On my own blog, I have posting that notes how Andrew Sullivan took a very different position with regards to Democrat gay baiting in the 2002 Senate race between Max Baucus and Mike Taylor.

FYI - FrankJ didn't write the Ohio primer, RightWingDuck did.

O'Neill lied his ass of during that segment.

1) He misrepresented the statement that there was only one VC with a B40 rocket launcher to mean that there was only one VC in total.

2. He flat out lied about Kerry's picture in the Vietnamese Museum. That picture is part of a larger pictorial of members of a 1993 commission on normalization--that includes John McCain. It was not a tribute to American traitors.

Essentially, y'all are complaining because ABC went to Vietnam and found results you don't like.

Had they buried a story showing that Kerry lied, there would be howling a'plenty.

I believe that most of the Swiftvets are honorable men, even though their judgment is colored by a decades-old grudge.

But O'Neill and Corsi are dishonest hatchet men, and dishonor their comrades.

Allow me to be a Democrat for a minute.

I personally admire both Kerry and Bush's love for their daughters. Children make mistakes, we all know that. Bush loves his daughters dearly despite some college girl antics they pulled a few years ago.

As I'm sure Kerry loves his daughter for her sketchy pictures being published on hoards of porn websites across the internet such as fleshbot.com; I have not seen such fatherly love since Paris Hilton's videotape debacle!

*shrug* I'm just trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue of your daughter being published on internet porn websites.

Dean Esmay's incite is pretty accurate on how many, if not most, conservative christians I know think. He could have also added, "love the sinner, hate the sin". If Kedwards thinks this will drive conservative christians out of the Bush camp, they truly don't understand how we think. The way the Vice President reacted to it during his debate showed, at least to me, that he was not happy with having his family's private issues brought out in such a crass political manner. This is just another example of how the Dems have no sense of right and wrong, and will stoop to any level just to win an election. If they win the election, it will be 4 more years of the moral relativism and shades of gray type of shenanigans like we had under the last Dem administration. Character DOES count, especially if you want to represent ME and my country to the world!

Geek, there's only one man here who dishonored his Comrades, and you're going to vote for him.

Geek -

1. Back up your claims with supportive evidence, please. I'm not at all suggesting that they have no merit, I'd just like to see the evidence. I'm curious. The Swift Vets have misrepresented certain things in their campaign.

2. Essentially, y'all are complaining because ABC went to Vietnam and found results you don't like.

No, you miss the point. The results of ABC's query aren't exactly what I'm complaining about. The Swift Vets have been wrong on maybe a third of their accusations, right on about 50%, and he-said she said (but lean against them) on the remainder. For example, you might address the fact that John Kerry was not in Cambodia, he did not deserve his first purple heart, which was inflicted by his own grenade, etc., etc.

Bt truth be told, I'm not so much concerned about the Swift Vets allegations inside Vietnam. I am concerned with their problem with his post-Vietnam rhetoric and the larger issue, which is ...

... ABC NEVER TALKED TO THE SWIFT VETS, or aired their version of the story, except to ask O'Neill for a surprise interview immediately before a piece that challenged their assertions.

If you can't understand why this is not a 50/50, fair treatment, and see how they deserve as much time for testimony as some Vietnamese villagers dug up by ABC, then ...

Alexandra Kerry's Rack:

Actually, you do bring up a good point. A lot of the right-wing bloggers who are now howling about Kerry's admittedly inappropriate reference had no problem at all with posting pictures of, or links to pictures of, your namesake. What bothered me a lot more in the debate was Kerry's bullshit attempt to appeal to the religious vote. He may in fact believe in God (I'll take his word for that), but his forced appropriately God-fearing statements are so obviously insincere it's embarrassing. Ironically, if you look at his history, it's pretty clear that his anti-war position is sincere, but Karl Rove has apparently decided that it's more effective to paint him as less anti-war than he actually is rather than pointing out that he's less religious than he actually is.

In some ways it's actually a smart move: I'm sure Rove's not at all worried about losing the religious base, most of whom probably know they're being patronized by Kerry's calculated piety, while attacking him for post-Deaniac opportunism allows the Republican spin machine to plant doubts in the minds of people who strongly opposed the war, about whether Kerry is really their man. Probably hoping to push more than a few anti-war left votes into the Nader camp. In other words, it's about as opportunistic a strategy as the Republicans claim Kerry is using. Not particularly surprising, I guess... and no, I'm not saying it's unique to Republicans or a sinister evil Hallichimperor plot.

Sullivan convinced me that he lost the power of rational thought when he endorsed Kerry (who mirrors Bush's stand on gay marriage) because of his big spending!

Bush's comment that he is not concerned about bin Laden seems to me to be really inconsistent (dare I say a flip-flop), considering all his rhetoric about hunting down and killing terrorists, or bring in bin Laden 'dead or alive.'

I suspect this is part of why the Right is playing up the Mary Cheney comment for all it is worth because they did not want the news to be all about Kerry winning all three debates, and Bush's stupid "exaggeration" line.

1. Where did you get the idea that a Purple Heart is improper if the wound comes from your own grenade? That is not correct: http://www.purpleheart.org/Awd_of_PH.htm

"(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of "friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly" projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."

See also: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

There is no evidence, other than the mysterious Mr. Schachte, that this wound was self-inflicted. And it is largely irrelevant even if it was (again, there is no evidence of this).

2. Regarding the claim that the North Vietnamese have a picture of Kerry celebrating him as a hero of their cause:

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/08/16&ID=Ar00100

"The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.

It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials."

All people who think that the Vietnamese would consider Robert McNamara a hero of their cause go immediately to the front of the line for Dunce caps. That includes you, Mssrs. Corsi and O'Neill.

3. Is there anyone who is interested that DOESN'T know what the Swiftvets have to say? The Swifties were very successful in getting their allegations into the public discourse. Before this, it was Kerry et al vs. Swiftvets et all. Everyone knew Kerry's story. Everyone knew the Swiftvets story. Koppel got a third party's perspective, then gave O'Neill a chance to respond.

Key point: Koppel didn't interview any of Kerry's crewmates, Rood, or Kerry campaign officials. It's hard to argue media bias when anti-Kerry folks, but not pro-Kerry folks, are allowed to speak.

The segment was essentially about trying to find corroboration either way of what happened.

The larger farce is that the Swiftvets have O'Neill out there--when he has absolutely no personal knowledge of what happened that day. All he has is his anti-Kerry spin.

4. O'Neill made W's first debate performance look like something that William Jennings Bryan would produce. His rhetoric was limited to whining, lying, insulting, and holding books up for the camera.

To break down his lies:

1. He claims that Kerry is in the War Remnants Museum in Vietnam as a hero. That is a lie. See above.

2. He claims that Kerry got the Silver Star only for killing the one VC, and that Kerry's account indicates that there were no other VC present.

That is a lie. As has been noted elsewhere, there were two ambushes that day. The reference to "only one" is a reference to the fact that there was only one VC with a rocket launcher, not total VC.

I wrote about The Guardian's efforts to influence US elections. I also signed up for The Guardian's program, although I won't write the person. Why? Because The Guardian says it will only give a voter's name and address to one person (by email address) to avoid a deluge of letters from Old Blighty to John Doe that look like the blatant attempt to influence the election that this actually is. Therefore, the process can be sabotaged. I'm doing my part; do yours.

Sullivan runs the risk of doing for gay causes what Patricia Ireland did for NOW. By supporting the author of the "nuts or sluts" defense, women who supported NOW found it incongruent with women's rights in the workplace. If Clintons peccadillos would have happened to any other executive in any other executive office in the world, Ireland would have been screaming. Her support of Clinton delineated NOW as pro-abortion only, devoid of other important women's issues. Sullivan's inconsistency on this issue will resoundingly silence the weight of his opinions in the future.

Walter,
The difference is that Kerry's daughter put herself out there with a see thru dress. (Not that I approve of it being used improperly on the net, I don't) But Mary Cheney has made a big effort to stay out of the spotlight, not even going on stage with her family a the RNC. So...But still you didn't find Cheney or Bush remarking about the slut dressing of Kerry's daughter anywhere.
And the remark of Liz Edwards was just AWFUL. How dare she say Lynn might be ashamed of her daughter. How would she feel if Lynn asked her why she didn't teach her boy to drive better. We cannot allow this kind of thing to go unanswered. Bad form indeed.

Spot on on Sullivan. He's been adrift for a few months now. I think it all began with the Abu Grahib scandal. Sulliiivan went apoplectic over the "torture"

Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody actually died. To me it looks like something you would see in backroom of the "Ramrod" in Provincetown on a Saturday Night.

Rightwingsparkle:

You have to admit that it would be a much bigger deal for a politician to refer to his opponent's daughter as a "slut" than to simply point out that she's a lesbian and probably wants the same rights as everyone else. Look, I'm really not trying to say that Kerry's reference wasn't inappropriate, but I really don't think it was as big of a deal, or as calculated, as has been portrayed.

I think you can see this as either Kerry crossing the line by directly referring to a member of his opponent's family in a way that may negatively impact the public image of that opponent, or you can see it as Kerry getting to the heart of the issue of gay rights by using a personalized real-world example. Or as a combination of those two, which is the way I see it. I was very uncomfortable with the direct reference, but for anyone who's not in favor of discrimination against gay people, the irony of such a prominent figure in the Republican party having a gay daughter is almost overwhelming. You just have to look at the fact that 186 Republican Representatives voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (not to mention the 45 Senators who voted for cloture to try get the measure voted on there). While that obviously doesn't make Cheney's daughter "fair game", by contrast with the idea of enshrining discrimination against 10% of the population (that's 30 million people, if you don't have a calculator handy) in the Constitution, it's fairly mild.

Bill:

The leftist British paper "The Guardian" is trying to influence the American Election by sponsoring a patronizing letter-writing campaign to voters in Clark County, Ohio.

I assume you, like the link-whoring "Monk" above, object to this campaign as an attempt by foreign parties to interfere with domestic politics. It is that, but I think this is a point that an awful lot of Americans really don't get about the rest of the world. Even if you reject the notion of our being "hegemonic" or "imperialist", we really are the 400-lb. gorilla of geopolitics. I'll tell you, I spent a year in Spain on a student exchange, and it's impossible to exaggerate how much our presence pervades every aspect of thinking on international affairs. Economics, trade, politics - all those equations are influenced by the giant X factor of the U.S.A. I took a class called International Economics which was essentially a history of the post-WWII U.S.-run international financial system. If there's a situation in which we are involved, or might be involved, or have been involved in something similar in the past, or could inadvertently influence by our involvement in something marginally related, this has to be considered.

To be honest with you, considering all of the above, I think the Guardian's letter-writing campaign is a fairly benign form of expression. They're not making threats or trying to coerce anyone in any way. It's just, "we live here too, and maybe you should consider x y z". I really don't think it will be very effective, considering the all-too-common knee-jerk American reaction to any suggestion that the views of foreigners should be taken into account on any matter whatsoever, but it's not like they have a whole lot of options.

Acutally Walter, your comment about how Europeans interest in how the US economy can be influenced by foreigner, is to vote for their own leader. He/She in turn will make the choices based off of the opinions of the majority in thier country. These decisions can include but definetly aren't limited to Assigning diploamts, use of the UN, tariffs, etc. It's not the notion that foreinger that probably angered Monk, more the fact that a newspaper is encouraging ANYBODY
to write to Joe Somebody in Ohio, or wherever's in the US. I know If I got a letter from some jackass trying to influence me in ANY direction, I would send them a letter back, "My Business in Polotics is that, MINE!"

Also, would you mind not calling fellow posters or bloggers, "whoring". Its not polite.

About you opost about Kerry and Cheney's daughter, a better comparision from the Bush Campaign would be, "John Kerry hasn't proposed any legislation to promote Road Safety. I bet [John Edwards' son] would say that road safety is key issue."
This is not offenseive in the way it's presented, but it definetly is a TABOO area, just like Cheney's Daughter.

walter, well first of all I don't see the ban as discrimination, but thats another argument.
Kerry's argument was VERY calculated. Not to insult, but to pander to the gay community and at the same time hope that it will turn Christian voters away from Bush. Which,as I said before shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Christians. No surprise there.

DELETED FOR HOMOPHOBIC COMMENT.

I assume you, like the link-whoring "Monk" above, object to this campaign as an attempt by foreign parties to interfere with domestic politics.

Walter,

Once again, I think you take me way too ... what's the word ... deeply? Literally?

I'm aware that America pervades most aspects of foreign economics, culture, etc. I realize they feel helpless, controlled by another electorate, etc.

But what you've got to understand is that I agree with you about the Guardian's effort - it is a "benign form of expression." In fact, while I wrote this post, I was giggling (as I am with many posts).

If it does anything it will drive people towards Bush. And overall I think it's frickin' hilarious that a bunch of uptight leftist Brits so fundamentally misintepret the American character as to not realize that they do themselves more harm than good, if anything at all.

That being said, spamming the Guardian is also great fun.

Once again, I think you take me way too ... what's the word ... deeply? Literally?

OK... my bad.

No, it's my fault. I'm really dry.

Just picture me smirking as I type most of this stuff.

I'm a daily reader of Sullivan's blog and I've always admired the clarity of his thought...but his defense of Kerry's remarks is just puzzling. When I heard Kerry say that on TV I thought to myself "I can't wait to hear the smack down Andrew dishes out about that"...little did I know. I totally disagree with Bush's position on gay marriage and find his arguments to be lame and theocratic...but in a certain sense I have a greater respect for his position than for Kerry's myopic two-faced non-position.

The argument Kerry uses for declaring his support for "traditional marrige" is a pathetic example of circular reasoning that always goes something like this: "of course same-sex couples have rights, but they should not be allowed to enter into a marriage because marriage is and should be between a man and a woman"... textbook begging-the-question, and the fact that no one on his staff has told him to can this logical fallacy, or that no one in the media has called him on it is truly pathetic.

All of this seems to be lost on Andrew. His blog in the last three weeks or so has degenerated into one big public rationalization for voting for Kerry. Alot of the arguments he uses are pathetic and he has become invested with a degree of wishful thinking in terms of Kerry's prospects as a wartime leader that I find quite dissapointing.

Dean Esmey is pretty much right on as to how conservative Christians feel about Kerry's use of Cheney's daughter. I also think they screwed up in their belief in this regard. Maybe it is the characture the left paints of the evangelical Christian that led to this mistake, but it was a big one I think in the PR department.

As for the Swift Vets-I honestly think anyone who is going to be swayed by Vietnam stuff on either side was swayed back in August. I don't see this stuff having much impact either way at this point in the race. I do think the while in Vietnam stuff is dubious, but their criticism of Kerry after he returned is pretty much in the congressinal record to be read, and I don't blame them for being pissed.

Has anyone heard of a book called "Sisters"? It's by the Vice-President's WIFE fer cryin' out loud!!

"The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage -- no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were.

The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive, a curvesome creature, rounded at bosom and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded, like tiny ivory pillows.

Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture."

Sisters - A Book By Lynne Cheney

"(A) riveting tale of women in the American frontier. The novel of a strong and beautiful woman who broke all the rules of the American frontier...".

Amazon

What the hell is up with this?

Jason -

Very insightful comments. Kudos.

Velcro -

Looks like a great read!

Mrs. Cheney wrote that book like 30 years ago, and already has said it was not one of her best writes. Also the publisher won't re-release it. BFD

5835 http://texas-holdem.ownsthis.com texas holdem

1231 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps

545 http://www.blackjack-1000.com
PlLAY the best blackjack-1000.com
debt consolidation only.