Kerry CONDEMNS Moveon.org Anti-Bush Ad

I respect his position. But sometimes, you just get so tired of the nonsense that you start the tit for tat stuff. I haven't seen either one, though. And I like Moveon.

two things strike me here.  despite all the calls for kerry to do exactly what he did (and i believe he was right in so doing), nobody but you felt it was worth comment.   since kerry took the initiative, it would seem bush should do the same.   im not holding my breath.

"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."

Kingbee, I think this is where Kerry shows himself(as many of his critics are suggesting, sorry shouting hoarse) as someone who holds no firm opinions of his own.

Why should he condemn this ad? Does he not believe(as most of the world does) that Bush used his family connections to avoid going to Vietnam? If not, then let him come into the open and say that Bush deserves the same respect as himself for playing his role during the Vietnam years.

Kerry is not here and he is not there. Bush may lie and cheat but at least he does it consistently!

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

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. 

Though at this point, pretty much only extreme left wing zealots take Moveon.org seriously about anything.  I wish everyone could see the MoveOn.org ad so that people could see how nutty Kerry supporters have gotten. 

You may not like the swift boat ad but it had people who served with Kerry, from the photo that Kerry's campaign used to circulate, actually in it refuting Kerry.  That's pretty powerful.  By contrast, a half-baked "Bush uses family connections to get into the National Guard" just sounds petty given that Moveon.org would be supporting Bill Clinton today if he were running.

Bush may lie and cheat but at least he does it consistently

i was trying for a higher moral ground but you just made me spit juice outta my nose

two things strike me here. despite all the calls for kerry to do exactly what he did (and i believe he was right in so doing), nobody but you felt it was worth comment. since kerry took the initiative, it would seem bush should do the same. im not holding my breath.

Yes, even if it's just a *wink wink, nudge nudge* criticism, at least one can give the appearance of sincerity.

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

this is what i recall (from the washington post, august 5, 2004, article entitled: "McCain Criticizes Ad Attacking Kerry on Vietnam War Record" by Jim VandeHei and Mary Fitzgerald)

In an interview with the Associated Press, McCain called the ad "dishonest and dishonorable." Asked if the White House was behind it, McCain said: "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

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.

if bush had, we wouldnt be having this discussion.  kerry may have focused on his 4 months (for which he volunteered knowing how extremely dangerous swiftboat ops were) in vietnam...you keep neglecting to consider that occured during kerry's SECOND tour of duty. 

Though at this point, pretty much only extreme left wing zealots take Moveon.org seriously about anything. I wish everyone could see the MoveOn.org ad so that people could see how nutty Kerry supporters have gotten.

its pretty easy to find moveon.org...considering thats the url

You may not like the swift boat ad but it had people who served with Kerry

the most telling fact of this whole sorry episode is this: larry thurlow--who now claims the after-action report that led to kerry's being awared a bronze star is wrong in that he witnessed the incident and there was no enemy fire--was also awarded his own bronze star on the basis of the report. which says:  “larry thurlow had maneuvered his pcf-51 over to pcf-3, and by and hopped aboard to offer assistance. the boat was in shambles but they were still returning fire and could not therefore assess any damage”….“all boats received heavy a/w [automatic weapons] & s/a [small arms] from both banks…all boats returned fire …pcf-94 [kerry’s boat] picked up special forces advisor who went overboard. pcf-94 towed pcf-3.”

why didnt thurlow refuse the bronze star?   why hasnt he returned it?

Yes, even if it's just a *wink wink, nudge nudge* criticism, at least one can give the appearance of sincerity

im not certain who youre jabbing here but if youre referring to the bush campaign, mores the pity.  cheney is a true master of that kinda thing.  one thing i truly admire about him is that smarmy smile that says (without words) 'you know im lying...i know im lying...but nobody has the balls to call me on it.'

Cheney gives me nightmares. I caught just a few seconds somewhere about one of those swift boat guys being proven a liar or something, has anyone else heard it?

one thing i truly admire about him is that smarmy smile that says (without words) 'you know im lying...i know im lying...but nobody has the balls to call me on it.'

Yeah, I agree with you, Cheney has a really sleazy feel to him, in my opinion. At least Bush projects an image of an honest simpleton (though neither may necessarily be true), but Cheney just radiates sleaze, arrogance, and ultimately corruption.

It has been reported numerous times in the press that Bush was on the record as condemning all these types of negative ads.

Some people either have difficulty with the definition of the word 'all', or else they are refusing to acknowledge Bush's condemnation of all these types of ads in lieu of an ad by ad condemnation.

Nitpicky to say the least.

It has been reported numerous times in the press that Bush was on the record as condemning all these types of negative ads

all politicians say theyre against negative ads in general.  it's not at all nitpicky to expect bush to speficially address this issue.

please prove me wrong with a verifiable contextual quote if it exists. i provided  kerry condemnation of  the moveon.org ad smearing bush's service record.   i have yet to read or hear bush repudiating the swiftboatvets (the validity of their claims has now been called into question by every responsible journalist--not op-ed authors--whos looked into them).  

No, Bush said he would love to see these soft money ads taken off the air -- ALL of them.

Meanwhile, Kerry quotes parts of F-9/11 to use against Bush.

The idea of a sleazy guy like Kerry winning the white house and thus propelling a trial lawyer to VP gives me the creeps. 

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.

Wisefawn here is the article you are looking for Link it's on msnbc.com.  It's also what Kingbee was talking about with Larry Thurlow and the report which contradicts what Thurlow is saying.  I also recommend you read this article on the same website that's titled "Report exposes Bush connections to Swift Boat vets"  Link that's also on MSNBC from the New York Times.   I think these links are relative to the topic.

all politicians say theyre against negative ads in general. it's not at all nitpicky to expect bush to speficially address this issue.

He has specifically addressed the issue. The issue is about negative ads, regardless of what third party produces them. It is a negative ad. He condemns negative ads.

The refusal to acknowledge this comes across as more of a control issue than a request for condemnation. The problem seems to be that Bush is not condemning the ad in the specific language some people would like for him to.

Using your logic, Kerry supports all negative ads, except for the one SwiftBoat vets ad and the MoveOn.org ad he has singled out to condemn.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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'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."

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

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.

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.