2004 Politics Thread: Are you going to VOTE??
- Thread starter squirerad
- Start date
- Status
Hi, interesting discussion and civil - just wanted to make a comment about taxes. If this country is going to foot the bill of 1 billion a week for the liberation of the Iraqi's someone is going to have to pay that bill. Let me guess - may it just be the tax payers - the little guys - you and me? Can't remember numbers to well, but I think the national deficit is somewhere in the 450 billion dollar and growing. Hmmm, I wonder who will foot this bill?
Paying taxes, under normal circumstances,
in my opinion comes with the bennies we have in this country - a road systems is one that we all want to have in good condition - I think most Americans would agree on this point. I don't like being in the "sqeezed" middle class, but I do believe in paying taxes. Maybe my value comes from being born and raised in NYS the land of taxes. One of the knee jerk issues I hear from my siblings is they don't want to pay taxes for those shiftless people who can work but want to live off the govt. I guess they don't mind the coporate welfare or maybe they are not paying attention. As for voting, I am going to vote and give thanks to the ones who fought for me, a female, so I have the right to vote. "The opinion given is that of the author" and may or may not be as factual as it could be. /idealbb/images/smilies/wavey.gif');" height=29 alt="Insert smilie
" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/wavey.gif" width="25 border=0">
Paying taxes, under normal circumstances,
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
You're so right! It must be great to have no income...then the government gets to take so little of your money! (Unless you buy an item of clothing, of course, and pay sales tax.) Just figure out what money they get to keep! What DOES a 22% tax cut come to when a family's income is $0.00? (You're so good with knowing people's tax brackets and all).
Deb
kkeen15
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 117
----------------
On 8/13/2004 5:25:32 PM Rank Amateur wrote:
By those numbers, the poorest 20% received a 22% tax cut. Not bad for a group who hardly pays any taxes to begin with.
----------------
You're so right! It must be great to have no income...then the government gets to take so little of your money! (Unless you buy an item of clothing, of course, and pay sales tax.) Just figure out what money they get to keep! What DOES a 22% tax cut come to when a family's income is $0.00? (You're so good with knowing people's tax brackets and all).
----------------------
Yeah, it would suck to live on under $20,000 a year...but what's Kerry going to change for them that's so different? Allow the lowest earning class to pay no taxes? I'm guessing the answer to that is NO. The tax man comes a-knockin' on everybody's door.
My point is that the amount/ proportion of the tax cuts is nothing to complain about. The middle and lower classes got much higher proportions of tax cuts than the rich. Also consider that averages can skew reality...for example, maybe the "top 1%" contains 2.2 million people who earn about $500,000, and 300,000 who earn more than $5 mil. Obviously that's being overly simplistic, but I'm trying to illustrate that the majority of that "top 1%", people who made under a million a year, probably didn't get tax cuts as big as the "average" stated in the article.
Of course, this is not to say that I agree with the tax cuts. But when they're broken down, they're pretty fair considering what you're working with (people earning very, very different amounts of money).
On 8/13/2004 5:25:32 PM Rank Amateur wrote:
By those numbers, the poorest 20% received a 22% tax cut. Not bad for a group who hardly pays any taxes to begin with.
----------------
You're so right! It must be great to have no income...then the government gets to take so little of your money! (Unless you buy an item of clothing, of course, and pay sales tax.) Just figure out what money they get to keep! What DOES a 22% tax cut come to when a family's income is $0.00? (You're so good with knowing people's tax brackets and all).
----------------------
Yeah, it would suck to live on under $20,000 a year...but what's Kerry going to change for them that's so different? Allow the lowest earning class to pay no taxes? I'm guessing the answer to that is NO. The tax man comes a-knockin' on everybody's door.
My point is that the amount/ proportion of the tax cuts is nothing to complain about. The middle and lower classes got much higher proportions of tax cuts than the rich. Also consider that averages can skew reality...for example, maybe the "top 1%" contains 2.2 million people who earn about $500,000, and 300,000 who earn more than $5 mil. Obviously that's being overly simplistic, but I'm trying to illustrate that the majority of that "top 1%", people who made under a million a year, probably didn't get tax cuts as big as the "average" stated in the article.
Of course, this is not to say that I agree with the tax cuts. But when they're broken down, they're pretty fair considering what you're working with (people earning very, very different amounts of money).
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
HOW TAX CUTS WORK:
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100."
"If it was paid the way we pay our taxes,
The first four men paid nothing;
The fifth paid $1;
The sixth paid $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59."
"The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve."
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.""
Now, dinner for the 10 only costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divide up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?
The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so now:
Along with the first four, the fifth man paid nothing,
The sixth pitched in $2,
The seventh paid $5,
The eighth paid $9,
The ninth paid $12,
Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up.
The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys, girls and college professors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. $ $ $
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100."
"If it was paid the way we pay our taxes,
The first four men paid nothing;
The fifth paid $1;
The sixth paid $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) paid $59."
"The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve."
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.""
Now, dinner for the 10 only costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divide up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?
The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so now:
Along with the first four, the fifth man paid nothing,
The sixth pitched in $2,
The seventh paid $5,
The eighth paid $9,
The ninth paid $12,
Leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up.
The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important. They were $52 short!
And that, boys, girls and college professors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. $ $ $
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
Thanks, it's not mine, of course, but it's excellent.
Polticians play class warfare all of the time, and many people eat it up. By percentage, people in lower income got the biggest cuts. By dollars, of course they aren't going to see as a big of a tax cut.Tax people too high and people stop trying to make money or be entrepreneurs. Look at the US and look at Europe. How many technological innovations have come out of Europe in the last 30 years? How many new medicines have been discovered by European pharmiceutical companies? Next to nothing. Price fixing and over taxation kills innovation.
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
If you owe $0 dollars in federal tax because of your low income you still need to fill out a tax return.
Why?
Because you can get free money. You get the Earned Income Tax Credit!! Perhaps the most mis-named program the Feds have ever devised, it is neither earned income nor a tax refund. It is simply additional welfare $$. Try to calculate the tax cut on THAT.
Is this a great country or what?
Why?
Because you can get free money. You get the Earned Income Tax Credit!! Perhaps the most mis-named program the Feds have ever devised, it is neither earned income nor a tax refund. It is simply additional welfare $$. Try to calculate the tax cut on THAT.
Is this a great country or what?
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
Both those site are good: Two comments on those sites:
The Swift Boat Veterans site is disturbing. I know Navy guys and there is nothing they would like more than to see a fellow officer running for President, unless there was something very wrong about him. Although one or two could be partisan, there is no way that so many of his fellow officers would speak out against Kerry solely on the basis of partisan politics. Some say that you do not have the right to criticise Kerry if you are not a Veteran. However, Kerry has always been campaigning on his Vietnam record, so I think the public reserves the right to examine that record. If a candidate was campaigning on his record as a businessman, the public would have the right to examine his performance even though they are not businessmen themselves. Kerry could simply solve a lot of the debate by fully releasing his records like Bush did.
Kerry’s indecisiveness on Iraq is actually even more frightening. There is nothing more dangerous to our troops than the injecting “sensitive” politics into warfare. He would not leave Iraq, but said that he would fight a more sensitive war. --remember Somalia--- Thugs are thugs and evil men do not change their spots (such as Al-Sadr or Yassar Arafat).
Precisely. My dog groomer got money from the gov. She didn't pay a dime in tax. Now, I wonder where the money to pay her comes from?
Yeah, class warfare. It's always the haves that are evil and fair game for attack w/ manipulated wording.
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
You would have to be a fool to think this the swiftboat stuff is non-partisan.
You would also be a fool to dismiss the facts they bring forward.
The bit about Kerry weasel-ing a purple heart out of a wound that required no stitches and was covered be a BandAid is very telling. Kerry using the swiftboat officer picture in his campaign when it turns out that only ONE of those pictured support him is also telling.
You would also be a fool to dismiss the facts they bring forward.
The bit about Kerry weasel-ing a purple heart out of a wound that required no stitches and was covered be a BandAid is very telling. Kerry using the swiftboat officer picture in his campaign when it turns out that only ONE of those pictured support him is also telling.
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
Hey Maria
Where is your outrage at moveon.org and Mike Moore and the like? Are you not dumbstruck at how low they are stooping as well? Maybe it depends on which side of the fence you sit.
The reason they all stoop so low is because we fall for it and it gets votes!
Where is your outrage at moveon.org and Mike Moore and the like? Are you not dumbstruck at how low they are stooping as well? Maybe it depends on which side of the fence you sit.
The reason they all stoop so low is because we fall for it and it gets votes!
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,948
Chris-UK, the vast majority of Kerry's colleagues are not attacking him. If you want to better understand what's behind the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign you'll have to do the research. If not, just go ahead and accept it at face value -- the Republican party certainly hopes that we all will. Just take a look at www.georgewbush.com and you will be struck by how the content is predominantly anti-Kerry rather than telling us why we should be pro-Bush. Perhaps you see those kind of tactics as "having a spine" but I don't.
Rank, I agree that Kerry should not have used that picture in his ad campaign. It implies that he has the political support of all the officers in the picture when clearly he does not. He should have dug up a formal picture (if it exists) of the men that actually served under him on his swift boat who, incidentally, speak so highly of him. If he wanted the support of all Vietnam veterans, it was not politically astute for him to come back from Vietnam and testify about the atrocities committed there. I believe that's the reason *some* officers/vets speak out against him today -- not because of the way he served.
Rank, I agree that Kerry should not have used that picture in his ad campaign. It implies that he has the political support of all the officers in the picture when clearly he does not. He should have dug up a formal picture (if it exists) of the men that actually served under him on his swift boat who, incidentally, speak so highly of him. If he wanted the support of all Vietnam veterans, it was not politically astute for him to come back from Vietnam and testify about the atrocities committed there. I believe that's the reason *some* officers/vets speak out against him today -- not because of the way he served.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,948
Rank, I don't pay much attention to moveon.org so I don't know what they are up to these days. I did see Fahrenheit 911. Before and after I saw it, I looked into the story behind the scenes. I thought there were many important points and also many things taken completely out of context just to make Bush look bad/stupid. Yes, it's propaganda. I look at Michael Moore as an entertainer with a strong liberal slant just as Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer with an ultra-conservative slant. Neither one can be taken completely seriously and yet both sometimes speak elements of truth. But to my knowledge, neither is financially backed by supporters of either party, as the Swift Boat Veterans are.
I expressed "outrage" (actually I don't think I went that far, but that's the word you used) over the swift boat thing because you brought it up! If you want to talk about Fahr. 911, start a thread
I expressed "outrage" (actually I don't think I went that far, but that's the word you used) over the swift boat thing because you brought it up! If you want to talk about Fahr. 911, start a thread
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
Well, look who the cat dragged in! MariaD is back...and none too soon! You have to watch R/A. His numerical reasoning is a lot better than his verbal reasoning. Or maybe it's just that he's devious. If you criticize one thing done by a right-wing group he'll come back at you not with a response to why your criticism was justified or unjustified, but with some vague swipe at the Left 
. Keeps me on my toes, though .
BTW, I have missed you.
Deb
. Keeps me on my toes, though .BTW, I have missed you.
Deb
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
Both candidates can be "anti-other candidate" but Kerry sure lacks anything too. At least we know what Bush stands for. He’s been president for the last 4 years and everyone can see what he has done. Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, has been all over the place. One week he’s for Iraq, against it, for it, didn’t know enough, still would have voted the same way…. He is the one that needs to define a platform because he is the contender and we haven’t seen him in action for 4 years. What will Kerry do as president is a question I don’t think I could get answered? Well, besides raises taxes across the board, we know he’ll do that (don’t believe for a second that only rich people will get their taxes raised, because Clinton promised a middle class tax cut and a rich tax raise, but he raised taxes for everyone. Chances are that if you can afford a diamond, you are “rich”).
Kerry just criticizes Bush’s policies, but he doesn’t really say what he’d do instead. I’ve never heard anything definitive. If you can point me to a link where Kerry defines his platform, let me know, I’d like to read it. All I know about Kerry is that he is “electable”, he served 4 months as a j.g. in Vietnam, he married the rich wife of his dead colleague, and he is not GW Bush.
Kerry said he’d fight a more sensitive war on terror. That scares me because it’s frighteningly sensitive now. Appeasement is not the answer. The fear of future terrorism is not irrational. Just because we may be tired of hearing about Islamic terrorist threats, doesn’t mean they aren’t still planning. They didn’t quit after the first WTC bombing, the Kobar towers, the Cole, etc, and they aren’t going to quit now. The Dems need a Harry Truman for me to even consider voting for them.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
Bob Herbert does what few other journalists writing for mainstream publications do: he dares to tell the ugly truths no one wants to hear to the general public (as opposed to a select, handpicked audience). I admire his Op-Ed pieces greatly. This one should give pause to anyone who believes in civil rights.
From "The New York Times":
August 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Voting While Black
By BOB HERBERT
The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of election fraud."
State officials have said that the investigation, which has already frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. But the department considered that matter closed last spring, according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.
The letter, dated May 13, said:
"We received your package related to the allegations of voter fraud during the 2004 mayoral election. This dealt with the manner in which absentee ballots were either handled or collected by campaign staffers for Mayor Buddy Dyer. Since this matter involved an elected official, the allegations were forwarded to F.D.L.E.'s Executive Investigations in Tallahassee, Florida.
"The documents were reviewed by F.D.L.E., as well as the Florida Division of Elections. It was determined that there was no basis to support the allegations of election fraud concerning these absentee ballots. Since there is no evidence of criminal misconduct involving Mayor Dyer, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement considers this matter closed."
Well, it's not closed. And department officials said yesterday that the letter sent out in May was never meant to indicate that the "entire" investigation was closed. Since the letter went out, state troopers have gone into the homes of 40 or 50 black voters, most of them elderly, in what the department describes as a criminal investigation. Many longtime Florida observers have said the use of state troopers for this type of investigation is extremely unusual, and it has caused a storm of controversy.
The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly African-American voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who tried to vote in the South in the 1950's and 60's, the sight of armed police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about voting is chilling indeed.
One woman, who is in her mid-70's and was visited by two officers in June, said in an affidavit: "After entering my house, they asked me if they could take their jackets off, to which I answered yes. When they removed their jackets, I noticed they were wearing side arms. ... And I noticed an ankle holster on one of them when they sat down."
Though apprehensive, she answered all of their questions. But for a lot of voters, the emotional response to the investigation has gone beyond apprehension to outright fear.
"These guys are using these intimidating methods to try and get these folks to stay away from the polls in the future,'' said Eugene Poole, president of the Florida Voters League, which tries to increase black voter participation throughout the state. "And you know what? It's working. One woman said, 'My God, they're going to put us in jail for nothing.' I said, 'That's not true.' "
State officials deny that their intent was to intimidate black voters. Mr. Tunnell, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush to head the Department of Law Enforcement, said in a statement yesterday: "Instead of having them come to the F.D.L.E. office, which may seem quite imposing, our agents felt it would be a more relaxed atmosphere if they visited the witnesses at their homes.''
When I asked a spokesman for Mr. Tunnell, Tom Berlinger, about the letter in May indicating that the allegations were without merit, he replied that the intent of the letter had not been made clear by Joyce Dawley, a regional director who drafted and signed the letter for Mr. Tunnell.
"The letter was poorly worded,'' said Mr. Berlinger. He said he spoke to Ms. Dawley about the letter a few weeks ago and she told him, "God, I wish I would have made that more clear." What Ms. Dawley meant to say, said Mr. Berlinger, was that it did not appear that Mayor Dyer himself was criminally involved.
Paul Krugman is on vacation.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
From "The New York Times":
August 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Voting While Black
By BOB HERBERT
The smell of voter suppression coming out of Florida is getting stronger. It turns out that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation, in which state troopers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando in a bizarre hunt for evidence of election fraud, is being conducted despite a finding by the department last May "that there was no basis to support the allegations of election fraud."
State officials have said that the investigation, which has already frightened many voters and intimidated elderly volunteers, is in response to allegations of voter fraud involving absentee ballots that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. But the department considered that matter closed last spring, according to a letter from the office of Guy Tunnell, the department's commissioner, to Lawson Lamar, the state attorney in Orlando, who would be responsible for any criminal prosecutions.
The letter, dated May 13, said:
"We received your package related to the allegations of voter fraud during the 2004 mayoral election. This dealt with the manner in which absentee ballots were either handled or collected by campaign staffers for Mayor Buddy Dyer. Since this matter involved an elected official, the allegations were forwarded to F.D.L.E.'s Executive Investigations in Tallahassee, Florida.
"The documents were reviewed by F.D.L.E., as well as the Florida Division of Elections. It was determined that there was no basis to support the allegations of election fraud concerning these absentee ballots. Since there is no evidence of criminal misconduct involving Mayor Dyer, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement considers this matter closed."
Well, it's not closed. And department officials said yesterday that the letter sent out in May was never meant to indicate that the "entire" investigation was closed. Since the letter went out, state troopers have gone into the homes of 40 or 50 black voters, most of them elderly, in what the department describes as a criminal investigation. Many longtime Florida observers have said the use of state troopers for this type of investigation is extremely unusual, and it has caused a storm of controversy.
The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly African-American voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who tried to vote in the South in the 1950's and 60's, the sight of armed police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about voting is chilling indeed.
One woman, who is in her mid-70's and was visited by two officers in June, said in an affidavit: "After entering my house, they asked me if they could take their jackets off, to which I answered yes. When they removed their jackets, I noticed they were wearing side arms. ... And I noticed an ankle holster on one of them when they sat down."
Though apprehensive, she answered all of their questions. But for a lot of voters, the emotional response to the investigation has gone beyond apprehension to outright fear.
"These guys are using these intimidating methods to try and get these folks to stay away from the polls in the future,'' said Eugene Poole, president of the Florida Voters League, which tries to increase black voter participation throughout the state. "And you know what? It's working. One woman said, 'My God, they're going to put us in jail for nothing.' I said, 'That's not true.' "
State officials deny that their intent was to intimidate black voters. Mr. Tunnell, who was handpicked by Gov. Jeb Bush to head the Department of Law Enforcement, said in a statement yesterday: "Instead of having them come to the F.D.L.E. office, which may seem quite imposing, our agents felt it would be a more relaxed atmosphere if they visited the witnesses at their homes.''
When I asked a spokesman for Mr. Tunnell, Tom Berlinger, about the letter in May indicating that the allegations were without merit, he replied that the intent of the letter had not been made clear by Joyce Dawley, a regional director who drafted and signed the letter for Mr. Tunnell.
"The letter was poorly worded,'' said Mr. Berlinger. He said he spoke to Ms. Dawley about the letter a few weeks ago and she told him, "God, I wish I would have made that more clear." What Ms. Dawley meant to say, said Mr. Berlinger, was that it did not appear that Mayor Dyer himself was criminally involved.
Paul Krugman is on vacation.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
flowergurl
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14
I'm voting for who ever has the wife with the bigger diamond.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
Well...does it matter who bought the diamond or just whose wife HAS the bigger one? It was Theresa's first (and late) husband who had the most money. I'm not sure he bought her a big diamond with it, but it was he who could have best afforded one. Now she's Kerry's wife. Would a diamond from (Senator) John Heinz count? Or one she bought herself?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
Maureen Dowd's column from "The New York Times" gives details on how the Bush campaigns smear their rivals.
August 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON — It's easy for the Bushes to stay gallant. They delegate the gutter.
There are always third-party political assassins, ostensibly independent, to do the dynasty wet work.
W.'s old pal and running partner, Lee Atwater, set up the Bush modus operandi: Lay in the weeds while craftily planting plausibly deniable surrogates to slice up your rival.
The New Yorker editor David Remnick, writing in Esquire in 1986, limned the 1980 Congressional race in South Carolina's Second District "between Atwater's man, Republican Floyd Spence, and a Faulknerian figure named Tom Turnipseed At one press briefing, Atwater planted a reporter who rose and said, 'We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment.' Atwater played it cool and refused to comment, but later told the reporters off the record, 'In college I understand he got hooked up to jumper cables.' "
Karl Rove is Atwater's protégé on jumper cable politics.
The weird thing is, given how transparently the Bushes play the game of staying above the fray even as their creepy-crawly surrogates do dishonorable and undignified things, their rivals always seem caught off guard when the third parties show up to rip their throats out.
The phlegmatic Michael Dukakis never knew what hit him with Mr. Atwater's Frankenstein monster Willie Horton coming at him in a third party scare ad and G.O.P. smear leaflets and letters.
John McCain should have known what was coming in South Carolina, but he acted stunned and hurt when he was hit with the Atwater/Rove mud treatment by shadowy Bush supporters.
Just as the Bush campaign dragged out fringe veteran surrogates in South Carolina to slime the former P.O.W. for being antiveteran, now the stomach-turning Swift boat attackers are sliming a war hero as a war criminal.
They started their vengeful and brazen campaign in May, after plotting since winter. But John Kerry is only now forcefully responding - though he should have had a response ready, since the Nixon tool John O'Neill has dogged him since '71.
Charging on Thursday that Mr. Bush wants the Swift boat sleazoids "to do his dirty work," Mr. Kerry reached for yet another Vietnam reference and water metaphor: "When you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack."
The Skipper would do well to get a swifter boat. How pathetic is it that he's playing defense on Vietnam when W. didn't even serve?
Bill Clinton implied two weeks ago that Mr. Kerry was acting sluggish. "Whenever they hit me, I hit 'em back," he told Jon Stewart. "And whenever they came up with a charge I didn't believe was true, I answered back."
Reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post last week made it clear that the vile Swift boaters have told wildly varying accounts, sometimes supportive of Mr. Kerry.
The Times revealed that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - is that like the administration's Clear Skies Act for spewing pollution? - has a trellis of ties to Karl Rove, the Bush family and Bush supporters. "A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice," Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg wrote. Indeed, it was the same woman who worked for a third party group that slimed Mr. McCain on the environment in the 2000 primaries.
And the group's ad was produced by the Dukakis tank ad wizards.
The Kerry camp knows the Swift boat snipers are hurting the Democrat and fears the Bush oppo campaign will soon move from tarnishing Mr. Kerry's war record to dwell on his days as a shaggy-haired antiwar spokesman. The White House must tear down his heroism before it can tear down his patriotism.
Meanwhile, the Bush crew is shamelessly doing to Mr. Kerry what it once did to Mr. McCain: suggesting that the decorated Vietnam vet has snakes in his head and a temperament problem. "Senator Kerry appears to have lost his cool," Scott McClellan told reporters in Crawford on Friday. And the Bush campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, said on CNN that Mr. Kerry looked "wild-eyed" responding to Swift boat muck.
It makes sense for W. to use surrogates to do his fighting, just as he did when he slid out of Vietnam and just as he did when he sent our troops to fight his administration's misbegotten vanity war in Iraq.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
August 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Kerry: Slo-Mo on Swifties
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON — It's easy for the Bushes to stay gallant. They delegate the gutter.
There are always third-party political assassins, ostensibly independent, to do the dynasty wet work.
W.'s old pal and running partner, Lee Atwater, set up the Bush modus operandi: Lay in the weeds while craftily planting plausibly deniable surrogates to slice up your rival.
The New Yorker editor David Remnick, writing in Esquire in 1986, limned the 1980 Congressional race in South Carolina's Second District "between Atwater's man, Republican Floyd Spence, and a Faulknerian figure named Tom Turnipseed At one press briefing, Atwater planted a reporter who rose and said, 'We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment.' Atwater played it cool and refused to comment, but later told the reporters off the record, 'In college I understand he got hooked up to jumper cables.' "
Karl Rove is Atwater's protégé on jumper cable politics.
The weird thing is, given how transparently the Bushes play the game of staying above the fray even as their creepy-crawly surrogates do dishonorable and undignified things, their rivals always seem caught off guard when the third parties show up to rip their throats out.
The phlegmatic Michael Dukakis never knew what hit him with Mr. Atwater's Frankenstein monster Willie Horton coming at him in a third party scare ad and G.O.P. smear leaflets and letters.
John McCain should have known what was coming in South Carolina, but he acted stunned and hurt when he was hit with the Atwater/Rove mud treatment by shadowy Bush supporters.
Just as the Bush campaign dragged out fringe veteran surrogates in South Carolina to slime the former P.O.W. for being antiveteran, now the stomach-turning Swift boat attackers are sliming a war hero as a war criminal.
They started their vengeful and brazen campaign in May, after plotting since winter. But John Kerry is only now forcefully responding - though he should have had a response ready, since the Nixon tool John O'Neill has dogged him since '71.
Charging on Thursday that Mr. Bush wants the Swift boat sleazoids "to do his dirty work," Mr. Kerry reached for yet another Vietnam reference and water metaphor: "When you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack."
The Skipper would do well to get a swifter boat. How pathetic is it that he's playing defense on Vietnam when W. didn't even serve?
Bill Clinton implied two weeks ago that Mr. Kerry was acting sluggish. "Whenever they hit me, I hit 'em back," he told Jon Stewart. "And whenever they came up with a charge I didn't believe was true, I answered back."
Reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post last week made it clear that the vile Swift boaters have told wildly varying accounts, sometimes supportive of Mr. Kerry.
The Times revealed that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - is that like the administration's Clear Skies Act for spewing pollution? - has a trellis of ties to Karl Rove, the Bush family and Bush supporters. "A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice," Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg wrote. Indeed, it was the same woman who worked for a third party group that slimed Mr. McCain on the environment in the 2000 primaries.
And the group's ad was produced by the Dukakis tank ad wizards.
The Kerry camp knows the Swift boat snipers are hurting the Democrat and fears the Bush oppo campaign will soon move from tarnishing Mr. Kerry's war record to dwell on his days as a shaggy-haired antiwar spokesman. The White House must tear down his heroism before it can tear down his patriotism.
Meanwhile, the Bush crew is shamelessly doing to Mr. Kerry what it once did to Mr. McCain: suggesting that the decorated Vietnam vet has snakes in his head and a temperament problem. "Senator Kerry appears to have lost his cool," Scott McClellan told reporters in Crawford on Friday. And the Bush campaign chairman, Marc Racicot, said on CNN that Mr. Kerry looked "wild-eyed" responding to Swift boat muck.
It makes sense for W. to use surrogates to do his fighting, just as he did when he slid out of Vietnam and just as he did when he sent our troops to fight his administration's misbegotten vanity war in Iraq.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
It is ironic that the NYT allocates its hallowed space to the likes of Ms. Dowd to do Kerry's dirty work for him, and all the while complaining about Bush's team having other's do ITS dirty work.
I guess Maureen and the NYT didn't read the Good Book about the plank in one's own eye and specs in eyes elsewhere.
Hey AGBF
Why is it that all the people you regard as daringly truth telling share your political view? {{Insert boilerplate elitist comment about subject being willfully or genetically obtuse.}}
And why is it that apologists like Maureen Dowd don't look into and address the "facts" brought forth buy the swiftboat guys? Particularly, was John were he said he was? Was he doing what he said he was doing? And that purple heart from a wound covered by a band-aid? Come on. What does that say about this guy's character?
Or is it just anybody but Bush? Just admit it if it is.
I guess Maureen and the NYT didn't read the Good Book about the plank in one's own eye and specs in eyes elsewhere.
Hey AGBF
Why is it that all the people you regard as daringly truth telling share your political view? {{Insert boilerplate elitist comment about subject being willfully or genetically obtuse.}}
And why is it that apologists like Maureen Dowd don't look into and address the "facts" brought forth buy the swiftboat guys? Particularly, was John were he said he was? Was he doing what he said he was doing? And that purple heart from a wound covered by a band-aid? Come on. What does that say about this guy's character?
Or is it just anybody but Bush? Just admit it if it is.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
What's to admit? I have said that Bush is just a puppet of Karl Rove. He is a moron, a bully, and a pompous braggart. (And those are his good qualities.) Why on earth SHOULDN'T it be "anyone but Bush"? I see getting rid of someone so destructive as essential!
That "admitted" ( well, let's say explained), Bush and his campaign have a hell of a lot of nerve saying Kerry's medals aren't good enough. Bush didn't even serve in the National Guard, let alone in Vietnam, but criticizes Kerry? Kerry didn't ditch what he saw as his duty (volunteering for combat). What his medals are for is immaterial to me and no, it says nothing about his character if he got a medal for a small wound or a big one. He put his life on the line. Bush puts the lives of OTHERS on the line.
As Ronald Reagan, Jr. said of Bush, what are we supposed to be so thrilled about, that he is no longer an obnoxious drunk?
I see Bush as the eternal frat boy, smirking and giving nicknames to serious people because he doesn't even know that running the country is not a game, a schoolboy's prank. He is irresponsible because he sees moving troops as fun, the way a little boy plays with toy soldiers. He is dangerous because to him it is all a game, a show.
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
Regarding Kerry : I really can’t sum up the present debate any more eloquently than an editorial in the Wall St. Journal, so here is selected highlights:
John Kerry's "war crimes" libel returns to haunt him.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004.
A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them.
We've tried to avoid the medals-and-ribbons fight ourselves, except to warn Mr. Kerry that he was courting precisely such scrutiny ("Kerry's Medals Strategy," February 9). But now that the Senator is demanding that the Federal Election Commission stifle his opponents' free speech, this one is too rich to ignore.
What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did back in 1971 and has refused to take back ever since--would somehow go unanswered? That when he raised the subject of one of America's most contentious modern events, no one would meet him at the barricades? Mr. Kerry brought the whole thing up; why is it Mr. Bush's obligation now to shut it down?
Simply because some rich Bush-backers are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is hardly an adequate answer. Some rich Kerry-backers are spending far more to attack Mr. Bush's record, and the Senator was only too happy to slipstream behind Michael Moore's smear that Mr. Bush was a Vietnam-era "deserter."
In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words.
Mr. Kerry has never offered proof of those charges, yet he has never retracted them either. At his recent coronation in Boston he managed the oxymoronic feat of celebrating both his own war-fighting valor and his antiwar activities when he returned home. This is why the Swifties are so incensed, and this is why no less than World War II veteran Bob Dole joined the fray on the weekend to ask that Mr. Kerry apologize for his unproven accusations.
As Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, one of the Swifties, told the Washington Post last week: "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."
We don't pretend to know the truth about how Mr. Kerry won his medals. There's no doubt that he pulled Jim Rassmann from the water (as Mr. Rassmann described recently in The Wall Street Journal), and that he put himself in harm's way and deserves respect for it. There's also little doubt that he has exaggerated some of his exploits--especially that Christmas in Cambodia sojourn we now know never happened--even to the strange extent of restaging events while in Vietnam so he could film them for political posterity. Modesty is not one of his virtues, in contrast to Mr. Dole and other modern veteran candidates (George McGovern, George H.W. Bush) who did not flaunt their noble service. But whatever doubts still exist could probably be put to rest if Mr. Kerry simply released all of his service records…..
The irony here is that a main reason Mr. Kerry has focused so much on Vietnam is to avoid debating Iraq and the rest of his long record in the Senate. He wants Americans to believe that a four-month wartime biography is credential enough to be commander-in-chief. But a candidate who runs on biography can't merely pick the months of his life that he likes--any more than a candidate who makes Vietnam the heart of his campaign can confine the resulting debate to his personal home video.
Wall St. Journal
John Kerry's "war crimes" libel returns to haunt him.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's military-service record, February 8, 2004.
A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them.
We've tried to avoid the medals-and-ribbons fight ourselves, except to warn Mr. Kerry that he was courting precisely such scrutiny ("Kerry's Medals Strategy," February 9). But now that the Senator is demanding that the Federal Election Commission stifle his opponents' free speech, this one is too rich to ignore.
What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did back in 1971 and has refused to take back ever since--would somehow go unanswered? That when he raised the subject of one of America's most contentious modern events, no one would meet him at the barricades? Mr. Kerry brought the whole thing up; why is it Mr. Bush's obligation now to shut it down?
Simply because some rich Bush-backers are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is hardly an adequate answer. Some rich Kerry-backers are spending far more to attack Mr. Bush's record, and the Senator was only too happy to slipstream behind Michael Moore's smear that Mr. Bush was a Vietnam-era "deserter."
In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words.
Mr. Kerry has never offered proof of those charges, yet he has never retracted them either. At his recent coronation in Boston he managed the oxymoronic feat of celebrating both his own war-fighting valor and his antiwar activities when he returned home. This is why the Swifties are so incensed, and this is why no less than World War II veteran Bob Dole joined the fray on the weekend to ask that Mr. Kerry apologize for his unproven accusations.
As Bill Lannom of Grinnell, Iowa, one of the Swifties, told the Washington Post last week: "He's telling untruths about us and his character. He's talking about atrocities that didn't happen. And then he's using that same experience to promote himself. He can't have it both ways."
We don't pretend to know the truth about how Mr. Kerry won his medals. There's no doubt that he pulled Jim Rassmann from the water (as Mr. Rassmann described recently in The Wall Street Journal), and that he put himself in harm's way and deserves respect for it. There's also little doubt that he has exaggerated some of his exploits--especially that Christmas in Cambodia sojourn we now know never happened--even to the strange extent of restaging events while in Vietnam so he could film them for political posterity. Modesty is not one of his virtues, in contrast to Mr. Dole and other modern veteran candidates (George McGovern, George H.W. Bush) who did not flaunt their noble service. But whatever doubts still exist could probably be put to rest if Mr. Kerry simply released all of his service records…..
The irony here is that a main reason Mr. Kerry has focused so much on Vietnam is to avoid debating Iraq and the rest of his long record in the Senate. He wants Americans to believe that a four-month wartime biography is credential enough to be commander-in-chief. But a candidate who runs on biography can't merely pick the months of his life that he likes--any more than a candidate who makes Vietnam the heart of his campaign can confine the resulting debate to his personal home video.
Wall St. Journal
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
I can't wait to vote!
I listen to the Shaun Hannity Show and Rush Limbaugh on the radio and they are outrageous! The hatred that they spue about anybody who isn't a "Right Wing Conservative" is scandalous! I use to think the vitriol hatred was just for the Clintons, but now I know it's for anybody who doesn't share their political opinion! Honestly, I can say that it will break my heart to vote for John Kerry but I feel that I don't have any other choice. I am voting against President Bush for these reasons
• Iraq did not pose an eminent threat to the United States
• Mishandle of the War in Iraq
• Our Civil Liberties are being trammeled on
• I don't won't the Religious Right to run the nation
• Not stopping big corporation from going overseas
• Not working hard enough to help the communities that are suffering from massive job loss
• Lastly, I just don't trust this administration. I don't believe we went to war in Iraq for the reasons the administration has stated
I listen to the Shaun Hannity Show and Rush Limbaugh on the radio and they are outrageous! The hatred that they spue about anybody who isn't a "Right Wing Conservative" is scandalous! I use to think the vitriol hatred was just for the Clintons, but now I know it's for anybody who doesn't share their political opinion! Honestly, I can say that it will break my heart to vote for John Kerry but I feel that I don't have any other choice. I am voting against President Bush for these reasons
• Iraq did not pose an eminent threat to the United States
• Mishandle of the War in Iraq
• Our Civil Liberties are being trammeled on
• I don't won't the Religious Right to run the nation
• Not stopping big corporation from going overseas
• Not working hard enough to help the communities that are suffering from massive job loss
• Lastly, I just don't trust this administration. I don't believe we went to war in Iraq for the reasons the administration has stated
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,146
This quotation was cited as coming from, "The Wall Street Journal":
"In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words."
I actually don't have a problem with the WSJ's assessment of the situation between Kerry and some Vietnam veterans (the ones that still don't get it).
I think it is a pity that the country didn't learn that the US' destruction of Vietnam (euphemistically called "the Vietnam War") was not only mistaken, but criminal.
Tons of napalm were dropped on villages, burning up everything there including all the humans. Massacres of civilians including babies took place, one at My Lai being VERY well documented. And why? Where was the threat to the US? Vietnam simply wanted to unify under Ho Chi Minh. Even President Eisenhower said (I believe in 1954) that if a popular election were to be held that Ho Chi Minh would have been elected President.
I question why Kerry served in it at all more than anything else. What on earth has this country come to when a Democrat has to flaunt his war service in a disgusting war like the war in Vietnam in order to persuade the American people that they shouldn't re-elect the most stupid and conservative Republican ever to sit in the Oval Office?
The Democrats should stop acting as if Vietnam was some sacred mission on the part of the US and just admit that Kerry made a mistake by joining up, but that he was young and hadn't yet seen the reality of the war.
I look forward to the time when a Clinton doesn't have to apologize for ducking a bad war and we honor the men who were prescient enough to flee to Canada rather than serve and those who went to jail rather than serve.
I also honor those former Americans, and there are many, who decided to make Canada their permanent home even after amnesty was available and they could have returned to the United States.
"In any case, anyone who spends five minutes reading the Swift Boat Veterans' book ("Unfit for Command") will quickly realize that their attack has nothing to do with Mr. Bush. This is all about Mr. Kerry and what the veterans believe was his blood libel against their service when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971 that all American soldiers had committed war crimes as a matter of official policy. "Crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" were among his incendiary words."
I actually don't have a problem with the WSJ's assessment of the situation between Kerry and some Vietnam veterans (the ones that still don't get it).
I think it is a pity that the country didn't learn that the US' destruction of Vietnam (euphemistically called "the Vietnam War") was not only mistaken, but criminal.
Tons of napalm were dropped on villages, burning up everything there including all the humans. Massacres of civilians including babies took place, one at My Lai being VERY well documented. And why? Where was the threat to the US? Vietnam simply wanted to unify under Ho Chi Minh. Even President Eisenhower said (I believe in 1954) that if a popular election were to be held that Ho Chi Minh would have been elected President.
I question why Kerry served in it at all more than anything else. What on earth has this country come to when a Democrat has to flaunt his war service in a disgusting war like the war in Vietnam in order to persuade the American people that they shouldn't re-elect the most stupid and conservative Republican ever to sit in the Oval Office?
The Democrats should stop acting as if Vietnam was some sacred mission on the part of the US and just admit that Kerry made a mistake by joining up, but that he was young and hadn't yet seen the reality of the war.
I look forward to the time when a Clinton doesn't have to apologize for ducking a bad war and we honor the men who were prescient enough to flee to Canada rather than serve and those who went to jail rather than serve.
I also honor those former Americans, and there are many, who decided to make Canada their permanent home even after amnesty was available and they could have returned to the United States.
I tend to concur with this assessment as time goes on. Whenever one of these "vets" are interviewed the conversation *always* turns to this - and rather quickly. To me, it's a vendetta.
That said, Kerry did serve. He was there. Was his record inflated? Perhaps - but that was status quo back then. And, his record is *far* more impressive than Bush's.
chris-uk04
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 273
First off you are misrepresenting Eisenhower's quote. He said that Ho Chi Minh would have been elected president because North Vietnam would not have allowed a free election in their half of Vietnam. Perhaps it would have been similar to Saddam's vote of 100% in 2002. You can certainly change the meaning of a quote when you leave off half of a sentence!
The problem with Kerry is that he wants it both ways (there’s a surprise). He wants to be known as a veteran hero to the right and a war protester to the left. I’m not going to argue about Vietnam in general… but regarding the soldiers, there were a lot of soldiers who went, fought and died in service. They did so in honest and heroic fashion, but Kerry slandered all of them by saying that crimes were widespread. Hence because of words like Kerry’s, many soldiers came back to be spit on. Kerry has never recanted these slanders, but now wants to be excused for his lies and exaggerations. Yes, many veterans are upset and no one is needed to prod them to speak out against Kerry. These veterans have just as much free speech as the Dixie Chicks or Barbara Streisand does.
No one has asked Kerry to flaunt his war service. He should run on what he envisions for this country and his plan for the future, not 4 months of service 35 years ago.
- Status
300x240.png)