Bush has always not liked 527 ads, so this is nothing new here folks. If anything, it shows what a pu$$y John Kerry is. He had to complain to the other side to make them "stop" something which they had previously taken a stance against. The real test will be how Bush handles Kerry's handling (or lack thereof) of MoveOn.org and the like. I usually express myself in pictures, but fuck it, this whole thing has gotten out of control. Kerry's whole campaign has magnetized itself to his Vietnam record. Fuck that, that was over 30 years ago. Let's look at his record in the Senate, his record on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Oh yeah, now I see why we are being forced to focus on his stellar Vietnam record.

I heard some guy defending Kerry on the news: "Kerry has shrapnel in his thigh from serving in Vietnam, Bush got two fillings from serving in the Texas Air National Guard."

But Clinton having reservations and not fighting in Vietnam was OK. He was a deeply intellectual man who had moral problems with this deeply unnecessary war.

This whole Vietnam thing is making me sick. Maybe if Kerry could point to any major achievements in the Senate he wouldn't focus on the war whose veterans he slandered in 1971. Fulla shit.

Actually, the Dimocrats aren't as annoying to me as the damned "moderates" are right now. I don't have as much of a problem with them - the object of a fight is to win the damned thing by any means neccessary, else why is one in it in the first place?

But all of the "Will you guys just knock it off and play FAIR?!? Wah!" crap from some of the selfprofessed non-partisans is getting on my nerves. What's "fair" got to do with it? This is politics. ;]

Note: The preceeding rant isn't aimed at you, Denny. I think I just got up a full head of steam reading Gandleman and Jarvis before coming over here and the release valve blew...

yeah, ok.

How's about my sister? She came from a poor family with a jobless dad and a mom who wouldn't stand up for herself, moved out when she was 17 in order to finish up at a good high school. Got student loans and worked several jobs to pay her way through college, getting her degree in accounting with a high GPA. Then, when she was 24 years old, our parents died, and she immediately filed for guardianship and got to take care of an 11 year old brat (me). Took care of that brat all through high school and is helping his way through college now (with help of more loans of course). She is now a senior IS auditor at NEXTEL.
Wanna guess which party she supports?
I'll give you a hint, her name is Carrie.
And her fiancee's name is John. (So is our brother's too.)

Maybe your problem with democrats, is that you know bad democrats.

As far as the Swift Boat thing... let me weigh in on this.

I work at a book store. This has been established. Barnes and Noble to be precise.
"Unfit for Command" was the book that the Swiftboat guys were writing. The book was originally supposed to come out 9/1. Due to all of the publicity the book was getting... the small time publisher moved up the date. The media was very confused about the release nature of the book. (our stores didn't have any, but Sean Hannity was saying stores had the book, "right now")
Because of the date push up, and the massive demand for the book, there simply is no books to give out. We've been sold out ever since the book came in (and those that came in just filled preorders).
The funny thing is, half the customers we turn away are grumbling about some "liberal conspiracy". Our CEO gets emails that we are "redlining" conservative books. One customer got into a shouting match with one of our booksellers because we didn't have the book. "it's all of over the news, what do you mean you don't have it? You guys have some sort of agenda?"

Yeah, our agenda at Barnes and Noble is to sell books. We are neither red nor blue, but we sure do care about the green.

We would sell 800 copies of Mein Kampf if we could, why would we blacklist Unfit for Command? You can order the Anarcist's Cookbook through BN.
These people buying these book are mean, mostly old, mostly men, and mostly NOT our usual Barnes and Noble customers.

Our company just had a press release about the unavailibility of the book

I think that the fact that the book got a FRONT PAGE fisking by the NYT and WaPo says alot. I'm sure you guys are going to say "cough*liberal bias*cough"... but NYT and WaPo have reputations to uphold. They are also in the business of selling papers. They won't dog a good book just because it's conservative. Military records and previous testimony more support John Kerry's version of events than the Swiftboat guys. That and the numerous ties between the main funders/founders of SBVFT and the bush campaign, especially Karl Rove. McCain said it best when he said "It's the same thing they did to me"

I will actually read this book when it comes into our stores again, but I feel that by then, it won't matter. The backlash on this book is huge. By the time it starts coming back in numbers, the news cycle will be dead. Political books by nature have very short lifespans.

The big loser, undoubtably is Regnery publishing. A small, conservative publisher ( that I haven't heard of, being in the book business for 2 years now) that has really missed the "boat" on the only big book it will ever have.

Sorta makes you think... $200,000 in the hands of Republicans is more dangerous than 15 MILLION in the libs pocketbook. The value of fiscal responisibility!!

Robin:

I followed you until: "...but NYT and WAPo have reputations to uphold."

You're joking, right? Have you seen what the Gray Lady's done in the last 3 years (and further back too, for that matter)? Marueen Dowd and Jayson Blair ("Burning Down My Master's House").

Maybe the NYT does have a reputation to uphold. I guess hookers and drug dealers do too.

The reason why those WERE scandals is because NYT has a reputation as a top national paper. That wouldn't be the case if it was Timbuktu Weekly. They have reputations as top national papers, along with LA times I guess (i never read that).

Robin, you stated:

"The reason why those WERE scandals is because NYT has a reputation as a top national paper."

That's just flat-out circular logic, at best. You should be ashamed, as I know you're capable of a better argument than that.

However, the facts won't allow a better argument, because there isn't one to offer.

The NYT at this point may as well change it's name to the Democrat Talking Point Daily. They've squandered any semblence of objectivity; their sole remaining usefulness is as a reference point for moonbattitude.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Ok. I'll stop talking about NYT, I only read WaPo and go to the post.com anyway.

Good for you Robin. FWIW, the LA times aint much better. I read it from time to time but they're writing has gotten way too slanted.

Good objective news is just harder to find now than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

And notice none of us are defending the wackos who subscribe to a B&N conspiracy re: swift boat guys. Which is why we're surprised when folks on your side of the aisle defend Moore's theories, among others. See the postings from MeowMix last week for a good example.

Robin - You're right. I do only know bad Dimocrats like Bill Clinton (draft dodger, rapist), Ted Kennedy (murderer) and John Kerry (liar, backstabber). I work with very intelligent and hard working people. Also since we see things logically, when we see sumpin' that fails, we try something else. Therefore most of us are conservatives or libertarians. We want to fix our failing educational system. The Dimocrats want to throw more money at it. We are for welfare reform. Clinton only supported it to get reelected. Most of the Dimocrats were against it. None of my coworkers are race baiters or racists, unlike members of the Dimocrat Party. I am sick of their patronizing and condescending attitude towards blacks. By their policies they are saying that blacks are too stupid to survive without gummint. This makes me sick to my stomach! What makes me sad is that blacks fall for this bullshit.

add Janet Jackson to the Whiner list this was posted in the Arizona Republic paper.

NEW YORK - Janet Jackson is accusing President Bush of using her breast to distract the country from the war in Iraq.

Jackson tells the gay magazine Genre that her wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl was "the perfect vehicle" to take the country's mind off what's happening in Iraq. Jackson is also sorry she said she was sorry for what happened.

She says "you don't apologize for an accident. It just makes you look guilty."

She also thinks it's "stupid" that the FCC could fine CBS for what she did. She says commercials for beer and Viagra are more sexual.

I mean her tits are nice but not a real big distraction, lets face it they were on screen about a second or two. That worst then watching scrambled porn on the old cable box's. If I want boobies I come to the GOC on saturday.

Didn't Clinton veto welfare reform 2-3 times? I don't know what his reasoning was though (sometimes it's really specific -- shitloads of amendments can get tacked on to bills) since I was a little kid at the time -- all I remember is the Lewinsky scandal.

The NYT article was basically, from what I could tell (to be honest I haven't really read it -- read a bit) making the point that most of these guys were just pissed off about what Kerry did after the war, and supposedly the founder or some guy in the group is friends with Rove. I don't know how true all that is, and I'm sure you could find Kerry people linked with these liberal 527 groups that're pumping out ads like crazy.

A comment on the SBVT thing -- I think they should've aired their second ad first -- the first one's marred in controversy, but the second one isn't getting much attention, and it's irrefutable. John Kerry came back and slandered the whole armed forces and blasted our goal in Vietnam. I think THAT's a lot more important of an issue, and Kerry has only "apologized" for how it was worded (whatever that means.) That and his Senate record -- Bush's gotta really emphasize that in the campaign.

You gotta figure, Bush isn't denouncing these ads directly because it's a political season, and he figures he can score some points with it while just denouncing 527s in general. He ain't stupid.

And in a way I'm kinda glad this happened, distortions, half-truths or not. I'd had it up to here with Kerry droning on about Vietnam.

Carter was the worst president of the 20th century? What about Harding & Hoover?

Nope. Harding and Hoover were pikers compared to Carter. Harding was the Bill Clinton of his era. He was incredibly popular. It wasn't until after he died that people realized what a fuckup he was. Hoover was blessed with an incredibly stupid Congress. Smoot-Hawley was one of the stupidest bills ever passed and he stupidly signed it. I believe Congress was in Republican hands so we can lay a lot of the blame for the Great Depression on Hoover and the Republicans, but the entire world fell into depression, so it wasn't just US policies.

Jimmah had a Dimocrat Congress whom he fought with. He couldn't even get along with a Congress in control of his own party. Iran was a major US humiliation. Jimmah was shocked (shocked!) that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We had stagflation and an energy crisis and his response was price controls and a sweater. He was completely over his head and had to get advice from his daughter on nuclear (which he pronounced the same as Bush) negotiations.

I've also maintained that every time he had sex with his wife he always was on the bottom because all he knew how to do was fuck up.

"The people buying this book are mean..."

[snicker!]

typical liberal bullshit. Look, if they are assholes, then call 'em that. But to reduce assholery to the pussified "mean" is ridiculous. Plus, I've read several accounts that state that B&N does indeed have a liberal bias in the manner in which they sell conservative titles. Your claim that all that they care about is green cash is ironic, seeing how the NYTimes, LATimes, et al. are obviously in business to make money, but somehow manage to be the collective equivalent of a gaping liberal sphincter.