Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Thursday, August 05, 2004
'Negative' Campaign Ads
I don't know why everyone has a problem with the so-called 'negative' campaign ads. It seems that a candidate can't make nearly everyone happy. If s/he runs 'positive' ads, s/he is accused of not providing enough specifics or of lying. If s/he, instead, runs 'negative' ads (by which I mean pointing out the opponent's record) then s/he is accused of attacking and (my personal favorite) bringing a nasty tone to the campaign.
What, exactly, is wrong with a candidate or group running ads to counter the opposition's 'positive' ads? If the Vietnam Vets Against Kerry or Swift Boat Vets want to expose what they see as outright lies coming from the Kerry campaign, why should they be vilified for it?
And while I'm in the mood, why doesn't John McCain just admit it and switch parties? Seriously:
1) Sen. McCain has no 1st hand knowledge of whether or not Kerry or Bush served honorably in their respective roles.
2) These vet groups do have 1st hand knowledge...and maybe they're even telling the truth.
3) Kerry made (and continues to make) his service in Vietnam a campaign issue by mentioning it every three or four sentences.
4) Bush did not make his service in Vietnam a campaign issue...the Left did.
If anything, McCain should have been out there jumping all over the Left during the When did Bush work out with his squad and how many pushups did he do?! crap. But since these standards are not applied consistently, the guy who does not make Vietnam an issue is constantly being hit over the head with it...and the guy who makes it a huge issue expects that only one side of the story will be told.
What a load of crap.
More:
Just ran across this article:
Still More:
And...I'm not alone! (via Evan)
|
What, exactly, is wrong with a candidate or group running ads to counter the opposition's 'positive' ads? If the Vietnam Vets Against Kerry or Swift Boat Vets want to expose what they see as outright lies coming from the Kerry campaign, why should they be vilified for it?
And while I'm in the mood, why doesn't John McCain just admit it and switch parties? Seriously:
McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suitLook, here are a few facts:
Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
[...]
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
1) Sen. McCain has no 1st hand knowledge of whether or not Kerry or Bush served honorably in their respective roles.
2) These vet groups do have 1st hand knowledge...and maybe they're even telling the truth.
3) Kerry made (and continues to make) his service in Vietnam a campaign issue by mentioning it every three or four sentences.
4) Bush did not make his service in Vietnam a campaign issue...the Left did.
If anything, McCain should have been out there jumping all over the Left during the When did Bush work out with his squad and how many pushups did he do?! crap. But since these standards are not applied consistently, the guy who does not make Vietnam an issue is constantly being hit over the head with it...and the guy who makes it a huge issue expects that only one side of the story will be told.
What a load of crap.
More:
Just ran across this article:
Kerry, speaking to minority journalists at their quadrennial Unity convention, "was warmly accepted throughout his speech and he drew big applause with his comments about the lack of minority journalists and ownership of television stations and newspapers," MSNBC.com's Darrell Bowling reported. "He says when he's president he would make sure to bring in an FCC chairman who would fight to increase minority ownership of broadcast outlets."This guy just won't quit. Anybody out there keeping a list of promises? I don't know if I've got the time...but it would be fun.
Still More:
And...I'm not alone! (via Evan)
|
