When a group of people decide to drop acid together, it's a good idea for one person to abstain, in case there's an emergency. And to order the Thai takeout or pizza. And in case someone has to drive or answer the phone.
I'm finally starting to consider those rumors that the all-powerful Clintons really want Kerry to lose (to set Hillary up for '0
and are making sure he gets the worst possible advice. It's the only other explanation, because this is truly unreal.
"We are the party of censorship. Yes, censorship!—the cure for bad speech is to squash it: take those ads off the air! Kerry's war wounds prevent him from signing a form to provide full release of his military records! Big Daddy Bush, make them stop being mean! Can I have a cookie?"
1
Wasn't Bush the one who called for *all* ads to be removed (truthful or otherwise). Isn't that censorship?
Got to admit the Swifties are doing a nice job for Georgie. Not only are they doing the nasty against Kerry but they've managed to keep the important issues of out the headlines (except for that big item yesterday about how Bush is again buggering the environment for oil).
Meanwhile let's check out Georgie's war medals:
Bush's War Medals
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at August 26, 2004 08:19 AM (BZ0tI)
2
I don't care about Bush's service in the National Guard. And if you voted for Clinton, you don't care about it either. Get real: this is a trumped-up issue. (And don't tell me it's because Bush, lacking combat experience, is sending young people to die overseas. Remember Kosovo?)
I think the Bush campaign would love to see the debate turn on real issues, but Kerry doesn't want to talk about them--with him it's just "Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. And by the way--Vietnam."
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 26, 2004 11:38 AM (SuJa4)
3
Also, Bush's point about the 527s is that money that used to go to the parties, which would have to be accountable for how the funds were used, now goes to these outside groups--which are answerable to no one.
The Democratic 527s have raised millions of dollars to the Swifties' half a million or so.
We need to address this problem with McCain-Feingold, or not address it. But whatever solution emerges should be applied to both parties. That was Bush's point.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 26, 2004 11:51 AM (SuJa4)
4
I don't care about Kerry's Vietnam record. He went, he saw hell - that's enough for me. For Kerry it's Vietnam 24/7 because of the Swifties constant barrage and that darn Liberal Media that won't let the topic go.
BTW, you posted a bit ago crying about how Kerry had spent something like $1/2 billion dollars in what you thought would be a losing campaign. Can't find the post and I'd like your source. You have the *MOST* reliable, unbiased sources. My lame biased source (FEC) shows that Bush has raised and spent more money than Kerry. Can you please clarify? Did you pull the post because of *GASP* errors in reporting?
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at August 26, 2004 12:52 PM (BZ0tI)
5
(And you yourself are a perfect example of being part of the 24/7. How much blog space have you devoted to the whole Swiftian affair? How does it feel being a pawn - or at least a queen - for Bush?)
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at August 26, 2004 01:42 PM (BZ0tI)
6
I don't care about Kerry's Vietnam record. He went, he saw hell - that's enough for me.
And it's enough for me that his irresponsible conduct afterward was used as an excuse to
torture our POWs. These are the guys that truly "saw hell." Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians who lost their lives in the most unspeakable fashion when we pulled out of Southeast Asia.
For Kerry it's Vietnam 24/7 because of the Swifties constant barrage and that darn Liberal Media that won't let the topic go.
The Kerry campaign's harping on Vietnam predates the publicity surrounding the Swifties. Remember his silly salute at the convention? He's been using his Vietnam service as a kind of "get out of debate free" card, and he deserves all of this.
BTW, you posted a bit ago crying about how Kerry had spent something like $1/2 billion dollars in what you thought would be a losing campaign. Can't find the post and I'd like your source. You have the *MOST* reliable, unbiased sources. My lame biased source (FEC) shows that Bush has raised and spent more money than Kerry. Can you please clarify? Did you pull the post because of *GASP* errors in reporting?
'Twasn't me. You're looking for a couple of commenters on
this thread. I don't pull posts, unless they were written at 3:00 a.m. just as my Ambien is kicking in and they are truly incomprehensible.
(And you yourself are a perfect example of being part of the 24/7. How much blog space have you devoted to the whole Swiftian affair? How does it feel being a pawn - or at least a queen - for Bush?)
I'm a 'ho for truth.
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 26, 2004 02:13 PM (SuJa4)
7
"I'm a 'ho for truth.'
must...not...respond...to...perfect...setup...
channel flip
channel flip
channel flip
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at August 26, 2004 03:16 PM (BZ0tI)
8
I admire your steely self-control--almost as much as your wife does
Posted by: Attila Girl at August 26, 2004 08:20 PM (SuJa4)
Posted by: Desert Cat at August 26, 2004 10:35 PM (c8BHE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
