kingbee: I don't have anything intelligent to add, but I did want to let you know that I was here and thought your post made for interesting reading.

He could at least have the decency to come out and speak for himself.

thatoneguyinslc, he did speak for himself. He condemned all the negative ads ... not just a select few. And yes, he actually said it himself.

Now is the part where you say, in effect "Well he didn't say the exact words I wanted him to say."

What part of 'all' do you not understand?

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?

Riiiiiiiiiight! Bush isn't "associated" with them....that's funny! They never met or had any political dealings before this election the whole time Bush was involved in Texas politics? The head of Swift Boat wasn't the guy dumping all that money into his campaign? Next you're gonna tell me that the guy over at Diebold didn't promise Bush a win in november!

Personally as a dem i have mixed feelings about MoveOn.org. I think they have their own political agenda that is not the same as the Kerry campaign. And i do not approve of some of their tactics either. I have to laugh when repubs criticise Soros for dumping money into dem's campaign funds. They have a hell of a lot more people dumping a hell of a lot more money into Bush's war chest. I think it just scares the hell out of them that a guy as committed to his cause as he is steps up to the plate for the other team.

thatoneguyinslc, he did speak for himself. He condemned all the negative ads ... not just a select few. And yes, he actually said it himself. Now is the part where you say, in effect "Well he didn't say the exact words I wanted him to say." What part of 'all' do you not understand?

I have been watching the news very closely since this thing came up. Exactly when did this take place? I haven't seen Bush come out and do it. The only repub that i have seen do it was Big John McCain!

Riiiiiiiiiight! Bush isn't "associated" with them....that's funny! They never met or had any political dealings before this election the whole time Bush was involved in Texas politics? The head of Swift Boat wasn't the guy dumping all that money into his campaign? Next you're gonna tell me that the guy over at Diebold didn't promise Bush a win in november! Personally as a dem i have mixed feelings about MoveOn.org. I think they have their own political agenda that is not the same as the Kerry campaign. And i do not approve of some of their tactics either. I have to laugh when repubs criticise Soros for dumping money into dem's campaign funds. They have a hell of a lot more people dumping a hell of a lot more money into Bush's war chest. I think it just scares the hell out of them that a guy as committed to his cause as he is steps up to the plate for the other team.

So, what you're saying is that nobody MoveOn.org has no connection with Kerry because you want to believe they don't, since a connection would make Kerry look bad, but the Swift Boat Veterans are connected to Bush's campaign since that'd make him look bad. Oh, and supposedly Soros and the others involved with MoveOn.org never contributed to Kerry's campaign, but the Swift Boat guys have contributed to Bush's?

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".

that law partner side of the chart illustrates the fact that john oneill is not a totally disinterested party, but in fact is part of the larger picture.  i may not agree with you about much of anything, but i have no doubt as to your obvious intelligence and analytical skills (both of which i respect btw). despite my occasional logical lapses, id hope you dont truly im quite so easily confused or distracted as to buy into your statement as quoted above.

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

unless joe wilson is involved in the funding or implementation of 527 activities (which cannot legally be surreptiously coordinated with or controlled by the kerry campaign), it is very much different and has no bearing on this issue.

as far outright lies go, the bush campaign's denial it's connected to or supportive of the swiftvets seems to qualify based on the fact that a gop/bush campaign office in florida has been distributing fliers to promote the group and its activities in that state Link

Most of that chart that was posted relies on "association", or people that work together at a law firm. Rove is supposedly involved because he is "associated" with someone who is. Shoddy and biased.



Joseph Wilson was the ex-CIA crusader that went to Niger, ranted that Bush was "lying", and was utterly outed and humiliated by the by-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee. Previous to their report his site was hosted by Kerry for President. A site, full of lies and inflammatory anti-Bush junk, and it was HOSTED by Kerry. Any apologies? Nope. Did Kerry condemn the guy WHOSE SITE HE WAS HOSTING? Nope.

Soros pumps money into the Democratic party, pumps money into moveon.org, and is a close "associate" of Kerry. Before the swift boat stuff did Kerry have any problem with moveon.org's Bush=Hitler bullshit? Nope.

Did Kerry step up and condemn Al Gore's insane tirades, or his Republican brownshirts metaphor, likening Republicans to Nazi propagandists? Nope.

The dollar value of the propaganda that Micheal Moore created for Kerry is uncalculatable, most of it dubious, falsely inflammatory and tasteless. He got a nice seat next to Carter in the Presidential box at the DNC. His "service" is well appreciated.

Republicans seem to be "associates of associates", but Kerry's propagandists have dinner with him and get free webhosting and posh seats at the DNC. I think there is a lot less abstraction between the campaign and the propagandists on the Kerry side...

No, Kerry hasn't got an inch of breathing room if he wants to make points about soft-money smear campaigns. His indignation began only after he caught the wrong end of one. He made his bed when he tolerated all this 527 crap and then had the nerve to stand up at the DNC and do his "Reporting for Duty" idiocy. Let him lie in it now.

Exactly when did this take place? I haven't seen Bush come out and do it. The only repub that i have seen do it was Big John McCain!

It has been in several news stories. This is one of many I've seen.

Bush campaign responds to Kerry ads
8/19/2004 9:43 PM
By: Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Bush-Cheney campaign said Thursday it has not questioned John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam, but has questioned his voting record on Iraq.

Kerry on Thursday accused President Bush of letting others do his ''dirty work'' for him by accusing Kerry of fabricating part of his war record.

But the Bush campaign said that is not true. Spokesman Steve Schmidt said ''no one will ever question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam.''

Instead, he said the campaign is focused on Kerry's service on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Schmidt said Kerry talks about intelligence reform, yet he missed 76 percent of hearings while serving on the committee.

The campaign spokesman pointed out Bush himself has been the focus of about $80 million worth of negative ads. And he said the president has asked Kerry to join him in getting rid of all such advertising.


It's not obscure information. He has said numerous times that he would like to see a stop to all such advertising, when asked about any of the negative ads.

there is a major difference between decrying negative ads in general terms and denouncing the concept/content of a specific ad (especially one that contains what is rapidly being proven by responsible investigative journalists as well as credible eyewitnesses and documents to be total misconstructions of the the truth) that is linked (notice im giving the bush/cheney campaign a break here) to the president's supporters. why is bush/cheney making such a point of denouncing an ad that is worthy of nothing else?

kerry and mccain have had no problem in condemning both the swiftboatvets tripe and the moveon.org tripe, calling both dishonorable' not because both are attack ads but because by smearing any veteran's service, they cheapen the service of every veteran. 

bush's determination to evade that specific issue with generalities at a time when the us is fielding troops in combat is a sad commentary on his judgement and character.   if the bush campaign has evidence there is collusion between moveon.org or soros or michael moore or any other entity, it should file a complaint with the fec or spare us any more of their whining allusions.

the fact they havent done that is the best indication there is no basis to their allegations.

as far as negative ads go, it would be difficult to imagine anything more negative than the official 'i-am-george-bush-and-i-approved-this-ad  'kerry's coalition of the wild-eyed' production that attempted to compare kerry to hitler.  it's just one more lowpoint in nearly a decade of bush campaigns that--when taken as a whole--prove the wisdom of judging a person's character not by what he says but what he does.

but I did want to let you know that I was here and thought your post made for interesting reading

thanks mz w.  youre always welcome here.  thanks for taking time to enter into this chaos.

But the Bush campaign said that is not true. Spokesman Steve Schmidt said ''no one will ever question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam.''

This isn't Bush 2.0 . Show me WHEN he came out and said it himself. You can't. Because he never has, and never will.

So, what you're saying is that nobody MoveOn.org has no connection with Kerry because you want to believe they don't, since a connection would make Kerry look bad, but the Swift Boat Veterans are connected to Bush's campaign since that'd make him look bad. Oh, and supposedly Soros and the others involved with MoveOn.org never contributed to Kerry's campaign, but the Swift Boat guys have contributed to Bush's?

I think you are reading what you want to read here. MoveOn.org is a seperate poitical entity. If you do your homework you will find that they do NOT have the same political agenda. They share the same goal as John Kerry...To get Bush 2.0 out of office. They are definately connected by this issue.Soros has his agenda too but he believes that its worth his time to put his money into the campaign. He does not have a history of giving Kerry a lot of money, until now that is. Whereas the Swift boat guy has had Bush in his pocket for the last 10 years. If it wasn't for him Bush 2.0 wouldn't have got in the Governor's office.

Where were the Swift Boat guys before the primaries ended? MoveOn.org was around. Soros was around. Those guys showed up out of the blue. By their statements, John Kerry didn't do anything except make it all up. You actually think that if it wasn't true, any of this would get past Admiral Zumwalt? who is quite possibly one of the greatest and smartest naval leaders ever in the Navy's history, and came down to personally pin the medals on Kerrys chest? I think not. It's just another example of how desperate the repubs are to keep 2.0 in office, And how afraid they are of John Kerry.

Because he never has, and never will.

Believe what you will. The example I posted was but one of many in which Bush said the words I bolded. The fact that you haven't seen it is proof of nothing other than your fixation. Frankly, I suspect if Bush said these words to your face you wouldn't accept it.

kingbee

From your response, I assume you have seen Bush decry all negative ads. You seem to be more informed than thatoneguyinslc.

I understand your point, but feel it is splitting hairs. It makes the assumption that by condemning all ads instead of a specific ad, Bush is giving consent to every negative ad. It's just a back-handed attempt to say Bush is lying when he says he would like to see an end to all those types of ads. I suspect that even if Bush listed every single negative ad and condemned each one specifically, there would still be those who would feel he was lying and does support them. With that kind of illogical framework, it becomes a control issue, not a question of anyone's stance on negative ads.

As I said before, with that logic, Kerry consents to all the negative ads that he hasn't specifically condemned.

. It makes the assumption that by condemning all ads instead of a specific ad, Bush is giving consent to every negative ad. It's just a back-handed attempt to say Bush is lying when he says he would like to see an end to all those types of ads. I suspect that even if Bush listed every single negative ad and condemned each one specifically, there would still be those who would feel he was lying and does support them. With that kind of illogical framework, it becomes a control issue, not a question of anyone's stance on negative ads

i truly do not understand why the bush campaign cannot bring itself to condemn the swiftboatvets ad. over the past 4 days, the accusations presented therein have been been invalidated or significantly discredited, revealing it to be the smear that sen mccain claimed it to be...and it does a great disservice to all veterans by making it seem so easy to take advantage of the system and fabricate an undeserved and unwarranted honorable record  

i understand the point youre making because i saw it happen exactly the way you describe following kerry's denunciation of the moveon.org ad that questioned bush's service record.  there was no need for the bush campaign to express its thanks or even acknowledge kerry's action because, he did nothing more than the right thing.  it was disconcerting--at very least--to hear a chorus of complaints that kerry had not also repudiated everyone from al franken to janet jackson's costumer even though the whole point was dishonoring another veteran's military history and none of those other people and things had any relevance nor are they under kerry's control.