Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: infidel29
and publicly rebuke candidates who use negative attacks.

Ahhhh... so the penalty for a 'pub using an "attack ad" is for the 'rats to "rebuke" with an ad attack in return. Sounds like same-old lame-old to me. Actually, its worse: the intention is to put the 'pubs on notice - don't try anything, while the 'rats get to define 'attack' in such a way as to give them free reign to "rebuke" the pubs.

20 posted on 07/09/2006 6:49:08 PM PDT by C210N (Bush SPYED, Terrorists DIED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: C210N
...so the penalty for a 'pub using an "attack ad" is for the 'rats to "rebuke" with an ad attack in return.

I guess so, but honestly, who cares? The dems are going to attack anyways whether they are "justified" or not since they get to set the ground rules. The truth doesn't matter to them, especially if it paints them guilty of something. They'll just whine about the republicans being mean and muddy the waters to conceal the truth.

23 posted on 07/09/2006 6:55:17 PM PDT by infidel29 ("Growing old is inevitable ... growing UP is optional.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson