Quote:
Democrats have run the dirty campaign here ala 527's

The 527 activity is fair game on both sides, and neither candidate wants them to go away. Only the Bush camp took them to the extreme level of questioning military service. All the Democratic 527 ads (and I've watched dozens of different ones) prior to the Swift Boat Veterans fiasco were strictly about Bush's own record and how he's failed America. Obviously, they were negative ads, but nothing that sunk to the depths of questioning a soldier's service to his country. Even for several weeks after the Swift Boat ads ran, the Democratic 527 ads were still focusing on Bush's CURRENT failures instead of going below the belt and delving into the past. Finally, the Dems caught up and started really going after Bush. But it's factually incorrect to say that the campaigns have been run with the same level of "dirtyness." The Swift Boat attacks have lowered the common denominator even further, and I can only assume mud wrestling is next. (Yuck!)

Quote:
so it's hard to say he doesn't stand for anything.

Yes, he stands for the elimination of WMDs in Iraq. Oh wait, they're fresh out of those. Okay, he stands for liberating the Iraqi people. And he's doing such a good job that even Republican Dick Lugar, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, cites incompetence in how post-"liberation" Iraq is being handled.

So, if we've "liberated" Iraq, surely we must be winning the war on terror. Oh, wait, Bush said the war on terror wasn't winnable. Then, he said it is winnable. Seems to me if you're going to declare war on a TACTIC instead of a nation, a dictator, etc. then you better have your feces consolidated on whether the war is winnable or not. How about his pledge to not get involved in "nation building?" Sure looks, smells, and quacks like nation building to me.

Okay, let's try another. He absolutely stands for the eradication of Osama bin Laden. Er... crap, we can't get bin Laden. Okay, he stands for the removal of Saddam. Even Donald Rumsfeld is confused. And Bush's flip flop? In his own words:

[flip]
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him." -- George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001.
[/flip]

[flop]
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.
[flop]

Alright, hitting Bush for his flip-flops on Iraq and the "war on terror" is way too easy, so let's look closer to home. He supported free trade, but to get my state's votes, flip-flopped to supporting steel tariffs. Then, amid criticism, he's flipped back. So, a "flip - flop - flip," if you will.

How about the recent expiration of the assault weapons ban? To get votes in 2000, he pledged to extend Clinton's 1994 ban, and, whoops, I guess he's too busy campaigning to bother following through on his promise.

The best way I've heard this double-standard explained is from this editorial. "By staying on the offensive, Bush has put the focus on Kerry flip-flops and deflected attention away from his own." I just hope the Dems can organize well enough to expose Bush for being fraudulent on the very same grounds that he's attacking Kerry. Once that's done, the playing field will be level, and we can focus on the "issues" so many people talk about, but don't seem to gather real votes.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff