issue seems to frighten you, Dennis. Yes, there are that many people upset at your president. You’ve been given a number of independent sources as well as several eye witness accounts yet you still cling to one single contradictory account.
Posted by Fred Chamberlain at August 30, 2004 08:01 PM
James:
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.
He was there for USAToday
Posted by Starving Writer at August 31, 2004 03:04 AM
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.
You didn’t watch, did you? 🙂 Of course his comments on jobs, the economy, health care, social security, prescription drug costs wouldn’t be relevant. riiiight.
Thus far, I’ve seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard,
Um…Inconsequental? *cough*
the “infamous” seven minutes (nevermind the fact that Kerry admits to sitting there in stunned silence for thirty-five minutes),
Kerry wasn’t the leader of our nation then. Big ole difference in level of responsibility
On the other side, Bush has had nothing but glowing praise for Kerry’s Vietnam stint.
Glowing? LOL Nah. I don’t think so. After many weeks of Kerry bashing when he saw the polls and the people were taking a dim view of the bashing SBVs he finally made the statement that Kerry earned his medals. of course by then he knew the effectiveness of the ads was done.
Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads,
No he didn’t. He said all the ads should be pulled but he refused to condemn the SBVs.
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!”
Wrong again. Kerry condemned several ads bashing Bush immediately after they aired and asked the president to do the same. He finally commented three weeks later.
Posted by Dennis V. at August 31, 2004 04:10 AM
Yes Karen, there were definitely a lot of people… but there’s a big differnce in claiming there were 500,000 people versus other claims of about 100,000–120,000 people. 500,000 is just such an inflated number.
Geez almighty, Dennis. Were you there?
Posted by Craig J. Ries at August 31, 2004 09:10 AM
Whoa…I thought McCain was good but Gulliani hit the ball out of the park.
To quote Giuliani:
“We need George Bush more than ever.”
Yeah, he just proved to me that he’s a bigger idiot than I imagined.
Those were not his words. He actually said: Paraphrased, that nothing of this magnitude had ever happened and no one could be prepared for this that they would have to make up the response on their own.
“And what evidence do you have for this statement? I have not heard any Dem call anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.”
Oh, well, if you haven’t heard of it. Just because it happens every single time…
Charles K, post proof. I think you’re projecting.
Posted by Ken at August 31, 2004 08:59 PM
“I have a hard time believing that half the country could be wrong….. “
I have a hard time believing that half the country is any where close to an accurate figure!
Most likely 30% or less!
As I posted earlier, it was actually 72% at one time.
I tend to think it would be obvious: The First Amendment doesn’t support libel and slander. And considering you’ve got people who back in 1996 stood next to Kerry and called him a hero now claiming he’s a coward, I think the “reckless disregard for the truth” test is reasonable.
PAD
Bingo! Exactly!
Posted by Carl at September 1, 2004 12:23 AM
250 vets whose story hasn’t changed vs. Kerry (who has changed stories at least 5 times just on the Christmas in Cambodia) and his 14 vets on his side. Karen…….. you do the math… : D
The men who served under Kerry, on his boat, the other swift boat Captain still alive and there that day, the man he rescued and the official records all support Kerry’s version. YOU do the logic.
8.) We find the New York Times runnng 43 front page stories in 47 days on Abu Ghraib incidents to be Bush bashing, especially most of the stores contained nothing new. I mean, if they did that many front page stories on education or the environment, we may actually get somewhere. But those stores would not hurt Bush nearly as much as this “scandal”.
My point exactly. You see any questioning, any reporting of negative incidences as “bush bashing”. Not a chance. I follow no man blindly.
Posted by Jerome Maida at September 1, 2004 02:32 AM
My father served in Vietnam, and he almost NEVER talks about it. But he does get hurt when he sees movies like “Platoon”. He’ll say to me, “It wasn’t like that. Honest.” And ‘ll say, “I know, dad.” But that’s the stereotype, of the drug using, women and chldren killing, village burning Vietnam soldier. It’s a stereotype Kerry played a huge part – heck, maybe the major part – in advancing as truth, and for that I will never forgive him.
As did members of my family. Jerome, that this upsets your father is regrettable but the members of my family that served in nam say yes, these are true incidences. They do not resent Kerry’s statements but instead appreciate the courage it took for him to speak out.
Catori, see conspiracies much, do you?
Catori writes:
Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 30, 2004 03:48 PM
As far as the Swift Boat Vets go, let’s see how they have done so far with their 3 ads: 1– They claimed that Kerry did not deserve his medals–highly debatable. A few inconsistencies have turned up but nothing that seems to me to have reached the level of importance given to it. (That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?).
“Kerry has an obligation to a contract made with a writer, I won’t say biographer because I’m not certain that’s what the book was, concerning his records and diaries. he DID release them to a number of reporters although he wouldn’t allow them to be removed or copied. Those reporters found no surprises.”
Nice try. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
“Reporting by the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry’s full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the “at least a hundred pages” a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the “full file.”
Quote:
“A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry’s records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which
consists of at least 100 pages.”
The Post story continues: “The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry’s journals and other writings to The Washington Post, saying the
senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley.” (In a subsequent Post story, Brinkley said those papers are in Kerry’s “full
control.”
Don’t just repeat the spin. Kery has promised to release ALL of his records. He hasn’t. He has claimed that he can’t because he has an agreement with a writer (which is SO much more important than letting the American public see the facts for themselves, dontcha know.). The writer disagrees.
Kerry does not seem to want to release his records. Which is fine. He doesn’t have to. But let’s not pretend he has.
Also:
You say several times that Michael Moore was at the Democrat convention because he was writing articles for USA Today. Untrue. He IS doing articles for them at the REPUBLICAN convention but that’s not quite the same thing, is it?
I don’t think either of these are deliberate lies. For one thing, they were easy to research. But since you are a sticler for the truth, well, there you are.
Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president’s private box at the DNC? But no, he’s still an “independent” voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
Sigh.
Moore was there for USAToday
No he was not. USAToday sent Ann Coulter to the DNC and Michael Moore to the RNC (so they would get “opposing viewpoints”). USAToday did not send Michael Moore to the DNC. Moore went to the DNC of his own violation.
Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads,
No he didn’t. He said all the ads should be pulled but he refused to condemn the SBVs.
I reread the article, and to be fair he didn’t outright condemn the SBV ads. But he did specifically point it out as something that had no place in the campaign.
But you’re right, he didn’t specifically condemn the ads. My bad.
Wrong again. Kerry condemned several ads bashing Bush immediately after they aired and asked the president to do the same.
Got links to that?
Thus far, I’ve seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard,
Um…Inconsequental? *cough*
Yes, inconsequental. Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency. It was all the Democrats who tried to make it an issue.
Were you this outspoken against Clinton, who openly dodged the draft? Or did you let it pass because he was a Democrat?
Glowing? LOL Nah. I don’t think so. After many weeks of Kerry bashing when he saw the polls and the people were taking a dim view of the bashing SBVs he finally made the statement that Kerry earned his medals. of course by then he knew the effectiveness of the ads was done.
Bush said, “I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.”
I have yet to see Bush attack Kerry’s Vietnam record. Sure, he’s kept quiet while others attacked Kerry’s Vietnam record. That’s the nature of politics. Kerry is the one who made his stint in Vietnam a campaign issue by “reporting for duty,” surrounding himself with his fellow veterans, and constantly talking about his Vietnam time in every f’n interview he’s ever done. He can’t make it an issue then act shocked when others decide to attack it.
As far as I’m aware Bush himself has not questioned Kerry’s Vietnam record at all. Show me a link where Bush attacks Kerry’s Vietnam record.
I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared … SEARED … in Kerry’s memory and Kerry’s post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say “I think Kerry served honorably, and I don’t think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same.”
And then Kerry refused to, saying “it’s not enough! whiiinnne!”?
Blammo!
Kerry made himself look bad by whining about the ads and trying to block them, then refusing to ask for the end of all 527s after Bush praised Kerry’s service and condemned all 527s. It made him seem selective in his whining and I think that really turned off quite a few voters.
And you say Bush is dumb? That was a political masterstroke.
Craig J. Ries wrote:
“As for bitter, you haven’t seen nothing yet, particularly if Bush wins the farce… err, election.”
This is just a sad sad statement. Are you threatening to throw a big nasty tantrum if Bush wins again? Well, I hope you don’t wear yourelf out too much because another four years is a long time to be fuming.
Well, the President’s “dog and pony” show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he’s going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message……and…..what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it’s over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!
What the hëll were they thinking?!
Maybe they were thinking that their sponsors aren’t going to be happy if we don’t cut this ineffectual lying blow-hard off at the time that he told us we be done!
“told us we be done!”
Should be:
told us he would be done!
“Maybe they were thinking that their sponsors aren’t going to be happy if we don’t cut this ineffectual lying blow-hard off at the time that he told us we be done!”
I don’t recall them cutting President Bush off. Did I miss something? You were of course referring to the President, were you not?
Sarcasm…..drip….drip….drip…..
So Bush would like us to give him four more years to do all the stuff he said he would do four years ago? This was not a sitting President’s speech, this was the speech of a guy who is running for President for the first time.
I would guess it doesn’t matter if the person on screeen is Bush, Kerry, the Pope, or Bruce Banner getting slightly irritated; if you’re at CNN, there’s one person you don’t pìšš øff, and his name rhymes with Parry Bing.
Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency.
Bush made it an issue once he showed up in that flight suit to declare that the war in Iraq was over.
This is just a sad sad statement.
Hardly. Bush is tearing this country limb from limb, and people are sitting there and supporting him for it.
That’s what’s sad.
Even more sad is that people fail to see it – they’d rather be blinded by the bumbling dûmbášš who claims to lead us.
Then you don’t mind that since Kerry based his candidacy on his Vietnam service that the SBVT are making an issue of what his did while there?
BS, IMHO. Both were discharged honorably, and Kerry received his purple hearts and medals for service. Both of these issues need to go away.
Because from this side of the aisle, we see the Democrats tearing the country limb from limb. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
To resopnd to Catori:
((Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn’t a matter of “flip-flopping” or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.
Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.))
Ummm…ok, you know what, you need to read what you’re responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I’ve had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light…Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads…ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct…I think it’s incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they’re SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry’s statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I’m sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement.
((Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
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.
First, I haven’t seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone’s politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.))
Once again, read what you respond to. I listed a number of lies that Kerry and the Democrats have told about Bush, but I’ll go ahead and recopy them from earlier in this thread:
Bush went AWOL: Lie.
Bush lied about WMDs: Lie.
Bush is connected with the SBV: Lie.
Anyone who speaks outagainst Bush is punished: Lie.
Now, the rest of your rant tells me that you didn’t bother to read my entire post either, as it is nothing more than a rewording of Karen’s post. Go yell at her.
Then you don’t mind that since Kerry based his candidacy on his Vietnam service that the SBVT are making an issue of what his did while there?
Only if they’re full of it, and I think some of them are.
Because from this side of the aisle, we see the Democrats tearing the country limb from limb.
What, did this come from “The Great Uniter”?
Bush has caused the most division in this country probably since Vietnam. It’s easy to see why the comparisons are made between Vietnam and Iraq.
Obviously some in that generation didn’t learn any lessons.
Craig,
Actually, people did learn lessons from Vietnam. They learned that if we’re going to fight a war, we’d better be in there to win. They learned that you should constantly let your troops know you support them, both in words and in deeds, and that you appreciate their sacrifice. They learned to not take actions based on what is politically popular, but on what it takes to win. They learned that if the media start calling a military a “quagmire” (after only three weeks in Iraq!), you ignore them and achieve your goal. They learned a lot of things that have made this war successful (and before you start, the WAR was amazingly successful, we are now dealing with keeping the peace). Unfortunately, most of the people who learned these lessons are Republicans. Some Democrats, like former Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and Joe Lieberman have learned this lesson as well, but as Zell Miller pointed out their lk is few and far between these days.
Also, the “divisions” of the ’60s have always been overstated. There have always been issued that divided the nation, greatly, from the visions of Kennedy vs. Nixon to Nixon himself and his impeachment to Ford’s pardoning of Nixon to the pardoning of the draft dodgers who went to Canada to carter’s inept handling of the hostage crisis and horrible economic record (but he’s a nice guy!) to Reagan’s dealings with the Soviet Union, Central America and “Reaganomics” to Clinton’s health care plan and impeachment.
Emotions ran high during these times and on these issues as well.
Catori,
1.) McCain is definitely more popular with the MEDIA, I’ll give you that
2.) Re: Refugees returning to Iraq
“Of course they are, Jim. It’s their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild”.
However, Catori, if the situation in Iraq were truly as bad as the media and protesters continue to portray it has been and is, as chaotic, and if as many Iraqis were truly as fearful and resentful of the “oppressor” U.S. as is commonly portrayed, then there would be a dire refugee crisis. Iraq had four refugee crises in the 20th century, one during 1958 and one during the war with Iran. The fact that there is no refugee crisis refutes the theory that Iraqis are generally worse off and hate the U.S. “occupation”.
“Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that includes the word Sensitive”.
No. Incorrect. Kerry was talking about the War on Terror,not Iraq specifically.
“Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war.”
Seing as how he was talking about the War on Terror, I see no problem with this statement. (But it’s heartening to know thatKerry is now directly attacking Cheney as being unfit to criticize him because he “did not serve”. Wonder how that would have been reported if Papa Bush said that about Geraldine Ferraro.
“(You see) any negative incidences as “Bush Bashing”. No, I don’t asking tough questions and digging for important answers is an essential function of our press. However, I can think of no other issue/subject in recent memory that got so much attention with so little new information. I remember asking why the Kurds and others who support us weren’t given more coverage, or at least as much coverage as Al-Sadr. I was told that since the Kurds have been supporting us, their stories are not news. But Al-Sadr is. And the Iraqi prisoner “scandal” got over a month of heavy exposure, despite not having any new info. It was all speculation; “How does this hurt Bush?”, “Will Runsfeld resign?” Ðámņ, it sure was important to show “leash lady” nonstop for six weeks. Compare that to the Oil-For-Food scandal? How much press has that gotten in general and especially compared to “leash lady” and her friends? What about the Iraqi men with severed hands who visited the White House. That was a non-story to the media. Why? Because they were in campaign mode, and they would not let go of an issue they knew was hurting Bush, even constantly trying to link it to him.
THAT is “Bush Bashng”.
“I follow no man blindly.”
Neither do I. Please don’t nfer that I do.
Jerome:
(But it’s heartening to know thatKerry is now directly attacking Cheney as being unfit to criticize him because he “did not serve”. Wonder how that would have been reported if Papa Bush said that about Geraldine Ferraro.
Me:
Was Ferarro attacking Bush’s war record? That difference seems very significant.
Seeing as how Cheney has not attacked Kerry’s WAR record but his Senate record, the difference is nil.
>>”Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war.”
>Seing as how he was talking about the War on Terror, I see no problem with this statement.
Well, for one, he ignores the context of the full quote, making a typical high-rhetoric, low-content allegation rather than discussing facts; for another, here’s an exchange between Cheney and a conservative radio host a few days before this flap.
HEWITT (8/12/04): Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?
CHENEY: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a SENSITIVE area, and we are very much aware of its SENSITIVITY. On the other hand, a lot of people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S. commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the shrine itself.
^
Just a note: the emphases in the above are mine, not Cheney’s.
“Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that includes the word Sensitive”
“Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war.”
Actually, what I found in the speech was the following: “Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn’t appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a “more sensitive war on terror,” as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America
Oh, that’s right — it was the Swift Boat Liars who are attacking Kerry’s war record! Still, you’d think this administration would appreciate Kerry’s response: after being attacked, he strikes back at the wrong target.
But in all seriousness, Cheney and Bush are attacking Kerry’s record using the Swift Boat Liars as a smokescreen. Literally, you’re right, but in practical terms, you’re being completely disingenuous.
Rob
Peter,
Sorry if people are giving you a hard time. Please know that this Pro-Bush, Conservative Republican will always buy whatever it is you write. I love your writing, and your political views do not prevent me from enjoying your work. We live in the world’s greates country where we are allowed to debate, and I for one respect your opinions, right or wrong, and your right to speak your mind.
*********************************************
Well, the President’s “dog and pony” show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he’s going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message……and…..what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it’s over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!
What the hëll were they thinking?!
*********************************************
They figured why waste their time on this looser who the polls show is being clobbered by GB.
thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.
On a serious note, and I do mean serious, I do wish President Clinton a speedy recovery.
Joe V.
I have actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite…… and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. 🙂
e actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite…… and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. :)”
I don’t quite see why. It’ll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests. In this age of television, most people don’t vote for the best-informed or most intelligent; they vote for the guy they’re most comfortable seeing on the bøøb tube in their living room (not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really.) The only way Bush loses is if he starts screaming at the top of his lungs and then punches out Kerry’s wife…and even then he might still win.
PAD
me:
>I actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite…… and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. :)”
PAD:
>I don’t quite see why. It’ll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests. In this age of television, most people don’t vote for the best-informed or most intelligent; they vote for the guy they’re most comfortable seeing on the bøøb tube in their living room (not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really.) The only way Bush loses is if he starts screaming at the top of his lungs and then punches out Kerry’s wife…and even then he might still win.
I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews…. that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made. I honestly believe we’ll see all of this and only hope that the undecided are able to see it and respond accordingly.
I’ve said it before and still truly believe that Bush and Chris Rock are very similar. Both are extremely unimpressive without a good group of writers behind them. Their indepedent thought and creativity is very limited.
Hopefully the italics work this time round:
Don’t just repeat the spin. Kery has promised to release ALL of his records. He hasn’t. He has claimed that he can’t because he has an agreement with a writer (which is SO much more important than letting the American public see the facts for themselves, dontcha know.). The writer disagrees.
There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered.
You say several times that Michael Moore was at the Democrat convention because he was writing articles for USA Today.
My mistake. Since the conversation had pivoted to the GNC I misread. He was at the GNC for USAToday.
I don’t think either of these are deliberate lies.
NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hëll your implications that I would lie.
Yes, inconsequental. Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency. It was all the Democrats who tried to make it an issue.
And as someone else pointed out, Bush made his service an issue as soon as he played fighter pilot last year. The absence of confirmation of his service in the guard, especially when coupled with the admission of a texas democrat that he regrets pulling strings to get Bush into the guard http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html
calls his entire claim of honorable service into question and more than casts doubts on the political strings pulled to get him out of service.
I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared … SEARED … in Kerry’s memory and Kerry’s post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say “I think Kerry served honorably, and I don’t think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same.”
What part of denouncing them first does not get through to you? Kerry did so weeks before and asked the same of Bush. he was silent until he thought the SBV’s had done their job.
And then Kerry refused to, saying “it’s not enough! whiiinnne!”?
Post proof of this. I recall his calling on Bush to denounce the SBVs, I recall Bush refusing. now wonder if that might be because of the major contributors that backed the ads?
And you say Bush is dumb? That was a political masterstroke.
I don’t think I’ve said Bush is dumb. I don’t believe he’s the smarted bean in the pod and his college transcripts and speech transcripts back that assumption up. But you’re fooling yourself if you think Bush singularly plots his own campaign path. He has a number of strategists holding his hand all the way.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at September 3, 2004 09:25 AM
Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency.
Bush made it an issue once he showed up in that flight suit to declare that the war in Iraq was over.
This is just a sad sad statement.
Hardly. Bush is tearing this country limb from limb, and people are sitting there and supporting him for it.
That’s what’s sad.
Even more sad is that people fail to see it – they’d rather be blinded by the bumbling dûmbášš who claims to lead us.
Exactly!
Posted by Charles K at September 3, 2004 12:02 PM
To resopnd to Catori:
((Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn’t a matter of “flip-flopping” or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.
Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.))
Ummm…ok, you know what, you need to read what you’re responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I’ve had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light…Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads…ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct…I think it’s incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they’re SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry’s statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I’m sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement.
Okay. You know what? You’re the most disingenious person I’ve seen post here. Ck, you can’t address issues brought forth by the SWV and not address the ads themselves. The ads have been disproved over and over. Keep living in your illusion until November and then we’ll wake you. It wasn’t a “couple” of members discredited but the entire group that spoke in the ad. Their comments were either disproved or serious doubts placed on them by their unstated agendas. Your own words show your hypocracy. You decry Kerry for making a mistake on a date and make the if/then argument that since he erred with the date then of course everything he says must be a lie yet the Swift Boat Vets have had large holes blown in their statements and you still cling to the invalid idea they somehow they’re telling the truth. riiight. Back in the little room you go. While you’re in there you might want to also review the fact that many of the vets who’s statements were morphed and twisted on the SBV website have asked for them to remove their name from the page.
As for proving the ads false: READ MAN! Most credible new sources have already reported on the documentation that supports Kerry’s claims and discredits the SBV claims. As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it’s possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they’ll tell you “no”.
((Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
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.
First, I haven’t seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone’s politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.))
Once again, read what you respond to. I listed a number of lies that Kerry and the Democrats have told about Bush, but I’ll go ahead and recopy them from earlier in this thread:
Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise.
Posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:10 PM
Craig,
Actually, people did learn lessons from Vietnam. They learned that if we’re going to fight a war, we’d better be in there to win. They learned that you should constantly let your troops know you support them, both in words and in deeds, and that you appreciate their sacrifice. They learned to not take actions based on what is politically popular, but on what it takes to win. They learned that if the media start calling a military a “quagmire” (after only three weeks in Iraq!), you ignore them and achieve your goal. They learned a lot of things that have made this war successful (and before you start, the WAR was amazingly successful, we are now dealing with keeping the peace).
We have not achieved peace. We have not won this war. This war has not been successful. I pray it can be turned around but it will be many many years before we are able to leave Iraq. We didn’t go into the battle prepared. We didn’t have a plan past the battle and now exiting will be an ardous and difficult process.
Posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:20 PM
Also, the “divisions” of the ’60s have always been overstated.
Overstated? Jerome, you weren’t around in the 60’s were you? Look at the anger and passion that is still alive after 30 years. Talk to the vets on both sides of the issue. Thursday night in WV, someone took a shot at the GOP headquarters while some volunteers were inside watching the president’s speech. Whether it was a random act of violence or a political statement of a criminal, no one knows yet. But to misread the anger felt by a large portion of the American people is terribly short sighted. (And before one of you suggests it: NO, I do not in ANY way shape or form condone violence of this type.)
If our country ends torn by another election that does not clearly define a winner then I fear for it’s stability. Like Peter, when I think of four more years of Bush I become anxious. I truly believe he will bring our nation to it’s knees.
posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:59 PM
Catori,
1.) McCain is definitely more popular with the MEDIA, I’ll give you that
2.) Re: Refugees returning to Iraq
“Of course they are, Jim. It’s their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild”.
However, Catori, if the situation in Iraq were truly as bad as the media and protesters continue to portray it has been and is, as chaotic, and if as many Iraqis were truly as fearful and resentful of the “oppressor” U.S. as is commonly portrayed, then there would be a dire refugee crisis. Iraq had four refugee crises in the 20th century, one during 1958 and one during the war with Iran. The fact that there is no refugee crisis refutes the theory that Iraqis are generally worse off and hate the U.S. “occupation”.
That’s supposition and I believe invalid. Did you see the number of people after Charley who fought police to return to their homes which were for the most part destroyed? They were without shelter, water, food but still they chose to go home. Did you read the account of the Iraq team who asked Bush to remove reference to them from his campaign message? Their viewpoint was that oppression was oppression and a bullet from either side will still kill.
“I follow no man blindly.”
Neither do I. Please don’t nfer that I do.
Post where I said you did. however, failure to question what you’re being fed will lead people to question whether this is the case.
Posted by Rob Staeger at September 3, 2004 09:33 PM
But in all seriousness, Cheney and Bush are attacking Kerry’s record using the Swift Boat Liars as a smokescreen. Literally, you’re right, but in practical terms, you’re being completely disingenuous.
Rob
Yeppers.
JoeV
They figured why waste their time on this looser who the polls show is being clobbered by GB.
If you believe anyone is clobbering their opponent in this campaign you aren’t keeping yourself informed. BTW, thanks for that example of how there’s no anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP.
Catori,
The fûçkìņg problem around here is that things are taken too serious. Some of you guys need to lighten up & take a little jest. BTW, right after my comment I said:
thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.
On a serious note, and I do mean serious….
which meant that the above statement was sent in jest.
the “thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.” is used at the end of a lot of comedy performances. & then I follwed it w/ “On a serious note…”.
My advice is take a fûçkìņg chill pill & stop taking everything as an attack. It was a Gøddámņ joke.
Hows that for “…anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP.”
Was that angry enough, ’cause after all, all you Democrats are INCAPABLE of showing anger and hatefulnes, right? You guys love everybody, don’t you?
PAD,
“It’ll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests.”
See, now I never got that feeling from Gore or Kerry at all. Neither exactly set the academic world on fire. As far as I know Kerry has never released his SAT scores as Bush and Gore did. Kerry does speak like many college professor I’ve had but if I were taking notes on only the important point of his speeches I’d have lots of space left over for doodles (I was always partial to airplanes shooting at guys in parachutes. Sometimes they’d have little word balloons going “Argh!” or “Aieee!”)
Fred,
“I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews…. that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made.”
You’re kidding right? You think that BUSH is the one who needs to watch out about coming across as a total tool? Kerry is the one who keeps blaming his underlings, speechwriters, secret service men, etc etc for every little thing that goes wrong. Personally I think Kerry should do well–the senate does train one to make debates and while Bush clocked Gore the last time it was more because of whatever the hëll happened to Gore that made him act crazy as a pet coon than anything Bush did (other than not act like the aforementioned coon.)
Catori,
“There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered.”
No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.
Me–I don’t think either of these are deliberate lies.
Catori–NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hëll your implications that I would lie.
Well, that just shows how no good turn goes unstoned. With all the talk about how candidates and posters “lie” whenever they have simply made a mistake–as we ALL do–I make it very clear that I DON’T believe that Catori is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and all it does is give him an excuse to get all resentful. Whatever, man.
Catori says:
“As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it’s possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they’ll tell you “no”.”
Again, nice try. The evidence shows that he was a good 50 miles away–much to far away to not know he wasn’t in Cambodia. But look at what he said:
In a Boston Herald piece inspired by “Apocalypse Now,” Mr. Kerry wrote: “On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in ‘Apocalypse Now,’ took my patrol boat into Cambodia.
“In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese Allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.”
Mr. Kerry made similar claims on the Senate floor in 1986, adding that the memory was “seared–seared–in me.” He also peddled variations on this story during press interviews over the years.
Now THIS is a lie, pure and simple. Normally I’d give the guy the benefit of the doubt. When you start saying crap like “seared–seared” you lose the benefit. When you try to use this false memory to influence policy–which was the point of his statements–you have an obligation to make sure they have some semblance of reality.
Nixon was not president in 1968. Kerry was not in Cambodia in Christmas 1968. No evidence has yet surfaced that he EVER was in Cambodia.
These truths need not mean that Kerry is unfit to be president. But don’t pretend they are not tuths.
Psersonally nothing the Swift vets ads have shown would disqualify Kerry in my eyes. Now his REACTION to all this…if he runs the country with the competance he has run his campaign…
Incidentally, both TIME and NEWSWEEK both have Bush ahead by double digits now. THIS is what we call a post convention bounce. So much for the “there are no undecideds so that’s why Kerry got no bounce” hypothesis.
(But I expect it to be nearly a tie again in 3 or 4 weeks, max.)
“Well, the President’s “dog and pony” show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he’s going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message……and…..what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it’s over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!”
I think they panicked when he opened with “I have five words for Americans,” and followed with “This is your wake up call!”
Ok, ok, I know, you can hyphenate “wake up” making it “wake-up”, so it works, but I’ll bet lots of folks were counting on their fingers and thinking “The hëll…?”.
At any rate, while I know it played well to an increasingly pìššëd øff Democrat base, I think it was a mistake. It came off looking desperate, especially when a day or two later the polls come out.
Kerry needs someone he trusts to grab hold of this campaign and slap it into shape. And it has to be soon–when Democrats start to smell blood they often jump ship. I remember the post mortems being written for Mondale and Dukakis long before the election was over, which certainly didn’t improve their chances.
Catori (and I still haven’t figured out tags…)
“The ads have been disproved over and over”
And NO. THEY. HAVEN’T. Criminy, you claim I’M disengenous. Just ’cause you say it, don’t mean it true, man! Go look at Mr. Mulligan’s post. And why do you keep harping on the ADS? I wasn’t TALKING about the ads. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Wait, let me say that again because you can’t seem to understand that. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Tell me those have been “disproved” considering the Kerry campaign capitulated?
Ok, let’s play Catori logic. Clinton lied under oath, therefore his entire presidency, no, wait, the entire Democratic party must be liars! Cause apparently, all it takes is one and every single fact is thrown out.
“Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise.”
Respond to the issue, please.
Posted by Joe V. at September 4, 2004 12:03 PM
Catori,
The fûçkìņg problem around here is that things are taken too serious. Some of you guys need to lighten up & take a little jest. BTW, right after my comment I said:
thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.
On a serious note, and I do mean serious….
which meant that the above statement was sent in jest.
the “thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.” is used at the end of a lot of comedy performances. & then I follwed it w/ “On a serious note…”.
My advice is take a fûçkìņg chill pill & stop taking everything as an attack. It was a Gøddámņ joke.
Hows that for “…anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP.”
Was that angry enough, ’cause after all, all you Democrats are INCAPABLE of showing anger and hatefulnes, right? You guys love everybody, don’t you?
Thank you for that excellent example of the kinder, gentler GOP.
Lemme see if I get this right, you make a comment on an internet bulletin board and then get your nose outta joint because it can’t be determined it’s a joke? oooookay
Btw, I am a Republican.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at September 4, 2004 12:26 PM
Catori,
“There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered.”
No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.
You say no. I read yes. I’ll take the news report over your word, thanks.
Me–I don’t think either of these are deliberate lies.
Catori–NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hëll your implications that I would lie.
Well, that just shows how no good turn goes unstoned. With all the talk about how candidates and posters “lie” whenever they have simply made a mistake–as we ALL do–I make it very clear that I DON’T believe that Catori is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and all it does is give him an excuse to get all resentful. Whatever, man.
Oh? What part of “deliberate lie” did I misunderstand? As in it was a lie just not deliberate?
Posted by Bill Mulligan at September 4, 2004 01:11 PM
Catori says:
“As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it’s possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they’ll tell you “no”.”
Again, nice try. The evidence shows that he was a good 50 miles away–much to far away to not know he wasn’t in Cambodia. But look at what he said:
Yeah, 50 miles in a country you’re unfamiliar with during war time when your mind is on staying alive and not getting shot..I can understand how there would be no confusion or uncertainity of your position. Excuse me, gotta go roll my eyes.
Posted by Charles K at September 4, 2004 02:15 PM
Catori
“The ads have been disproved over and over”
And NO. THEY. HAVEN’T. Criminy, you claim I’M disengenous. Just ’cause you say it, don’t mean it true, man! Go look at Mr. Mulligan’s post. And why do you keep harping on the ADS? I wasn’t TALKING about the ads. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Wait, let me say that again because you can’t seem to understand that. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Tell me those have been “disproved” considering the Kerry campaign capitulated?
Get a grip. Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they’re connected. Good lord, man, even in your rant here you begin with a reference to them. The question of Kerry’s medals has been answered numerous times. You choose not to accept it and continue to cling to the falsehoods. So be it.
Ok, let’s play Catori logic. Clinton lied under oath, therefore his entire presidency, no, wait, the entire Democratic party must be liars! Cause apparently, all it takes is one and every single fact is thrown out.
Do you read what you write, Dude? That was your premise.
“Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise.”
Respond to the issue, please.
Comprehension problems? Want me to elaborate on my comments? Don’t present an if/then argument that says my questions about the war and belief in Bush’s deliberate misleading of the public equates to disrespecting and dishonoring our service men and women. Your word was: hypocrite. Got it now?