Replies

"Jane Fonda's treachery during Vietnam is well documented but I think the dangerous part of this is that you are opening Bush up to the same attack strategy of linking him to some of the less than pleasant people that support him..."

Solicitor General Ted Olsen (no disrespect to his wife) has represented white supremacists but this is simply him doing his job.

A defense attorney must provide a vigorous defense for their client - especially when appointed. As tempting as it is, you cannot always judge the attorney by his client.

"We are familiar with Bob Jones University and it's less than tolerant past."

Bob Jones University didn't allow mixed race dating. So what? They have since dropped that policy.

"I am sure that Kenneth Lay is not a name we want brought up too often."

Why? Ken Lay spent a lot of time at the WH when x42 was the occupant. Ken Lay ran his business fast and loose during those years. It was during Bush's term that Ken Lay's shenanigans were stopped. Why don't we hear much about Ken Lay from the Dems? Because they know that clinton was the beneficiary of Lay's largess, not "W".

"Be careful on this one."

You are spending too much time listening to the Democrat/media talking points. Basically, they are lies.

BTW, I'm not a Bush fan and likely will not vote for him, but I do believe in the truth and your post stood in the way of the truth.

The point I was trying to make is that Bush and Kerry have some supporters that they are not proud of...

As I stated in the first line.

Also, I think Ted Olsen represented white supremacists in a civil case. I think you have to be hired for such a case.

Either way, as an attorney, the canons of ethics are exactly as you state.

The "talking point" thing is one of the other things that I have seen used on both sides of the aisle that are used when someone does not want to reply to a question. It reminds me of when I see parents say to their children, "Because I told you so!"

We can ask and answer questions all day long without that type of thing coming up...

I see far too often where name calling (right winger, leftie, traitor, deserter, neocon) becomes the defense mechanism used to avoid discussion...

I do not wish to do that.

Back to Jane Fonda, she cost lives and a great amount of pain and I think McCain and many others are right in not wanting to even be in the same room with her.

I say again, what bothers me about this is that the past is a tricky thing. We can not beat up on the opposition about supporters and not expect them to do the same. That is what I think gets in the way of the "real truth". I am sure you are familiar with the Golden Rule. Someone once told me a golden rule becomes a golden rule because you can't go wrong. I grant this is an ideal that gets lost in the hostile rhetoric I see when issues are discussed but think about it. If you won't discuss something because the idea comes from a person with an opposing ideology and you won't discuss other things because they are a "talking points", what are you really doing except replying with labels.

Usually this comes to a point where most voters say, "Shame on all of you!"

All I am saying is that the level of debate needs to come up a bit. Conservatives and liberals could do better at sticking to issues versus mud slinging. I see what Terry McAuliffe is doing and I am hoping that he gets sent to the Unemployment line very soon... He is part of the problem. I see the guy who broke into private Democratic Files (reminds me of a certain hotel break-in) and I think dirty tricks is the growth industry in this country....

The conservative agenda sells itself on merit. Mudslinging is not required....