McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads
82
Thu, 08-05-2004 - 12:00pm
Hmmm...McCain says the people in these ads DID NOT serve on the Swift boat commanded by John Kerry....The man that Kerry saved said there were on 6 people that were on John Kerry's boat. Five of the six support Kerry and one is deceased.


McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suit

-RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

Thursday, August 5, 2004


(08-05) 07:20 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad.

The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.

"I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I don't know if they knew all the facts."

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."

The White House did not immediately address McCain's call that they repudiate the spot.

Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Kerry's record and statements on the war on terrorism -- not his service in Vietnam -- are fair game. "The Bush campaign never has and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam," he said.

In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.

McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because he believes it's bad for the political system. "It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal," he said.

"I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

McCain himself spent more than five years in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp. A bona fide war hero, McCain, like Kerry, used his war record as the foundation of his presidential campaign.

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.


Edited 8/5/2004 12:03 pm ET ET by happy2beamom2001

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 4:47pm
<>

ACCENT!!!???

Bush's problem isn't his accent (not even close). Oh if it were only that. Try a severely limited vocabulary, boneheaded bloopers, inarticulate sentance structure. How about the inability to pronounce important words that should by this point in time slide off the tongue with practiced ease. For example, months after the fact the man still cannot pronounce Abu Ghraib. You'd think he'd at least have spoken about it with some of his colleagues about a few thousand times by now. Or maybe he doesn't.




iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 4:54pm
"Bush's problem isn't his accent (not even close). Oh if it were only that. Try a severely limited vocabulary, boneheaded bloopers, inarticulate sentance structure. How about the inability to pronounce important words that should by this point in time slide off the tongue with practiced ease. For example, months after the fact the man still cannot pronounce Abu Ghraib. You'd think he'd at least have spoken about it with some of his colleagues about a few thousand times by now. Or maybe he doesn't."

Mr. Bush has been picked on here mostly for his pronunciation of words, for his accent. He is a Yale and Harvard graduate, he flew fighter planes... arguments that he is somehow a dullard are idiotic.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 9:12pm
I'm going to quote from an article written by Ron Reagan in Esquire. (The whole thing can be found in this thread).

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=3561.1&ctx=0

<>

This pretty much sums up what many people are referring to when they talk about Bush's image as a dullard. Maybe he's not a dullard but then that must make him astoundingly intellectually lazy. Also, I'd like to point out that I have never once heard anyone on these boards make fun of something so petty as an accent. There have been many many eloquent speakers with a Southern accent. The fact that he cannot pronounce the names of important leaders, places and Abu Ghraib has absolutely nothing to do with his accent. It shows that either he doesn't often discuss these things (which as president, he should be on numerous occasions - It's scarey to think that he might not be) or that he doesn't care enough to make sure he pronounces them correctly.

It's the content (or lack thereof) of Bush's public statements that is the issue. In a prepared speech (written by others) he is OK....though the speeches are still simplistic. When forced to ad lib, he's a disaster. I wonder why out of all the presidents of the modern age this one has attended the fewest press conferences. I think it is because it would be a nightmare for his handlers and I don't think Bush is capable of thinking very well on his feet. A lot of these press conferences have been done with a partner. he raraely gets up there all on his own. Then if someone asks a tricky question that he can't plug in a pre-prepared response, he just looks beseechingly in the direction of the other person at the press conference (e.g. Tony Blair etc...) and they jump in to the rescue.

I can't wait for the debates. However, I know that those who unquestionningly support this travesty of a president will see things totally differently from the rest. If he does nothing more than parrot back the same formulaic pap we've been hearing for the last few years there will still be those who interpret this as a sign of strength rather than what it really is. A failure of imagination.





Edited 8/6/2004 9:21 pm ET ET by suemox

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 10:51pm
ITA

To the thread in general:

Chris Matthews did a show about Bush's accent last night. He said it seems to change in every state that he visits. He said he is dropping letters when speaking. Chris basically said it was intentional. It was like he was trying to say to the people, "I'm just like you!" Just a little 'ol country boy at heart! Perhaps someone should take the people to a free viewing of his speech in front of his BASE. What was it? He was in his tux just laughing away with his rich buddies. Then they would see what a good 'ol country boy is really like. Oh and YES..Kerry grew up wealthy too but obviously he was raised the right way unlike GWB. He grew up knowing that public service was important. He understands that he was fortunate and wants all Americans to have the same chance to succeed that he had in life. I have heard several Republicans on tv say (Joe Scarborough, Ben Stein) that although they prefer Bush they would not lose sleep if John Kerry was in the White House. Joe Scarborough said that when someone risks their life like that it does show what they are made of. Shocked the heck out of me to hear Scarborough say that (it was on HARDBALL during the convention)and he said he caught a lot of crap for saying it the next day.......

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 11:06pm



Oh and I can't wait for the debate either. The Bush supporters are hoping that Kerry will make the same mistakes Al Gore did (sighing and all that). They want him to come off as unlikeable. Kerry is not going to do that. He knows exactly what Gore did wrong. He is a skilled debater. He thinks on his feet. I was watching him the other day when he was answering questions from the reporters. He sound strong and assertive. He did not seem flustered even once. I have heard that when Kerry is under pressure he performs well. I have also heard that his past debates have been great. They like to say he is a good closer. I can't wait to see how this election will end. If it ends with Bush given a concession speech I think that will be one of the major highlights of this year for me.....

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 11:48pm
Well you may like the Esquire article, personally I'll take a pass on it :-) To the best of my understanding Ron Reagan wasn't involved much with his own dad when in office, and Bush isn't a relative of Ron Reagans... I do not believe Ron has any inside information about the Bush Whitehouse... he appears to be speaking as an insider, when he isn't. That he is hostile to Bush, and generally to Republicans is nothing new... that he'd write to undermine Bush or Republicans is no more surprising than reading Michael Moore saying someing bad about Bush or Republicans... it's sort of what many on the left seem to pass their time doing :-)
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 11:51pm
Kerry grew up to commit war atrocities, he grew up appaently to burn down non-combatant villiages in Vietnam... he grew up to leach off other peoples wealth... yeah... the right way.... NOT.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 8:50am
Did I mention his accent? There are brilliant people with southern accents. Bush is not one of them. (But thanks for assuming I'm intolerent.)
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 8:51am
--

Mr. Bush has been picked on here mostly for his pronunciation of words, for his accent. He is a Yale and Harvard graduate, he flew fighter planes... arguments that he is somehow a dullard are idiotic.

--

Bush is picked on because he has a hard time forming a cohesive sentence when he speaks.

Now, I for one do not believe for an instant that he's dumb or stupid, I think he's slicker than slick willie could ever have aspired to be.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 11:13am
<>

Ahhh, I think I finally get it. It is becoming clearer and clearer on these boards. With the exception of the tiniest minoirty, many on the right supporting Bush CHOOSE not to read or listen to any articles, op-ed pieces or news that denigrates this administration (on any matter be it domestic or foreign policies). Instead (like this administration itself) they find ways in which to discredit the source. There is another poster on this board that said that they would not read the article because it was negative towards Bush. This explains to me finally (given all the problems of this administration) why this clown and his henchmen still has such ardent supporters. These people pick and choose their sources based entirely on whether or not those sources support their views and proudly admit to deliberately maintaining this narrow view. If a respected source suddenly starts saying negative things then they justify discrediting it by searching for something, ANYthing unsavoury (yet often unrelated to the issue or something very petty) about their character. Better yet, with respectible (dangerous?) sources that are making valid points in their critiques of the govt, they bide their time while the administration spends big money finding things to discredit them and then they blindly follow along.

I read pretty much everything I come across about this administration and Kerry's campaign whether it is positive or negative. That means if there is something important from either side I am in a better position to be informed and if necessary, change my point of view.

Pages