Kerry CONDEMNS Moveon.org Anti-Bush Ad

Obviously Some Kinda Sneaky Trick Huh?

Published on August 19, 2004 By kingbee In Current Events

from the la times, august 18, 2004. article entitled " Kerry Condemns Anti-Bush Ad"

Sen. John F. Kerry took a cue from Sen. John McCain on Tuesday and denounced a television ad by one of his allies attacking President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

In the latest twist in an ongoing debate about military credentials, Kerry condemned the new ad by the MoveOn political action committee, even though it was produced in response to an ad questioning Kerry's Vietnam War record.

"This should be a campaign of issues, not insults," Kerry said in a written statement.

Kerry called the ad "inappropriate" after McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam prisoner of war, criticized the MoveOn commercial. The 30-second ad accuses Bush of using family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.

McCain, who is popular with independents, is campaigning for Bush but has come to Kerry's defense against Republican attacks on the candidate's military record. He recently criticized an anti-Kerry ad that featured Vietnam veterans as "dishonest" and "dishonorable."

Although MoveOn, an independent liberal group, came to Kerry's aid with a counterattack ad, the Democrat said he agreed with McCain that it was over the top.

Comments (Page 2)

Draginol

on Aug 20, 2004

Kerry is the one who quotes F-9/11. Earth Kerry: Watch for glass houses...

messybuu

on Aug 20, 2004

I'm not sure what to think. This is confusing. After reading this article and this one, it sounds as though Kerry did condemn the ad, but had people in his campaign repeat things said. A quote from the articles: "John Kerry condemns the ad on one hand and then his campaign's surrogates go out and echo the baseless charges that appear in the ad," said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt. "It's typical John Kerry: Say one thing, do another."

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 20, 2004

Bush's team did condemn the swift-vote ad if you recall.

TEAM Drag....not Bush. I doubt Karl Rove would let Bush do a decent thing like come out and denounce the Swift boat guys even if he wanted to. Kerry at least had the balls to come out and say he was opposed to this kind of thing.

Secondly, Bush hasn't made his miltiary service the center point of his campaign. Kerry made his 4 month stint in Vietnam. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Well what do you call that lame ass landing on the carrier? The only reason the Bush/Cheney campaign isn't using it in their ads is because the whole incident blew up in their faces when they declared the war over prematurely.

bakerstreet

on Aug 20, 2004

If it should be a campaign of issues, odd that he spent so little time at the DNC actually talking about issues. HIs campaign is a smokescreen for 20+ years as a radically liberal Senator, and now when people address the smokescreen, he finds it unfair.

He is the one that made his service a campaign point, and his soft money machine was spouting the "AWOL" stuff long before his own service was attacked. I find it curiously convienent that he chose now, months after Bush's service was attacked online and off, to condemn this kind of thing. I think it is sadly transparent that he was fine with it until now, and even now it is just a cheap way to take the "high road" and let Soros and the rest keep plugging away.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 20, 2004

I think it is sadly transparent that he was fine with it until now, and even now it is just a cheap way to take the "high road" and let Soros and the rest keep plugging away.

Well It's better than doing the opposite like Bush 2.0 is.

bakerstreet

on Aug 20, 2004

His recent speech is a perfect example.

""If President Bush wants to compare his military record with mine, let him bring it on!"

Firstly, Bush never tried to. The people attacking Kerry are no less distant from Bush as Mr MoveOn.org Soros is from Kerry. How can Kerry condemn Bush for 527 ads and then not take personal responsibility for his own? He shouldn't, and Bush shouldn't. He's a liar, though, so he'll blame Bush for Swift Boat Vets, and then pretend he has nothing to do with MoveOn.

Second, Kerry IN THAT VERY CHALLENGE did the THE VERY SAME THING he is condemning. That "bring it on" is simply a way to remind everyone of the smearing that is being directed at Bush.

bakerstreet

on Aug 20, 2004

"Well It's better than doing the opposite like Bush 2.0 is. "

That makes no sense, unless you believe that Bush is behind these ads. If you do, and if you have a shred of honesty, then you have to do the same for Kerry, and accept that he is behind his own 527 ads. Anything else is just irresponsible accusation.

psychx

on Aug 20, 2004

f it should be a campaign of issues, odd that he spent so little time at the DNC actually talking about issues.

Aren't candidates usually vague about their actual issues during the campaign? A lot of his stands on policies and plans can be seen by going to Johnkerry.com. This is a legitimate question, I have been told this a few times in school in a political science class and have read it in a few different articles and books.

If it should be a campaign of issues,

I agree, I can't wait for the debates, I hope they actually debate issues and stands on policy rather than taking personal stabs at each other.

Well what do you call that lame ass landing on the carrier?

Yeah in my opinion it seemed like it was a blatant attempt at boosting his image. I still remember the banner in the back declaring in big bold letters "Mission Accomplished". He (Bush) shouldn't have been so extravagant.

I think it's subjective when one side states anything about the other and it's very important to consider the source.

Lord Shitzu

on Aug 20, 2004

It's pretty ironic that someone who's hoping that the trial lawyer who managed to make C-sections more common because of lawsuits becomes VP would have a problem with Cheney.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

What's wrong with being a trial lawyer? Honestly I fail to see how this is a great condemnation, how is the former CEO of a major corporation that he still gets a nice million dollar a month check from any better?

And what's wrong with C-sections for that matter? If it helps keep both mother and child safe, I don't see how an increase in C-sections is a bad thing.

That's all I've really got to say on the issue really. I'll admit I don't know too much about Edwards, I do know that from my political position, Kerry and Edwards are the lesser of two evils.

kingbee

on Aug 20, 2004

It's pretty ironic that someone who's hoping that the trial lawyer who managed to make C-sections more common because of lawsuits becomes VP would have a problem with Cheney.

to paraphrase thoreau, how could one not have a problem with cheney?

i really have no idea how c-sections relate to the politics of attack ads focusing on the presidential candidates' military service.

kingbee

on Aug 20, 2004

here's a link to the ny times' very thorough investigation entitled "friendly fire: the birth of an anti-kerry ad" (august 20, 2004) by kate zernike and jim rutenberg friendly fire

and here's a link to a graphic (created for the article linked above) that illustrates the connections between the bush campaign and the swiftboat principals. connections

WiseFawn

on Aug 20, 2004

psychx - Thank you for the links!

messybuu

on Aug 21, 2004

Doesn't Bush's team represent Bush? If not, then why would people be upset if Bush's team financed the Swift Boat ads, since they aren't connected to Bush?

bakerstreet

on Aug 21, 2004

Bush's "team" doesn't have anything to do with the swift boat ads. The people behind the swift boat ads are easily as removed from Bush as Soros is from Kerry. Is Kerry responsible for MoveOn and all the lies therein?

P.S. Notice that one whole branch of kingbee's chart is "Law partners with..." That is somehow aid and support? You work in the same place? Then you have someone who represents "Supporters of President Bush's campaign in 2000".

Is this much different than Joe "I debunked Niger" Wilson's propaganda site actually being HOSTED by John Kerry for President, until he was proven an utter liar, at which time his domain was re-tasked to the John Kerry site.

, no Kerry has no room to talk about soft money smear campaigns. If people listen more to swift boat vets it is because Kerry's propaganda isn't nearly as compelling.

thatoneguyinslc

on Aug 21, 2004

Doesn't Bush's team represent Bush? If not, then why would people be upset if Bush's team financed the Swift Boat ads, since they aren't connected to Bush?

My point is that John Kerry HIMSELF came out and denounced the moveon.org ads. Bush 2.0's TEAM isn't George W. Bush. He could at least have the decency to come out and speak for himself. But it's become obvious that he's not going to do that. Yet another example of how the RNC and the White House operate. The RNC lets their attack dogs do the dirty work, then the White House shrugs their shoulders and say "hey, it's not us!"

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!