Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Friday, August 06, 2004
Swift Boat Vets
I have held off blogging too much about Kerry's war record for the simple reason that I think refighting the social issues of the Vietnam War sucks. It was not a pretty time in our history, and the Truth needs to be remembered (or refound, if you prefer), but there is no reason to open old wounds for political purposes. Unfortunately, Kerry has effectively declared open season on the entire issue.
The things that is currently getting under my skin about Kerry is his willingness to disparage his comrades...yet again:
And, of course, the fact that an independent group with a political message is being bankrolled (to the tune of -gasp!- $100,000) by an Eeeevil Republican is supposed to taint the group's message? Are you kidding me?! I guess that it's ok for George Soros to pump millions into various Democrat machines for the express purpose of defeating George W. Bush, but it's obviously not ok for a Republican to back a group he agrees with.
So let's see, on the Left hand we have a bunch of political groups who want to unseat Bush and are being bankrolled by a Gazillionaire Lefty...for purely political reasons. That's ok.
On the Right hand, we have a group of Vietnam Vets who believe that John Kerry is Unfit for Command and are backed by a Republican. That's not ok.
Additionally, this is not necessarily an ideological attack in the political sense. Rather, these men believe that they have information directly contradicting claims made by a Presidential candidate...and they should be heard. Not silenced by the Democrat smear-machine.
More:
How disgraceful can the Kerry campaign get?
More 2:
Bird has a good round up and Wizbang has a bit on this topic as well (here too).
Powerline (as always) has some good thoughts as well.
|
The things that is currently getting under my skin about Kerry is his willingness to disparage his comrades...yet again:
Tax documents show that from April to June, the group collected $158,750 from 11 people, $100,000 of it from Bob Perry, a Houston developer and major contributor to Republican campaigns.Aside from the Media Bias (Kerry's aides [tried to] discredit...), this is yet another example of the Democrats smearing anyone who disagrees with them.
[...]
Kerry's aides discredited the veterans group and linked it to Republicans, noting that a public-relations consultant the group paid $27,000 this spring, Merrie Spaeth, was also involved in an advertising campaign attacking Senator John McCain during his tough race against George W. Bush in the 2000 primary in South Carolina.
And, of course, the fact that an independent group with a political message is being bankrolled (to the tune of -gasp!- $100,000) by an Eeeevil Republican is supposed to taint the group's message? Are you kidding me?! I guess that it's ok for George Soros to pump millions into various Democrat machines for the express purpose of defeating George W. Bush, but it's obviously not ok for a Republican to back a group he agrees with.
So let's see, on the Left hand we have a bunch of political groups who want to unseat Bush and are being bankrolled by a Gazillionaire Lefty...for purely political reasons. That's ok.
On the Right hand, we have a group of Vietnam Vets who believe that John Kerry is Unfit for Command and are backed by a Republican. That's not ok.
Additionally, this is not necessarily an ideological attack in the political sense. Rather, these men believe that they have information directly contradicting claims made by a Presidential candidate...and they should be heard. Not silenced by the Democrat smear-machine.
More:
How disgraceful can the Kerry campaign get?
DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' AdDropping the metaphorical elbow on free, open and honest exchange of ideas and information. Way to go Party of the Big Tent!
The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added [but not my me]).
More 2:
Bird has a good round up and Wizbang has a bit on this topic as well (here too).
Powerline (as always) has some good thoughts as well.
|
