Daily scandal involving Bush campaign

By sitting at a desk?

No, but it's certainly funny.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040804/capt.iapm10908042116.bush__iapm109.jpg

For what it's worth, eating corn raw off the cob like that without boiling it first is a lot like eating the core of an apple. It probably won't kill you, but it ain't right either.

And makes people cough and look other directions.

and as for the commercial, it's not from the Bush campaign any more than Moveon.org officially speaks for Kerry.

Much like the president?

BTW, when is Kevin Drum gonna get around to campaiging for the complete release of Kerry's military records? It's never seemed to be at the top of his priority list.

Woo!

I'd be quite happy to campaign for the release of everyone's military records. This includes everyone on either side of the brouhaha in the swift boat conundrum, including whether or not they were brought up right, were Boy Scouts, and wiped themselves properly.

To say the two situations are equivalent is to ignore pretty much everything about the situation.

Clinton wasn't even allowed to drink coffee on Capitol Hill.

That's true.. But we'll see whether or not Bush condemns it as McCain requested. I do give Bush enough credit to not think he personally was behind this...

And the liberals say Bush lies...

is a big difference from 'they're not officially-connected.'

One is an independent lefty organization with no apparent ties to the DNC or Kerry (they ran ads encouraging censure of Clinton), the other is a brand new organization dedicated solely to attacking Bush's opposition with funding from GOP donors.

Of course Bush's campaign isn't actually calling attention to its links to the org, but you've got to be kidding me if you want to claim it's completely independent, ala moveon.

it's not from the Bush campaign any more than Moveon.org officially speaks for Kerry.

please. It's run by a veteran Republican operative whose late husband was Bush's former Lieut Gov running mate (and who worked in a law firm with Bush's former counsel), and who ran a dirty ad campaign against McCain in 2000, funded by a Bush Pioneer. Her daughter's godfather is Bush's former solicitor general (also of the Arkansas Project). And the obsessive behind it, her husband's law partner, is John O'Neill, who's still smarting from losing a debate to Kerry on national tv more than 30 years ago. O'Neill was coordinated then by Nixon's dirty trick-master Charles Colson (who has since personally requested forgiveness from Kerry), who also conducted activities through Don Segretti, then the employer of one Karl Rove.

Moveon.org is run by private progressive citizens and business people with no involvement in politics prior to impeachment nor any service in government or official activity on behalf of a political party, and who supported no candidate in the primaries but were generally suspected to favor Dean.

Of course, the theme of their ad campaign is just totally inconsistent with Bush's intended anti-Kerry theme

And to keep this on topic, just what the hell kind of daily scandal is it going to take to swing a swing voter to Kerry?

Nice to see you're reading minds here Gabbneb. If Kerry, being the statesman he is, didn't appreciate them, what was stopping him from saying as much.

And as for you two complaining of the similarities between MoveOn and the goons with Swift ad, you're missing the point. Wanna start looking at the money behind MoveOn.org next? Wanna start talking about those dollars?

Founded:
Moveon - 1998
Swifties - last month

Founders:
Moveon - Dot.com millionaires
Swifties - GOP operatives

Funding:
Moveon - George Soros (not heavily involved with the DNC prior to Dubya), Peter Lewis of Progressive Corp. (ditto, has given $75k to DNC since 2000), ~160k individual donors
Swifties - longtime GOP donors

Pretty much exactly what we've been saying - MoveOn has a history as an independent organization, has donors outside of traditional party channels and a multitude of focuses (from the impeachment, to war, to general support for Anyone But Bush now), whereas the Swifties are a brand-new, GOP-top-to-bottom organization with direct ties to the Bush camp.

That you wanted to portray them as the same situation doesn't mean they are.

Does anyone know one person who voted for Bush in 2000 and is voting for Kerry this time? I know exactly one.

I know at least one. mid-20s Northern New Jersey male, loves Dave Matthews and Bruce Springsteen.

Nice to see you're reading minds here Gabbneb.

n.b. "while I can't say this for sure"

If Kerry, being the statesman he is, didn't appreciate them, what was stopping him from saying as much.

I'm not sure that he didn't, whether privately or publicly. But in referring to 'appreciation' I'm discussing not questions of propriety but those of political strategy - I believe that Kerry's and MoveOn's may well be inconsistent and that Bush's and the People Who Weren't On Kerry's Swift Boat's are quite likely not.

And as for you two complaining of the similarities between MoveOn and the goons with Swift ad, you're missing the point. Wanna start looking at the money behind MoveOn.org next? Wanna start talking about those dollars?

Sure. George Soros gave them a whole lot of money. He considers Kerry "acceptable" and himself a "nominal democrat." He has no formal ties to the Democratic party or Kerry, and is part of a group of investors and activists who favor political tactics different from those of the DNC, and sometimes rejected by the latter. This season, he's given independent groups an enormous amount of money that's spare change in the context of his holdings. In 2000, he gave $100K to a handful of candidates and groups.

"Don't make me use this, Don."

I know one -- my mother. When my dad was out of earshot one day, Mom said, "We've got to get that little banty rooster out of the White House."

and their charges imply that at least one of their numbers did not deserve his own Bronze Star

Now, to be fair, this isn't that stupid: of course we have to think about where we might be harmed. That's forward-thinking intelligence.

My dad, who is what you might call a "Clinton Republican." He actually voted against Clinton every time he ran for governor of Arkansas and voted against him in 1992, but was so fed up with the Gingrich/Buchanan cultural jihad stuff and impressed enough with Clinton as Pres. that he voted for him in 96. Went back to the Republicans in 2000, but has been severely disappointed in W.

Dad's basically a moderate Northeastern type Republican in the South who wants to be loyal to that party, but it's gotten too extremist for him.

Kerry's only tipping point is that he is not Bush. Which is an absolutely legitimate reason. I know several people who voted for Bush in 2000 who are conservative but are ready to give Kerry a shot based on the fact that he "probably can't do any worse." There was a lot of that same kind of thinking that led to the disastrous presidency called Jimmy Carter.

Who is the goofball with the grin behind the curtain they will put up next time?

http://www.aftonbladet.se/noje/0403/10/NOJE-10s24-white-18.jpg

Is that's why I keep screaming, "Kick Out the Jams, Muthafuckas!", all the time.

I would say his foreign policy was actually two foreign policies, and that was the problem, not any inherent "weakness." Also I'm not sure if his energy policy was any more or less inept than the current administration's policy. Arguably a poor communicator, since anybody looks bad next to Reagan. Still, definitely agree with your last sentence, for sure. I wouldn't have wanted to be president during his watch.

What level of denial and/or desperation do you have to be in to overlook the inconvenient fact that the dude's CRAZY?

In the words of the prophet, desperate but not serious.

My Dad has always thought that Carter boycotting the Olympics probably cost him more points than it gained. We will also never know how much meddling behind the scenes that Reagan's people had meddling in the hostage situation, I wouldn't have put it past them. Carter badly alienated his own party coming out of nowhere to win the Democratic ticket. They stuck it to him pretty bad.

I keep hearing this, too, the whole "No one votes for Kerry, but against Bush" argument. This is how Bush II became president. People voted against Al Gore. He came across as the huffy stand-in for an administration built on blowjobs. Everyone knew that Bush was a moron, but as that Rall cartoon illustrated, the average voter thought that "at least he's my moron."

Clinton won in 1992 with votes cast against Bush I, for him or Perot (You really think that Montana voted for Clinton?) People vote against candidates all of the time. I'm personally voting for Kerry. My vote wouldn't change if he was running against Frist, Cheney, Hastert, or even Powell.

I don't know why you're surprised - over the last 45 years, the federal government has spent less under Democratic Presidents than under Republican ones, measured by % of GDP, even if you take defense spending out of the equation.

But whatever, let's get to the obvious Gabbneb. If nothing else, Bush, as he promised while campaigning, signed the largest new entitlement of the past 40 years. It's going to be very, very expensive. Not only twice as expensive as the Rovots lied about, but probably 5 times that. And it's also going to put a huge dent in the armor that currently prevents socialized, government O/O medicine. I don't claim to be surprised by this action--not really sure where you picked that word up from my posting--but it's one of a dozen strong reasons why I wasn't tempted at all to vote for Bush in 2000. His Education bill was also a campaign promise, so that was forseen. The ag and steel gambits weren't even unpredictable. But for even opportunistic fiscal conservatives have been surprised by the way Bush has rolled over and barely acknowledged increases in spending, letting his own party do him like a show pony with district pork .

because Democrats make no spending tradeoffs?

Well, I'm suggesting that stereotypes don't match reality, so I don't know why the surprise of those who hold firmest to the stereotype should be convincing.

http://photoshop.superdownloads.net/uploads/bushbanana.jpg

Right, I forgot beliefs are more important than facts. Silly Democrat.

isnt mitt romney just chomping at the bit to run for pres? he's mormon tho.. i'd say people would get way to freaked out about that and all that crazy ass mormom rumors would surface.. i pity anyone who has to put up with that crap.

and Clinton won the battle in the 104th and the 105th (in addition to the 103rd Congress, when Dems controlled the whole govt), so the spending of his administration should be attributed more to the Executive than the part- or all-GOP Congress.