The word from Washington Post is that Larry Thurlow of the Anti-Kerry swift boat vet team has contradicted himself.  He said Kerry did not come under fire during a mission in which Kerry received a Bronze Star.  But Thurlows own military records which were released under the Freedom of Information Act contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire directed at "all units"  Thurlow won his Bronze Star that day  for aiding under fire.  Thurlow swore that Kerry was not under fire, but his(Thurlows) own document say that his actions took place "under constant enemy small arms fire "  Thurlow now says that he didn't know that the Bronze Star he(Thurlow) received was for aiding while under fire claiming he lost the citation 20 years ago.  He now insists that he didn't know his citation stated that he was under fire, and he resisted the release of his records because the Kerry campaign would try to discredit him.  Seems he did the job for them.

These SBVT punks are very well funded, with a gang of right-wing yes men providing up-to-the-minute reactive research.  Just watch, they've got an answer for everything pro-Kerry spokespeople will come up with.  John O'Neil is still nursing a 35-year vendetta against Kerry.

The reason Kerry keeps harping on his "heroic" service is he has an unremarkable legislative career. The reason the Bush campaign is using SBVT and O'Neil is Bush has been the wors President since Johnson--Andrew Johnson, that is--and the evidence of the Administration's incompetence becomes ever more obvious by the week.

The fact that the Bush people have taken the word "sensitive" out of Kerry's speech about the war on terror and are trying to use it, out of context, against him shows how desperate they are.

I'm much more worried about right-wing hijinks, sabotaged voting equipment, ballot tampering, and illegal voter exclusions now through election day.  There you will find the evil trolls who are controlling the country's destiny.

These SBVT punks are very well funded, with a gang of right-wing yes men providing up-to-the-minute reactive research.  Just watch, they've got an answer for everything pro-Kerry spokespeople will come up with.  John O'Neil is still nursing a 35-year vendetta against Kerry.

The reason Kerry keeps harping on his "heroic" service is he has an unremarkable legislative career. The reason the Bush campaign is using SBVT and O'Neil is Bush has been the wors President since Johnson--Andrew Johnson, that is--and the evidence of the Administration's incompetence becomes ever more obvious by the week.

The fact that the Bush people have taken the word "sensitive" out of Kerry's speech about the war on terror and are trying to use it, out of context, against him shows how desperate they are.

I'm much more worried about right-wing hijinks, sabotaged voting equipment, ballot tampering, and illegal voter exclusions now through election day.  There you will find the evil trolls who are controlling the country's destiny.


Right On!

Right On!

Thanks.
:)

This is unreal how this keeps going, with 150,000 dollars these people started all this debate and hype something that the over 12 million George Soros donated couldn't.  Go to www.readmylipz.com  --They do a very fair, independent analysis of every political television commercial in this campaign, and there results prove that even though the Swift boat vet's commercial is considered negative, it proves to be very effective, making over 53% of independents who are on the fence thinking about voting for Kerry re-think and even consider president Bush.  All but one commercial has had a positive effect for the person it was campaigning for, only the Bush-Hitler commercial from MoveOn PAC has actully had a negative effect on the candidate it was trying to support (Kerry.)

The way I see it is the democrats are just puffing their feathers, pretending they are not afraid of this commercial, yet they are spending all this time and money trying to keep it off the air?  Funny huh?

The word from Washington Post is that Larry Thurlow of the Anti-Kerry swift boat vet team has contradicted himself. 

For Immediate Release August 19, 2004

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow

I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.

Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident-the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.

And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.

These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?

I would guess with all the back and forth the voters will just have to decide who they
believe.  That is of course if they actually do get to vote, without intimidation, and the
votes are counted. (56,000+ in Florida)

For Immediate Release August 19, 2004

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow



Yet nowhere in that release does he mention that his own ship came back with three bullet holes in it... guess they were from Kerry huh?

Karl Rove, it's all so Karl Rove. >:( 

This is unreal how this keeps going, with 150,000 dollars these people started all this debate and hype something that the over 12 million George Soros donated couldn't
You think there's a mere 150 grand behind this SBVT hype?  It's a story the Republican Noise Machine wants at the forefront.  Look at all the time it's getting on the cable news shout shows.  This is the campaign against Kerry, it has little to do with some bitter old vets.  SBVT just happens to be the best conduit for the GOP smear campaign.  So long as Kerry is goaded into responding to these clowns, he has less time to talk about real issues--such as the contemptible treatment veterans have received from the Bush Adminstration.
Larry Thurlow can eat my shorts.  I hope the rest of you don't waste your time reading that dumb letter.

This is unreal how this keeps going, with 150,000 dollars these people started all this debate and hype something that the over 12 million George Soros donated couldn't.  Go to www.readmylipz.com 

Went to the site  "privately funded non- partisan"?  By republican fat cats, and hardly non-partisan from what I read.

And you don't produce and buy an ad in your local newspaper for $150,000.  You don't produce a tv ad and buy air time for $150,000.  Did you leave out a few zeros???

You think there's a mere 150 grand behind this SBVT hype?  It's a story the Republican Noise Machine wants at the forefront.  Look at all the time it's getting on the cable news shout shows.  This is the campaign against Kerry, it has little to do with some bitter old vets.  SBVT just happens to be the best conduit for the GOP smear campaign.  So long as Kerry is goaded into responding to these clowns, he has less time to talk about real issues--such as the contemptible treatment veterans have received from the Bush Adminstration.
Larry Thurlow can eat my shorts.  I hope the rest of you don't waste your time reading that dumb letter.


I DID read it, although it is clearly just another part of this smear campaign.  Since Lil' Georgie can't point to his own destinguished military record (even his father's was dubious since he was the only survivor, and there were questions about his efforts to save his crewman), he has no choice but to attack Kerry's service record.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040821/cgsa002_1.html

someone who actually was on the river the same day as Kerry comes forward to tell the truth about what happened... and guess whose side he agrees with.

:-X

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040821/cgsa002_1.html

someone who actually was on the river the same day as Kerry comes forward to tell the truth about what happened... and guess whose side he agrees with.

Hey, don't spoil the ride for SBVT, most of those guys are off the sauce and out of bed before noon for the first time in 25 years!
:D

Well now bush has finally agreed to come out against the ads.  Let us not fool ourselves(I
know we won't) into thinking he did it because it was the right thing to do.  He did it because
after the initial reaction against Kerry, he realized in the long run he was gonna get a whipping.
Rove blew it on the intern affair story, now on this. We will just have to wait and see what he
comes up with next.

Well now bush has finally agreed to come out against the ads.  Let us not fool ourselves(I
know we won't) into thinking he did it because it was the right thing to do.  He did it because
after the initial reaction against Kerry, he realized in the long run he was gonna get a whipping.
Rove blew it on the intern affair story, now on this. We will just have to wait and see what he
comes up with next.

I have yet to hear him denounce the SBVT ads by name.  He keeps tapdancing around the issue, saying, "Oh, well, I'm against all those kinds of ads on both sides."  As if there were an equivalently low blow (with equal press coverage) by the Democrats.
BTW, to those of you who keep bringing up the Bush-Hitler comparison attributed to move-on.org, cut it out.  Those ads were posted on the Move On site by participants in a contest for the best anti-Bush ad.  These ads were neither considered for an award, nor endorsed in any way by Move On.org.

In the news snippet I heard last night, he was saying that he had ALREADY spoken out against them, but that noone was listening....


He referred to it as "that ad" because to denounce the ad by using the group's name, might actually let people know what he was talking about. He keeps saying he doesn't support the use of these "groups" that do the attack ads, and uses the free press to attack the ads on the other side of the fence.

I have yet to hear him denounce the SBVT ads by name.  He keeps tapdancing around the issue, saying, "Oh, well, I'm against all those kinds of ads on both sides."  As if there were an equivalently low blow (with equal press coverage) by the Democrats.
BTW, to those of you who keep bringing up the Bush-Hitler comparison attributed to move-on.org, cut it out.  Those ads were posted on the Move On site by participants in a contest for the best anti-Bush ad.  These ads were neither considered for an award, nor endorsed in any way by Move On.org.




I've seen the ads, including the infamous Hitler ad on MoveOn.org -- I typed the URL into my location bar and went to the site, intentionally and by my conscious decision, for the sole purpose of viewing the ads. 

The only other time I have seen the Hitler ad was an excerpt used in a Republican ad that I viewed on the RNC website.  I knew the ad I had chosen to view contained portions of the Hitler ad and I had gone to the RNC site, intentionally and by my concious decision, for the sole purpose of viewing it.

I have also seen the SwiftBoat ad -- I was watching television and the ad aired, I did not seek it out, I did not know it would be airing to have chosen, beforehand, whether I desired to view it.  This has happened only once, so far.

The only other times I have seen the SwiftBoat ad were excerpts shown in the process of reporting or discussing the issue on news programs, talk shows, etc.  I did not tune in to these programs specifically to view excerpts from that ad and, so far, have had no foreknowledge that any program I've chosen to view  would contain excerpts from that ad.  However, I was aware that the issue was big news and I did choose to view these programs for the purpose of keeping up with the news, in general.

I didn't particularly care for either the Hitler ad or the Swiftboat ad... I thought both were in extremely poor taste.

I am in Illinois.  My state is not considered a swing state and I don't watch a lot of television, anyway, so I know it is quite likely that I am not seeing all of the ads that are airing.  My question is this:  Has anyone purchased air time to subject unwitting television viewers to the Hitler ad from MoveOn.org, in whole or in part and, if so, which candidate's supporters or campaign purchased that air time? 

Yes see the democrats want Bush to denounce this ad, and Bush has denounced ALL of the 527's, Kerry only wants to only denounce ones that attack him.  Its a huge insane double-standard....again.  An article in yesterday's Boston Globe said it perfectly, something like we should just say screw, we know the media is for Kerry, it is nothing new.  Also did you know that 87% of ALL soft-money spent from 527's and PAC's are from democrats to Kerry-leaning groups?  No wonder Kerry wants to keep the money flowing.

Yes see the democrats want Bush to denounce this ad, and Bush has denounced ALL of the 527's, Kerry only wants to only denounce ones that attack him.  Its a huge insane double-standard....again.  An article in yesterday's Boston Globe said it perfectly, something like we should just say screw, we know the media is for Kerry, it is nothing new.  Also did you know that 87% of ALL soft-money spent from 527's and PAC's are from democrats to Kerry-leaning groups?  No wonder Kerry wants to keep the money flowing.


Bush is free to denounce all the ads he wants... how come he can't denounce this one in particular?  oh that's right, he's just denouncing the use of 525s not anything they actually say.  BIG DIFFERENCE

87% of the soft money is used by the Dems?  That number sounds like it came straight out of the air and highly unlikely. Feel free to back it up with a site that is NOT: Free Republic, Fox News, NewsMax

Yes see the democrats want Bush to denounce this ad, and Bush has denounced ALL of the 527's, Kerry only wants to only denounce ones that attack him.  Its a huge insane double-standard....again.  An article in yesterday's Boston Globe said it perfectly, something like we should just say screw, we know the media is for Kerry, it is nothing new.  Also did you know that 87% of ALL soft-money spent from 527's and PAC's are from democrats to Kerry-leaning groups?  No wonder Kerry wants to keep the money flowing.

Yeah, all Bush's money comes from nurses and truck drivers.  Since they all lost their jobs, they don't have anything to do but sit around writing out checks for their favorite Prez!
:D

ummm...call me what you will, but what in the heck is a 525/527?


I think its 527 (not sure).  They are politicly oriented groups not affiliated with either party that advocate for issues or candidated outside the control, coordination, etc of the official campaign.  You could start one, buy air time etc to advocate.  SBVT and Moveon.org are examples.  The difference between the 2 is that Moveon predates the  Kerry campaign, is funded by millions of people across the country, and hasn't lied, just exposed, "highlighted" the truth.  SBVT was funded by longtime Bush supporters, lies (that is libals and slanders Kerry's record), and probably is illegally connected to the Bush campaign.  So far, one volunteer for the Bush campaign who appears in one ad  has resigned, the Bush campaign's chief lawyer has resigned because he "provided SBVT with legal advice", and fliers for a SBVT event were found in a Bush campaign office.  If these represent ties between the campaing and the SBVT that would be a violation of federal law.

Nor is this the first time that the Bush camp has attacked the military record of opponents.  In the 2000 primaries, they attacked John MaCain and in 2002 they attacked Max Clellan (?), both "heros" in Nam.  Its classical Karl Rove tactics - attack your opponent's strength, not his/her weakness, and its little more than character assasination, diffecult for the dems toi do to Bush, since he has no character.

I think its 527 (not sure).  They are politicly oriented groups not affiliated with either party that advocate for issues or candidated outside the control, coordination, etc of the official campaign.  You could start one, buy air time etc to advocate.  SBVT and Moveon.org are examples.  The difference between the 2 is that Moveon predates the  Kerry campaign, is funded by millions of people across the country, and hasn't lied, just exposed, "highlighted" the truth.  SBVT was funded by longtime Bush supporters, lies (that is libals and slanders Kerry's record), and probably is illegally connected to the Bush campaign.  So far, one volunteer for the Bush campaign who appears in one ad  has resigned, the Bush campaign's chief lawyer has resigned because he "provided SBVT with legal advice", and fliers for a SBVT event were found in a Bush campaign office.  If these represent ties between the campaing and the SBVT that would be a violation of federal law.

Nor is this the first time that the Bush camp has attacked the military record of opponents.  In the 2000 primaries, they attacked John MaCain and in 2002 they attacked Max Clellan (?), both "heros" in Nam.  Its classical Karl Rove tactics - attack your opponent's strength, not his/her weakness, and its little more than character assasination, diffecult for the dems toi do to Bush, since he has no character.

Here is a little bit about the 527:
http://www.gnossos.com/webhelp/What_is_a_527_Organization_.htm

The core of the Republican strategy is not about fighting honorably, fairly, or honestly.  It's about retaining and advancing the power of the super-rich by any means necessary.  This isn't "politics," this is class war.
The entire phenomenon we now call Conservatism was funded by just a handful of foundations seeded by super-rich families concerned with reversing the social contract developed between the 1930s and the 1960s.  Namely, the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Scaife family foundations, the Earhart Foundation, the Olin Foundation, The Castle Rock Foundation (Coors family), and a few others.
An article I recommend is in the current issue of Harper's, by one of my favorite writers, Harper's editor Lewis Lapham: Tentacles of Rage: The Republican Propaganda Mill, A Brief Histroy.  For deeper reading on the matter, David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine is the best book so far.

.

Nor is this the first time that the Bush camp has attacked the military record of opponents.  In the 2000 primaries, they attacked John MaCain and in 2002 they attacked Max Clellan (?), both "heros" in Nam.  Its classical Karl Rove tactics - attack your opponent's strength, not his/her weakness, and its little more than character assasination, diffecult for the dems toi do to Bush, since he has no character.


Max Clelan, the saddest sickest part is Max lost both legs and an arm in Viet Nam and Rove
attacks his patriotism.  This is from the Washington Post.  The sickest part is the voters who let
him get away with it.  Here is part , the WWW address is at the bottom.

Cleland is also a victim of the Karl Rove-Ralph Reed school of gutter politics. In the summer of 2002, with the midterm elections drawing near, the Bush White House reversed itself -- some might even call it a flip-flop -- and embraced the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, which had originated with Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut. But when the Republicans passed the bill out of the House, Rove had made sure it contained an utterly gratuitous poison pill for Democrats: a provision, strongly opposed by unions, that threatened the right of the new department's employees to organize. Senate Democrats knew that their wafer-thin majority was at risk but decided they would not sacrifice the economic security of homeland security workers to satisfy the political machinations of Karl Rove.

In November the guy who lost his job was Cleland. On behalf of GOP Senate nominee Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican Party head Ralph Reed ran a scabrous campaign against Cleland, accusing him of indifference to terrorism and national security, all but painting him as an agent of Osama bin Laden. Max Cleland, said the Republicans, was no patriot and not worthy of sitting in the Senate alongside such pillars of American ideals as Trent Lott. (Reed, of course, was once the organizing genius behind the Christian Coalition, where he read his Bible and evidently took the serpent in Eden as a figure for emulation.)

As far back as Vietnam and, indeed, the good old days of Joe McCarthy, Republicans have accused Democrats of insufficient love of country. But when they shattered the unity of a reeling nation in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks by manipulating the war on radical Islamic terrorism for political gain, when they used the attacks to justify a war on Iraq that had strikingly little to do with those attacks, when they said that those who opposed even their most deceptive and rash acts were unpatriotic, and most certainly when they demonized Max Cleland, they went too far. Not just morally, if I may invoke so quaint a concept. They went too far politically.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29206-2004Jul30.html

In November the guy who lost his job was Cleland. html

Emphasis on Cleland lost his job NOT Chambliss won.  When the abominable smear campaign against Cleland backfired, the Georgia Republicans just STOLE the election via rigged Diebold voting machines.  All pre-election polls showed Cleland ahead by several points, as did all the exit polls.  Nevertheless, the Diebold machines delivered this result:
Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov. 1 for Georgia Senate
Max Cleland (D)          49%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    44%

Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines'
Max Cleland (D)         46%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    53%

So Cleland WAS ahead by 5 points on 11/1 LOSES by 7 points instead?  Gimme a break!
>:(

Expect much more of this in 2004
:o

Emphasis on Cleland lost his job NOT Chambliss won.  When the abominable smear campaign against Cleland backfired, the Georgia Republicans just STOLE the election via rigged Diebold voting machines.  All pre-election polls showed Cleland ahead by several points, as did all the exit polls.  Nevertheless, the Diebold machines delivered this result:
Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov. 1 for Georgia Senate
Max Cleland (D)          49%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    44%

Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines'
Max Cleland (D)         46%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    53%

So Cleland WAS ahead by 5 points on 11/1 LOSES by 7 points instead?  Gimme a break!
>:(

Expect much more of this in 2004
:o




So you program the mnacine to count every fifth/tenth/ whatever vote for the democrat as 1 for the republican, and with no paper record, you win every time.  Maybe we need tro bring democracy to the US before trying to bring it to Iraq!

Emphasis on Cleland lost his job NOT Chambliss won.  When the abominable smear campaign against Cleland backfired, the Georgia Republicans just STOLE the election via rigged Diebold voting machines.  All pre-election polls showed Cleland ahead by several points, as did all the exit polls.  Nevertheless, the Diebold machines delivered this result:
Poll by Atlanta Journal Constitution Nov. 1 for Georgia Senate
Max Cleland (D)          49%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    44%

Official Results" from the 'Diebold Electronic Voting Machines'
Max Cleland (D)         46%
Saxby Chambliss (R)    53%

So Cleland WAS ahead by 5 points on 11/1 LOSES by 7 points instead?  Gimme a break!
>:(

Expect much more of this in 2004
:o




Okay I live in Georgia so I hope I can get this right.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution does fair polling, but they do polls of registered voters, not the likley voters.  That is a big difference.  Just recently on August 11, 2004 here in Georgia's 6th district we had a run-off election in the republican primary for the U.S. Congress seat between Robert Lamutt and Tom Price.  An Atlanta Journal Constitution poll showed my candidate Robert Lamutt ahead by 4 points, but then we voted and guess what happened?  Tom Price won the race by 6 points.  Also in these races in Georgia only an estimated 22% of the registered voters vote, so you can see the difference between registered voters, and likley voters.  No body liked Cleland, I personally didn't know one person who wanted to vote for him.  Ex. Governor Roy ''Osama'' Barnes lost to Sonny Perdue even though he was ahead in the polls (he lost because he changed the flag.)  Don't give me that Maxwell.

87% of the soft money is used by the Dems?  That number sounds like it came straight out of the air and highly unlikely. Feel free to back it up with a site that is NOT: Free Republic, Fox News, NewsMax


Sure, just read:

WASHINGTON� Campaign finance reformers Wednesday vented their frustration at the Federal Election Commission for failing to curb independent groups that are using huge "soft money" donations to change the political landscape.

The FEC, set to take up the issue Thursday, signaled in advance that it remains divided over how to deal with the groups, which are running massive voter mobilization drives and filling the airwaves with hard-hitting advertisements.

Many of these projects are financed by labor unions and wealthy individuals who give multimillion-dollar donations � the unlimited "soft money" that new campaign finance laws forbid parties and candidates to accept. So far, the FEC has not issued rules on how the new law applies to independent groups.

"There is no conceivable justification for the FEC to fail to act," said Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was the chief author of the ban on unlimited "soft money."

Saying that the FEC has "one last chance on Thursday to act responsibly," McCain fired off a statement insisting that groups whose "major purpose" is to influence federal elections must register with the federal government and restrict their contributions.

Joining his protest, the watchdog organizations Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center blamed the FEC for allowing the private groups, often dubbed "527s" for the section of the tax code that authorizes them, "to brazenly operate outside these laws during the 2004 elections."

The six-member FEC has been deadlocked on the issue, with only two members favoring a comprehensive crackdown on the groups.

Three commissioners this week floated a much less restrictive plan. "Our proposal addresses the specific abuses that people are complaining about," said Republican member David M. Mason, one of the three co-sponsors, in an interview Wednesday. He acknowledged that the draft rules were not as far-reaching as a proposal offered earlier by Democrat commissioner Scott E. Thomas and Republican member Michael E. Toner.

Although it's impossible to know whether the nonprofit groups will make a difference in this election, evidence is mounting that Democrats are the biggest beneficiaries by far.

More than 60 groups reported as of mid-year that they have raised a total of $118 million to influence the federal elections. Of that total, 87 percent went to groups that lean Democratic, said Derek Willis, who tracks these 527s for the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.

America Coming Together (ACT), one of the most active of the groups, has already sent canvassers to knock on 2 million doors in Ohio alone and about 1million doors in the rest of the 17 swing states, said spokeswoman Sarah Leonard.

ACT, which was launched with help from a $5 million gift from billionaire businessman George Soros as well as from labor unions and liberal interest groups, had originally planned to spend $100 million this year. It has now upped that budget to $125 million.

As for the possibility that the FEC will restrict groups like ACT, Leonard said, "We'll see what the FEC has to say. We believe we've followed the letter of the law."

Leonard also speaks for The Media Fund, another independent group, which expects to collect $50 million to run anti-Bush ad campaign.

Among the few efforts on the other side, the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has reported raising more than $150,000, mostly from Republican donors, to run an ad attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

The Bush White House and Republican Party have responded to the 527 movement by urging, without success, that the FEC stop all of the independent groups that accept unlimited "soft money" donations.

So it seems the Republicans are mad because they have found themselves inside
the noose of this loophole.  For the first time in my life I wrote a check to a soft money
group,  and so did many of my friends.  I can attest to the fact that many, many working
class people who never gave a cent to a political campaign are now digging deep, and
a few who never voted before have registered.  You feel the floor moving?  It's the
groundswell.

You feel the floor moving?  It's the
groundswell.


Yes I feel the floor moving too.  Especially with this new LA Times poll that just came out today (and its a left-leaning newspaper!)

Bush Leads Kerry 49% to 46% in Los Angeles Times Poll (Update1)
Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush leads Democratic rival John Kerry 49 percent to 46 percent, which is within the margin of error, among registered voters in a Los Angeles Times poll.

The poll of 1,597 adults, including 1,352 registered voters, was conducted nationwide from Saturday to Tuesday and has an error margin of 3 percentage points. Last month, Kerry, 60, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, led Bush by 2 percentage points in a Times poll.

When independent candidate Ralph Nader is included in the race, Bush leads Kerry 47 percent to 44 percent. Nader, 70, was supported by 3 percent.

The poll found that 48 percent of those surveyed had seen advertisements by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which accuses Kerry of lying to receive medals for his military service in Vietnam. An additional 20 percent said they had heard of the ads.

Eighteen percent of those polled said Kerry had misrepresented his war record, while 58 percent said Kerry had fought ``honorably'' and deserves the medals he won. Half of Republicans polled said they believe Kerry lied about his war record, while Democrats said 10 to 1 that Kerry served honorably.

Bush, 58, is more popular among his base, with just 3 percent of Republicans saying they would vote for Kerry. Fifteen percent of Democrats said they intend to vote for Bush.

Sure, just read:

WASHINGTON� Campaign finance reformers Wednesday vented their frustration at the Federal Election Commission for failing to curb independent groups that are using huge "soft money" donations to change the political landscape.



I noticed you didn't include the source, so I googled the article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194534/posts

sorry... no need to read it, it's the free republic

GWBush wrote:
Among the few efforts on the other side, the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has reported raising more than $150,000, mostly from Republican donors, to run an ad attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
Where did the rest of the SBVT money come from?

Bush Leads Kerry 49% to 46% in Los Angeles Times Poll (Update1)
Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush leads Democratic rival John Kerry 49 percent to 46 percent, which is within the margin of error, among registered voters in a Los Angeles Times poll.
But you know, don't you, that you can find and assemble polls to reflect anything you want?

When Bush's campaign lawyer was forced to choose SBVT OR the Bush campaign, which did he choose?  The 527 group.  As they were just pointing out on AirAmerica, which is more important to the re-election (erm, "election") of Bush?  His own campaign, or the 527 smear group?  Ginsberg chose SVBT because it's the best thing Bush has going.  The Bushies should be forever grateful to Kerry for strutting about his war record.

Why did the Census Bureau release the bad news about poverty and unemployment at the end of  August instead of the end of September.  The ranks of Americans living in poverty swelled by 1.3 million people last year, and 1.4 million more are without health insurance, third annual increase for both figures.  And that's just the tip of the iceburg.

I noticed you didn't include the source, so I googled the article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1194534/posts

sorry... no need to read it, it's the free republic


But consider the one part: ''More than 60 groups reported as of mid-year that they have raised a total of $118 million to influence the federal elections. Of that total, 87 percent went to groups that lean Democratic, said Derek Willis, who tracks these 527s for the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.''  

Why not try the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity's website?

But consider the one part: ''More than 60 groups reported as of mid-year that they have raised a total of $118 million to influence the federal elections. Of that total, 87 percent went to groups that lean Democratic, said Derek Willis, who tracks these 527s for the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity.''  



Precisely, that's the groundswell.  Groups like moveon.org are financed mostly by small donations from millions of people, many of who had lost confidence in the political process - and after 2000, who could blame them.  Since the Repub's are loosing out on this avenue of popular participation, naturally they are crying foul.  I wonder how many small donations the swifties have received?

The problem, of course, is how to determine the seperation of these groups from the actual campaign.  Moveon.org pre-dates the Kerry campaign by at least a year, so at least has the appearance of seperation.  The Swifties, on the other hand, are new, and there are 3 pieces of evidance alrerady made public that suggest an illegal connection to Bush: leaflets advertising their appearance found at a Bush campaign headquarters, the resignation of a volunteer who appeared in one ad, and the resignation of the campaign's top lawyer.  In addition there is the Bush team history of attacking the military record of opponents.  All suggest an illegal tie.

Groups like moveon.org are financed mostly by small donations from millions of people

Oh come on, move.org has raised a grand total of a little over 9 million dollars.  Peter Lewis, a tech corp. owner who lives in Ohio has donated 2.5 million to moveon.org, then George Soros from New York has also given them 2.5 million.  If you add that up, thats 5 million.  5 million is over half of all the funds moveon.org has collected.  It comes from super-rich Bush haters, which is okay from democrats, until the rich people start pouring money to the republicans.

''The rich vote for the republicans, the super-rich vote for the democrats.'' -Rush Limbaugh.

Oh come on, move.org has raised a grand total of a little over 9 million dollars.  Peter Lewis, a tech corp. owner who lives in Ohio has donated 2.5 million to moveon.org, then George Soros from New York has also given them 2.5 million.  If you add that up, thats 5 million.  5 million is over half of all the funds moveon.org has collected.  It comes from super-rich Bush haters, which is okay from democrats, until the rich people start pouring money to the republicans.

''The rich vote for the republicans, the super-rich vote for the democrats.'' -Rush Limbaugh.


There is a difference between wealthy and rich.
I think the wealthy, who think they worked for their money, and rich who forgot where they came from and how they got where they are, vote republican, and the wealthy who realize from whence their wealth comes, and the rich who remember where they came from and how they got where they are, vote democrat.

Oh come on, move.org has raised a grand total of a little over 9 million dollars.  Peter Lewis, a tech corp. owner who lives in Ohio has donated 2.5 million to moveon.org, then George Soros from New York has also given them 2.5 million.  If you add that up, thats 5 million.  5 million is over half of all the funds moveon.org has collected.  It comes from super-rich Bush haters, which is okay from democrats, until the rich people start pouring money to the republicans.

''The rich vote for the republicans, the super-rich vote for the democrats.'' -Rush Limbaugh.

D'ya think El Rushbo votes Dem?  He's LOADED.  Some rich vote Republican, some vote Democrat, some super-rich vote Republican, others vote Democrat.  That's the subtlety of the matter, but Limbaugh is about as subtle as a prison rodeo.
You WILL find the selfish interests of the super-rich of the military-industrial complex are squarely in the Republican camp.  Who do you think started all those foundations (Bradley, Scaife, Olin, etc.) and funded all those think tanks (Heritage, American Enterprise, Cato, etc.) whose mission it is to push regressive tax policies, deregulatation, and roll-back of the social contract?
George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates, sr., are the exceptions to the rule, and they're viewed by the other fatcats as turncoats.
RUSH TELLS LIES....LOT'S OF 'EM!

I love it when these news guys pretend they are working class like their audience.  Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, all of them pretend they are in the same boat as me.  Well I'm in a rowboat with one oar, and they are in a state room in the Queen Mary.  They speak of the rich as if they aren't one of them.  They hate the thought of tax cuts to the rich because they are the ones benefitting from it.  I know that I certainly did not,  the school system in my city didn't, the police department, fire department, elder services, all felt the whip come down. Still the bobble heads sit next to the radio and agree with these guys who have as much in common with the situation of a working person as a slug has with a seagull.

From a swing voter standpoint (gosh, someone who hasn't made up their mind already on this board, what fun), I will say this.  I understand why the attacks are happening.  John Kerry has precious few selling points, the most prominent being his war service.  If the Republicans can take out that one aspect of it, Kerry has nothing.  Like, nothing.  But this can only backfire on them.  As long as the focus is on Vietnam, Bush can not -- NOT -- win this.  His time would be better spent spinning the last four years as a success, because it would be a lot harder for Kerry to spin his time in the Senate doing not a whole lot as a good thing.

From a swing voter standpoint (gosh, someone who hasn't made up their mind already on this board, what fun), I will say this.  I understand why the attacks are happening.  John Kerry has precious few selling points, the most prominent being his war service.  If the Republicans can take out that one aspect of it, Kerry has nothing.  Like, nothing.  But this can only backfire on them.  As long as the focus is on Vietnam, Bush can not -- NOT -- win this.  His time would be better spent spinning the last four years as a success, because it would be a lot harder for Kerry to spin his time in the Senate doing not a whole lot as a good thing.


bush had much less going in than what the repubs say Kerry has.  Kerry, while a senator was second to
Kennedy who as the senior senator and national figure got all the criticism as well as the glory.  Kerry
has always been able to have a bipartisan working relationship in order to support bills.  Bipartisinship is a concept unknown in this administration. He has also been very active in veterans affairs,  whereas bush has slashed veterans benefits while sending them off to combat.  As closer look at what bush has done to the working person, and the thought of what he could do in four years should he not have to worry about being reelected makes me shudder.

If Bush gets 4 more years, I just might move to Canada.  Been there a few times and like it, but there are problems there too.  After all, Canada could have had French cuisine, British culture and U.S. technology.  What did they get?  French technology, British cuisine, and U.S. "culture".

Gandih was once asked what he thought of western civilization.  His reply "It would be a good idea".

Okay I live in Georgia so I hope I can get this right.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution does fair polling, but they do polls of registered voters, not the likley voters.  That is a big difference.  Just recently on August 11, 2004 here in Georgia's 6th district we had a run-off election in the republican primary for the U.S. Congress seat between Robert Lamutt and Tom Price.  An Atlanta Journal Constitution poll showed my candidate Robert Lamutt ahead by 4 points, but then we voted and guess what happened?  Tom Price won the race by 6 points.  Also in these races in Georgia only an estimated 22% of the registered voters vote, so you can see the difference between registered voters, and likley voters.  No body liked Cleland, I personally didn't know one person who wanted to vote for him.  Ex. Governor Roy ''Osama'' Barnes lost to Sonny Perdue even though he was ahead in the polls (he lost because he changed the flag.)  Don't give me that Maxwell.

Here are three different articles on the matter.  Basically, everyone but the partisan Republicans sees enormous problems with that Georgia election based on shady software and voting machine hanky panky.  I do not expect to get you to admit otherwise.  If you were to open your eyes to everything about which you are in denial, you'd change your handle to GetridofGWBush2004
  ::)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=alE76fVHoxr8

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&c=7&s=dugger

I'm curious as to what you have to do to be "rich"?  I would consider hubby and myself (and our kids) as being "comfortable", but there are others who would consider us "rich" just as there are others who would consider us "middle class".  Is there a guideline as to what you must have to be considered "rich" or "super rich"?  I must know as if I'm considered "rich", I need to find a reason to vote for Bush (based on Rush's thinking);)

The middle class was a socialist government program.  Prosperity for all is giving away to the normal state of human affairs, wealth and power for a few, and serfdom for the many.  If American continues the course the course it has been on for the past 24 years, your kids will not have to ask the same question when they are your age.  They'll know they're either in the privileged elite, or the indigent masses.  If you want your children to have the luxury of class ambiguity, don't vote for Bush.  BTW, "Rush's thinking" is a contradiction in terms, unless you were referring to the Rush who posts on this board.

PS.  The goal of the Republican party is to strip away the social contract America has developed over the past 100 years.  Make no mistake, there is no method of defamation too low, no level of mendacity too high for them to employ in the service of defeating any politician that might stand in the way of this goal.  Richard Mellon-Scaife was the father of the ideology, and Newt Gingrich was the first neocon scion to really put the ideology into political action.
Do not underestimate the power of the Republican propaganda machine to turn day into night, black into white, water into fire, and gold into sh*t!  Only a leviathan of such unparalleled wickedness could turn Kerry into a war criminal and Bush into a military patriot.  This gathering of right-wing thinktanks and propaganda press has unlimited funding sources, thus the power to fictionalize reality, hence Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 
No matter what Kerry boasted, the right-wing propaganda machine would turn against him.  Say Kerry had some prize-winning rose bushes he going on about.  The right-wing propaganda mill would produce the following:
1. Kerry stole the hybrid from a Republican gardener.
2. Kerry's landscaping is tended by illegal migrant laborers who he whips and forces to live in a root cellar.  You would see said laborers on TV, malnourished, bruised, and still flinching.
3. Kerry uses banned pesticides on his rose bushes, which leached onto the neighbor's property, killing her dog and poisoning her newborn baby.
4. When the neighbor tried to sue, Kerry used Theresa's millions to countersue, break the neighbor's bank, and force them out to the street where they live in a packing crate and still suffer from the poison. Mother and child are regulars on Fox News.
5. Oh, and to win the prizes for his rose bushes, Kerry sewed salt into the soil of his rivals in order to damage their floral endeavors.
It would go something like that.  In other words, no matter what issues the Kerry campaign takes up, the Republican propaganda mill will demonize him by the same methods.  Was it a mistake for Kerry to portray himself as a war hero?  No, not in terms of Republican response!

I'm curious as to what you have to do to be "rich"?  I would consider hubby and myself (and our kids) as being "comfortable", but there are others who would consider us "rich" just as there are others who would consider us "middle class".  Is there a guideline as to what you must have to be considered "rich" or "super rich"?  I must know as if I'm considered "rich", I need to find a reason to vote for Bush (based on Rush's thinking);)


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_States

The middle class was a socialist government program.  Prosperity for all is giving away to the normal state of human affairs, wealth and power for a few, and serfdom for the many.  If American continues the course the course it has been on for the past 24 years, your kids will not have to ask the same question when they are your age.  They'll know they're either in the privileged elite, or the indigent masses.  If you want your children to have the luxury of class ambiguity, don't vote for Bush.  BTW, "Rush's thinking" is a contradiction in terms, unless you were referring to the Rush who posts on this board.

PS.  The goal of the Republican party is to strip away the social contract America has developed over the past 100 years.  Make no mistake, there is no method of defamation too low, no level of mendacity too high for them to employ in the service of defeating any politician that might stand in the way of this goal.  Richard Mellon-Scaife was the father of the ideology, and Newt Gingrich was the first neocon scion to really put the ideology into political action.
Do not underestimate the power of the Republican propaganda machine to turn day into night, black into white, water into fire, and gold into sh*t!  Only a leviathan of such unparalleled wickedness could turn Kerry into a war criminal and Bush into a military patriot.  This gathering of right-wing thinktanks and propaganda press has unlimited funding sources, thus the power to fictionalize reality, hence Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 
No matter what Kerry boasted, the right-wing propaganda machine would turn against him.  Say Kerry had some prize-winning rose bushes he going on about.  The right-wing propaganda mill would produce the following:
1. Kerry stole the hybrid from a Republican gardener.
2. Kerry's landscaping is tended by illegal migrant laborers who he whips and forces to live in a root cellar.  You would see said laborers on TV, malnourished, bruised, and still flinching.
3. Kerry uses banned pesticides on his rose bushes, which leached onto the neighbor's property, killing her dog and poisoning her newborn baby.
4. When the neighbor tried to sue, Kerry used Theresa's millions to countersue, break the neighbor's bank, and force them out to the street where they live in a packing crate and still suffer from the poison. Mother and child are regulars on Fox News.
5. Oh, and to win the prizes for his rose bushes, Kerry sewed salt into the soil of his rivals in order to damage their floral endeavors.
It would go something like that.  In other words, no matter what issues the Kerry campaign takes up, the Republican propaganda mill will demonize him by the same methods.  Was it a mistake for Kerry to portray himself as a war hero?  No, not in terms of Republican response!





http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/happy/1074.gif




Cat

I'm curious as to what you have to do to be "rich"?  I would consider hubby and myself (and our kids) as being "comfortable", but there are others who would consider us "rich" just as there are others who would consider us "middle class".  Is there a guideline as to what you must have to be considered "rich" or "super rich"?  I must know as if I'm considered "rich", I need to find a reason to vote for Bush (based on Rush's thinking);)


Without having any idea about your financial resources, my guess is that, although comfortable, you probably don't "own the means of production", evan if you have a stock portfolio.  But wealth and poverty are relative words.  Cat and are also comfortable.  I drink expensive rum - I could spend half what I do and drink the cheap stuff.  But to a homeless person I would appear rich.  To Bill Gates, I'm a pauper.  Unless you want to apply a Marxist definition of class, it ius a very hazzy issue.  But Max is right - your class position, and that of your kids, is probably tenuous.

Without having any idea about your financial resources, my guess is that, although comfortable, you probably don't "own the means of production", evan if you have a stock portfolio.  But wealth and poverty are relative words.  Cat and are also comfortable.  I drink expensive rum - I could spend half what I do and drink the cheap stuff.  But to a homeless person I would appear rich.  To Bill Gates, I'm a pauper.  Unless you want to apply a Marxist definition of class, it ius a very hazzy issue.  But Max is right - your class position, and that of your kids, is probably tenuous.

There's rich and poor in America, and rich and poor among all humanity.  Most of the human race does not have the comforts and securities middle and upper class Americans enjoy.  Having one's own car, one's own computer, and an appreciable amount of "personal space" is to billions of people so far out of reach they don't even think about it.  Daily life is still a brutish struggle to get the bare essentials.
The world we see in television advertising portrays a lifestyle available to ten percent of the human beings on the face of the earth at best. 

BTW, I'm glad to see Cat enjoyed my rant, sometimes I get ticked off and just vent wherever I am!
::)

There's rich and poor in America, and rich and poor among all humanity.  Most of the human race does not have the comforts and securities middle and upper class Americans enjoy.  Having one's own car, one's own computer, and an appreciable amount of "personal space" is to billions of people so far out of reach they don't even think about it.  Daily life is still a brutish struggle to get the bare essentials.
The world we see in television advertising portrays a lifestyle available to ten percent of the human beings on the face of the earth at best. 



Let us not merely hope, but work and cast our votes wisely to ensure that we and our proginy continue to enjoy the comforts and securities of the American upper and middle classes and that the American dream does not become so out of reach for the average American that we no longer think about it and instead focus solely on our brutish daily struggle to obtain the barest of essentials. 

(Btw, nice rant.)

Let us not merely hope, but work and cast our votes wisely to ensure that we and our proginy continue to enjoy the comforts and securities of the American upper and middle classes and that the American dream does not become so out of reach for the average American that we no longer think about it and instead focus solely on our brutish daily struggle to obtain the barest of essentials.   

(Btw, nice rant.)




I'm with you on that.  For a graphic rendition of the disparity in the world, get ahold of the menus for an Oxfam dinner.

Two swift boat admen are bush administration appointees on a panel advising the Department of
Veternan Affairs.  Cordier was appointed in 2002, and Galanti in 2003.  Galanti coordinated
John McCains campaign in Virginia during the last presidential election.  Just two regular guys
who decided to speak up ???

Two swift boat admen are bush administration appointees on a panel advising the Department of
Veternan Affairs.  Cordier was appointed in 2002, and Galanti in 2003.  Galanti coordinated
John McCains campaign in Virginia during the last presidential election.  Just two regular guys
who decided to speak up ???


Yea, right.  More and more, the evidance of collusion between the Bush campaign and these smeer groups accumulates.  Now, Cat tells me, there is another.  So where is the Federal Elections Commission?  In Bush's back pocket no doubt.