Posted on 08/31/2004 1:36:00 AM PDT by kattracks
August 31, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVEVietnam veterans against John Kerry today are launching a new TV ad that shows the Democrat renouncing his war medals — timed to zing Kerry just before he speaks to vets tomorrow at the American Legion convention.
It's the latest move to undermine Kerry by the group known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — efforts that appear to have sent him slipping in polls and have sparked rumors of a Kerry campaign shakeup.
The ad starts with video of marching Marines and paints Kerry — who became an anti-war activist when he came home from Vietnam — as one of those who "turned their backs on their brothers."
It shows a long-haired and bearded hippie-type in a military jacket — not Kerry — appearing to toss his military medals as Kerry and many other anti-war vets did at protest rallies in the early 1970s.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
In the new ad clip Kerry does not speak like he did before the Senate. The Thurston Howell III accent is not there. He seems able to pronouce the letter "G".
It's a good ad, but of course Bill Schneider on CNN said that the impact will be lessened since the earlier swift boat vet's allegations have been "discredited."
Really, one wonders what planet this man and that network live on. Cambodia was totally discredited. The first purple heart secured from self-inflicted activity.
Someone who didn't really do anything to deserve them.
It just played two minutes ago in NJ.
"It's a good ad, but of course Bill Schneider on CNN said that the impact will be lessened since the earlier swift boat vet's allegations have been "discredited."
"Really, one wonders what planet this man and that network live on. Cambodia was totally discredited. The first purple heart secured from self-inflicted activity.'
Schneider should talk to the vile big mouth lesbo, Susan E.. She knows how effective the Swift Boat ads are. She is basically conceding defeat in November and setting the next stage for the rats. That GW stole the election thanks to the Swift Vets. The link below gets into Susan E's dismay and outrage.
It's a good ad, but of course Bill Schneider on CNN said that the impact will be lessened since the earlier swift boat vet's allegations have been "discredited."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203078/posts
SUSAN ESTRICH CONCEDES DEFEAT !!
Fox News Sunday With Brit Hume | 8/30/04 | GeorgeW23225
Posted on 08/30/2004 9:11:07 AM PDT by GeorgeW23225
Just wait until you hear the "excuse" for losing in 2004!!
Now is the time to donate for the first time or whatever time to the Swift Vets to buy more ads. Then those ads will show the mediot a$$holes, who is discredited in this election. It is them not the brave Swift Vet Warriors.
https://www.swiftvets.com/swift/ccdonation.php?op=donate&site=SwiftVets
Here is, I think, the relevant part of Illionis law that bears on the subject of what names appear on the ballot ... notice that the naming of a person for the offices of President and Vice-President is OPTIONAL, but that the qualified party is on the ballot in any event.
The ballot shall contain no other names, except that in cases of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, the names of the candidates for President and Vice-President may be added to the party designation ...
10 ILCS 5/ Election Code <-- Boring reading
Thanks for posting the link. I JUST LOVE IT, how does Kerry sleep at night? lolololol
That just refers to candidate names after the ELECTORS names. Not the candidates on the ballot. AND there is a deadline none the less for electors.
Well, the voter votes for electors, not directly for the president. The law permits the ballot to have "Bush" on it, becuase people will recognize that name, but really, the voter is picking an elector. So, are you saying that the Republican Party in Illinois has not yet chosen electors? Could be true, I don't know. Exactly which Illiois law was changed in 2004, to accomodate the RNC convention date?
Electors are associated with a Candidate nominated by a Party so the deadline to associate an elector with a name is still important. Thus, the inability of the GOP to name a slate of electors until its candidate was officially nominated until after the deadline in law had passed caused some manuvering by the RATS in attempting to screw up the GOP. As though the Illinois GOP needed any help in screwing up.
Do you have a cite for that proposition? The Illinois law that I cited appears to permit a party to name an elector, without associating the elector's name to a candidate's name. The candidate's name is optional on the ballot, the elector's name is not.
He was in the inactive reserves, subject to recall. No drill requirement, just keep the Navy informed of his whereabouts.
I have never seen a ballot where the Elector's candidate is not listed. It would make it very difficult for the voter even though they are not required to vote for the person they are associated with.
I agree, but that wasn't the point to begin with. Your comment was that teh DEMs couldn't change the candidate, due to a ballot deadline. That is not true. The wrong candidate name might be on the ballot, but that is irrelevant, inasmuch as the voter just uses that the help him choose a party. The voter is in fact voting for an elector, not for a president.
I am aware of the role of the Electoral College.
They couldn't change the candidate after the deadline so would have to vote for electors associated with the former candidate.
It would be worth a lot just to watch the confusion such an event would engender amongst the RAT voters.
I think, but can't cite names yet, that the Republican Party in Illinois chose electors (and alternates) at the Illinois Republican State Convention, held in Collinsville on May 14-15, 2004.
Again, I agree that voters have grown accustomed to seeing the name of the presidential candidate on the ballot, no argument. But it is NOT a legal requirement. The DEMs can change the candidate at any time in the process. Any time before the election, and any time before electors cast their ballots in December. Once there is a president-elect (this happens in December, not in November), US law kicks in to determine succession in the event of unavailability.
I don't think it would cause any confusion at all. See Widow Carnahan (who was not on the ballot). They will know exactly who to vote for, and the DEM get-out-the-vote machine is second to none. I think the DEM voters would pull a DEM lever, even if the "name" recited on the ballot was "to be determined."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.