So I guess in 2008 we'll see a few community college grads writing speeches for the Dem campaign?
The losers always have excuses.
BOO-HOO!
Alternate universe?
Release your service record, Kerry.
More whining from the looney left. Also, no mention of all the mudslinging that went on from their side - naturally.
Those that live in glass houses.......
Wait just a doggone minute! Bush ran a negative campaign and sKerry didn't. What a crock! Everytime I saw a sKerry ad (I tried not to see any at all) it was negative. Same old ploy from the liberal leftist demoncRATS--"everyone else is wrong and bad but us" mentality.
"Bush knew about 9/11"
"When Clinton lied, nobody died."
"Bush concocted a war in Texas, and killed US soldiers for oil"
"Bush was AWOL, and we have fake documents to prove it."
Sounds like the most positive political attacks in history, don't you think?
Proving once again that having intellect does not mean that you have common sense.
Not that the media didn't try to say the campaigns were negative on both sides.......but we knew better!!!
Ha! The Kerry campaign thought that because they had the old media in their pocket, that would be enough! NOT!
--==((Huuuurl))==--
...and so the myth begins...
Screw these people! Bush was attacked without mercy from the 2000 election until the 2004 election and he remained positive and friendly for about the first two-and-a-half years and only then he spoke out against the obstructionists in the Senate who were holding up his judicial nominees. Once sKerry had the Dummycrap nomination wrapped up, he went virulently negative on Bush on a daily basis for at least four weeks and maybe as many as eight weeks without any response from Bush. When Bush finally responded to 4-8 weeks of negative campaigning by sKerry, sKerry went ballistic, accusing Bush of going negative. Screw all these losers.
Man, November has been a GREAT month, hasn't it?
Where do I start?
So much about what this guy is saying is wrong and even he himself contracdicts it.
The media didn't cover Bush's "nasty" campaign because they knew much of it was true and didn't want the charges to stick to Kerry.
Secondly, the reason Bush was able to portray Kerry as a weak and dangerous leader is because...he is. For most Americans, it was rather obvious too.
Frankly, I thought the Republicans rarely even took off the gloves. They hardly made his treasonous post-Vietnam behavior an issue, they hardly touched his Senate record, they rarely trumpeted his opposition to tax cuts. They were just happy to paint him as a wishy-washy hypocrite. I guess that's all they needed to do.
HA! HA! Such a wide audience for this "goon". This was the only good part about this article.
...and the months-long smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which claimed, among other things, that Kerry faked injuries in Vietnam."The Kerry campaign didn't act fast enough because it wasn't cynical enough about the media [to think] that controversy was more important than context," said Trbovich, who has reported for United Press International, the Detroit Free Press and The Boston Phoenix, among other news organizations.
The Democrats may have been illegally coordinating campaign strategy with the 527s (there is evidence they did with Soros, MoveOn, and others) but President Bush DID NOT work together with the Swift Vets and to claim that this was a part of the "Bush campaign" is an outright lie.
That said, Kerry's response was to surround himself with veterans and attack George W. Bush's National Guard experience. "He didn't fight", "He wasn't injured", "He got there by crooked means", "He was poorly rated", "He skipped out". The DNC even helped to coordinate a hoaxed up smear campaign with some phoney memos that CBS ran with for a week.
Kerry said it was wrong to attack veterans yet he repeatedly attacked the Swift Vets. He said that George W. Bush "didn't really serve" yet Kerry went stumping with Bill Clinton, a known draft dodger.
These Rats make me sick.