"It's time for democrats to think about that, and think about it now."-ad
- Thread starter CADsortaGUY
- Start date
Nice add. For a moment I thought the zoom in the eyes would suddenly draw back and it would be deans face. There would have to be some morphing since Dean's eyes are quite beady.
Eh. What foreign policy experience did Bush have before he took office? Even if he did have some experience, it sure doesn't show.....
Originally posted by: dahunan
Looks like an add for Clark
Oh, now that would be good. Does anyone know if Soros has been feeding money to this progressivevalues group?:Q
Things that make a man go, Hmmm....CkG
Yeah, I don't see their point, assuming they actually have one other than to play scary music over a close-up of OBL's face. Oooooh spooky. GWB didn't have military or foreign policy experience either. Why would they ever try to compare the two on that basis alone? Unless they're morons.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, I don't see their point, assuming they actually have one other than to play scary music over a close-up of OBL's face. Oooooh spooky. GWB didn't have military or foreign policy experience either. Why would they ever try to compare the two on that basis alone? Unless they're morons.
Ever think that might be their point? According to some around here Bush has been a "disaster". Well, why put a different "disaster" in office?
Oh, and here's a little something Dean once said on the subject of National Security.
CkG
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Who are these people ?
A stealth group that keeps changing the 'who and what' of their backing to dodge disclosure !
Some hard hitting ads have been running in Iowa. One compares former Vermont governor Howard Dean to President Bush, citing both men's "top grades" from the National Rifle Association. The latest notes that "Howard Dean and George Bush stood together and supported the unfair NAFTA trade agreement." At the end, the announcer intones, "So if you thought Howard Dean had a progressive record, check the facts. And please, think again." But it's not any of Mr. Dean's rivals who are seeking this reconsideration. nstead, it's a new entity that calls itself "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values."
Values that don't include letting voters know who's footing the bill. The group has spent $230,000 for the first week of ads, but it won't say where the money is coming from. Under the out-of-sync reporting schedule that governs such groups, donors' names don't have to be revealed until early February, after the caucuses are safely over. Meanwhile, its identity is getting more and more mysterious: Early last week, its president was Timothy L. Raftis, a former aide to Sen. Tom Harkin; now, a new president has suddenly appeared on the group's Web site: former representative Edward Feighan (D-Ohio). The group's treasurer is fundraiser David Jones, who has worked for one of Mr. Dean's chief rivals, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- but suddenly, it has a new spokesman, John Kerry's former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, which might suggest, to the conspiracy-minded, an effort to deflect attention from a possible Gephardt connection. (The Gephardt campaign says it knows nothing about the group.)
So is the money from unions that back Mr. Gephardt but don't want to be publicly connected to this anti-Dean campaign? At least some such unions have been solicited. Or is it from a few wealthy donors who don't like Mr. Dean -- and perhaps are backing another one of the trailing Democratic candidates? From Republicans who want to take Mr. Dean down a few notches? There's no way for a voter in Iowa to know, not in time for that information to make a difference. The group could voluntarily disclose its backers before the legal deadline, but it won't. "The reason is that's what we've chosen to do. . . . We want to ensure that we have full disclosure rather than piecemeal," Mr. Raftis told us.
We've seen this kind of stealth group before. During the 2000 primary campaign, a mystery group calling itself "Republicans for Clean Air" suddenly appeared with more than $2 million in advertising supporting then-candidate George W. Bush. Brothers Charles and Sam Wyly, Dallas investors, came forward to claim responsibility, but their exploit underscored a dangerous loophole in the campaign finance system that allowed groups to avoid disclosing their activities unless they called explicitly for a candidate's election or defeat. Congress responded with a law requiring such groups to report their donations and expenditures. But it didn't think through the consequences of the reporting schedule it chose: Until the election year, groups are required to file reports only twice a year. (Disclosure is required if the groups run broadcast ads naming a candidate within 30 days of the caucus or primary, but even that rule doesn't apply to other forms of campaign activity, such as direct mail or phone calls.)
Days before Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values popped up, a more-established Republican entity, the Club for Growth, hammered Mr. Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire with $100,000 worth of spots that linked him to supposedly tax-hiking Democrats George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Like the ads of its "progressive" cousin, those by the Club for Growth represent a disturbing way to use big checks to affect campaigns: making an end run around the usual $2,000 contribution limit. But at least the Club for Growth has been around long enough that its backers are known. And, to its credit, the club has chosen to file monthly disclosure reports.
This outside-group dodge is troubling enough when employed by those who don't pretend to believe in campaign finance reform. From those who pose as champions of "progressive values," it's despicable. "I believe strongly in the view of Thomas Jefferson that an informed electorate helps insure the strength of democracy," Mr. Raftis said on the group's Web site. Informed, that is, of what he chooses to tell them. What hypocrisy.
A stealth group that keeps changing the 'who and what' of their backing to dodge disclosure !
Some hard hitting ads have been running in Iowa. One compares former Vermont governor Howard Dean to President Bush, citing both men's "top grades" from the National Rifle Association. The latest notes that "Howard Dean and George Bush stood together and supported the unfair NAFTA trade agreement." At the end, the announcer intones, "So if you thought Howard Dean had a progressive record, check the facts. And please, think again." But it's not any of Mr. Dean's rivals who are seeking this reconsideration. nstead, it's a new entity that calls itself "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values."
Values that don't include letting voters know who's footing the bill. The group has spent $230,000 for the first week of ads, but it won't say where the money is coming from. Under the out-of-sync reporting schedule that governs such groups, donors' names don't have to be revealed until early February, after the caucuses are safely over. Meanwhile, its identity is getting more and more mysterious: Early last week, its president was Timothy L. Raftis, a former aide to Sen. Tom Harkin; now, a new president has suddenly appeared on the group's Web site: former representative Edward Feighan (D-Ohio). The group's treasurer is fundraiser David Jones, who has worked for one of Mr. Dean's chief rivals, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- but suddenly, it has a new spokesman, John Kerry's former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, which might suggest, to the conspiracy-minded, an effort to deflect attention from a possible Gephardt connection. (The Gephardt campaign says it knows nothing about the group.)
So is the money from unions that back Mr. Gephardt but don't want to be publicly connected to this anti-Dean campaign? At least some such unions have been solicited. Or is it from a few wealthy donors who don't like Mr. Dean -- and perhaps are backing another one of the trailing Democratic candidates? From Republicans who want to take Mr. Dean down a few notches? There's no way for a voter in Iowa to know, not in time for that information to make a difference. The group could voluntarily disclose its backers before the legal deadline, but it won't. "The reason is that's what we've chosen to do. . . . We want to ensure that we have full disclosure rather than piecemeal," Mr. Raftis told us.
We've seen this kind of stealth group before. During the 2000 primary campaign, a mystery group calling itself "Republicans for Clean Air" suddenly appeared with more than $2 million in advertising supporting then-candidate George W. Bush. Brothers Charles and Sam Wyly, Dallas investors, came forward to claim responsibility, but their exploit underscored a dangerous loophole in the campaign finance system that allowed groups to avoid disclosing their activities unless they called explicitly for a candidate's election or defeat. Congress responded with a law requiring such groups to report their donations and expenditures. But it didn't think through the consequences of the reporting schedule it chose: Until the election year, groups are required to file reports only twice a year. (Disclosure is required if the groups run broadcast ads naming a candidate within 30 days of the caucus or primary, but even that rule doesn't apply to other forms of campaign activity, such as direct mail or phone calls.)
Days before Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values popped up, a more-established Republican entity, the Club for Growth, hammered Mr. Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire with $100,000 worth of spots that linked him to supposedly tax-hiking Democrats George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. Like the ads of its "progressive" cousin, those by the Club for Growth represent a disturbing way to use big checks to affect campaigns: making an end run around the usual $2,000 contribution limit. But at least the Club for Growth has been around long enough that its backers are known. And, to its credit, the club has chosen to file monthly disclosure reports.
This outside-group dodge is troubling enough when employed by those who don't pretend to believe in campaign finance reform. From those who pose as champions of "progressive values," it's despicable. "I believe strongly in the view of Thomas Jefferson that an informed electorate helps insure the strength of democracy," Mr. Raftis said on the group's Web site. Informed, that is, of what he chooses to tell them. What hypocrisy.
?Dean later told reporters that he is not a liberal. He cited his endorsement by the National Rifle Association eight times.?
-- Tulsa World, August 13, 2003
So not being a whacked out gun grabber makes you "not a liberal"
Right....CkG
Dean is clearly the most potent Democratic candidate. He is very bright and articulate and very intense too. With him as President we get three or four George Bushes. His mental powers are just so staggeringly clear. It is possible though, that that's only visible to people who can also think too. There must be at least a few Republicans of that caliber, because it's clearly obvious that somebody's worried about Dean.
But moonbeam, if Howie is soooo much more intelligent than Bush...or the rest of the candidates -then why did he say this?
CkG
'morning CAD. How ya feeling?
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
Originally posted by: Gaard
'morning CAD. How ya feeling?
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
Like crap. Thanks anyway.
The point about Dean's WMD comment was that he was no different than anyone else at the time. He paints himself as some guy who's always against this war or the reasons for it - which isn't exactly true.
But yes - the "stiffness" of Dean will be pointed out later - it serves no purpose for the other candidates to paint him as "stiff" because the rest of them are boring stiffs too
I'm sure Rove has a plan...we'll just have to wait and make sure dean is actually the one who gets the nomination first.
CkG
What you call stiff, Gaard, I call a bird of prey. Dean is part Klingon. He'll be a great President. Hell we agree 67%. That's incredible he could know that much.
He'll be a great President. Hell we agree 67%. That's incredible he could know that much.Originally posted by: Gaard
'morning CAD. How ya feeling?
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
I am sure it's because everyone has learned their lesson from doing that. Bush certainly has a lot more "flaws" than Al's "stiffness" as everyone except Bush's Zombie supporters have found out.
The extent of Bush's foreign policy/defense experience was talking to viscente fox and defending texas from oklahoma.
So the ad is a bunch of hysteria by some primary losers.
So the ad is a bunch of hysteria by some primary losers.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
'morning CAD. How ya feeling?
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
Like crap. Thanks anyway.
The point about Dean's WMD comment was that he was no different than anyone else at the time. He paints himself as some guy who's always against this war or the reasons for it - which isn't exactly true.
But yes - the "stiffness" of Dean will be pointed out later - it serves no purpose for the other candidates to paint him as "stiff" because the rest of them are boring stiffs too
I'm sure Rove has a plan...we'll just have to wait and make sure dean is actually the one who gets the nomination first.
CkG
Did you get the Flu bug Cad?
Have anything good to say about your boy Bush or only bad to say against Dean?
Democrat Dean tells Republicans: 'Bring it on'. Oh yeah, that's right - Dean sticks a big boot in your a**, you pussy Republicans! Ah ha ha ha ha. Ahem.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
'morning CAD. How ya feeling?
I just want to point out, and don't be afraid to tell me if I'm not sticking to your point, that just because Dean would be surprised doesn't mean that he knows.
And has anyone else noticed that it appears Deans wife uses too much starch in his shirts?
<--- surprised nobody has made fun of Dean's stiffiness. (ala Gore?)
Like crap. Thanks anyway.
The point about Dean's WMD comment was that he was no different than anyone else at the time. He paints himself as some guy who's always against this war or the reasons for it - which isn't exactly true.
But yes - the "stiffness" of Dean will be pointed out later - it serves no purpose for the other candidates to paint him as "stiff" because the rest of them are boring stiffs too
I'm sure Rove has a plan...we'll just have to wait and make sure dean is actually the one who gets the nomination first.
CkG
Did you get the Flu bug Cad?
Have anything good to say about your boy Bush or only bad to say against Dean?
Hey - don't shoot the messenger - I'm just showing everyone the ad
I like the fact that Dean isn't a gun grabber...or wasn't allowed to in his state anyway. This thread was about the ad that some leftist "progressive" group put out to bash Dean. But yes, I have good things to say about Bush and I post them in the relevant threads...and then am promptly called a blind sheep.Anyway, divert away...just don't bitch and whine to me...because I'm trying to get the information out now instead of when it's too late.
According to this "progressive" group Dean would be worse than Bush on national security.CkG
Edit - yes I caught a bug last week and it sucks. things are better today though - should be fine by monday
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hey - don't shoot the messenger - I'm just showing everyone the ad
Anyway, divert away...just don't bitch and whine to me...because I'm trying to get the information out now instead of when it's too late.
Hmmmm, that would apply to those you accuse of being Bush "Bashers." Hey, don't shoot the messengers on the other side of the DMZ either. We're just trying to get out the word about how much a disaster Bush is before the 2004 elections... It's clearly not our fault he's a miserable failure.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter