He said they said who cares?

Interesting question, looking forward to answers. (Won't influence my vote.)

I imagine it might influence undecideds and it seems to be taking its toll on Kerry's campaign. I think he was baited to respond...and he did. Big mistake. I think it's the Dukakis legacy.

It means nothing to me. I don't care about exactly what happened. I think this is something that only old vietnam vets really give a damn about.

I think the fact that he was in combat puts him on stronger ground than Bush, and I think that should be a factor in who to vote for come November. A person who has actually seen combat might be a little less eager to put others in harm's way.

USA

Kerry files FCC complaint against attack ad group

Posted: Saturday, August 21, 7:51am EDT

Attacks on John Kerry's war record may be beginning to have an impact, polls suggest, amid raised voices and new TV ads on a subject at least temporarily dominating debate in the close presidential race.
Democrats are laboring to deflect the questioning of Kerry's record with fresh ads touting his fitness for national command, even as the White House mocks the Massachusetts senator as "losing his cool" over claims he lied to win military medals in Vietnam.

Kerry wasn't going to let such claims pass, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter shot back on Friday, saying "John Kerry is a fighter and he doesn't tolerate lies from others."

The anti-Kerry group that provoked the furor with a recent commercial distributed a second ad to the news media and said it would begin airing it next week in Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico. The ad mixes clips of a youthful Kerry talking about war atrocities in testimony to Congress in 1971 with images of veterans condemning his remarks.

The Kerry campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that alleged the group behind the ad was illegally coordinating its efforts with the Bush-Cheney campaign. It cited "recent press reports" and the group's own statements.

The Bush campaign denied the allegation, as did the organization that aired the ad.

I think that's a mistake.

So do I.

Kerry disavowed the controversy surrounding Bush's AWOL. And asked that Bush do the same in this instance. The White House refused. That should have been exploited.

Actually, the White House through a campaign secretary asked that negative ads be eliminated from both factions. Too late, the damage was done.

panzade
I seem to remember that the White House refused to disavow them. However, they claimed they were not involved. Believe that at your own risk.

AU...not sure but this is becoming the crux of the matter as far as this election. I'm still smarting over Gore's fumble in Florida. I'm afraid the GOP is exposing another fumbling Democratic candidate.

panzade
It would appear that the republicans are more politically adept or devious than the Democrats.

panzade - Bush camp statement about negatavie ads being eliminated was just a way for Bush to continue airing negative ads. When Kerry runs an ad that compares himself to Bush or states things Bush has done in office that were not to the benefit of Americans, Bush can say "Well, HE didn't stop..." and twist it into being a negative ad. Who would define negative?

Besides that, supposedly neither one has control over 527's. Kerry DID condemn the most recent ads against Bush. Bush DID NOT condemn the SBV ads against Kerry. He danced around the issue with terminology that was short of doing so - kinda like not being able to admit to any mistakes he's made or not being able to apologize for anything.

I wish it would stop. It won't change my vote. It only makes me more determined to see Bush and his gang sent home.

AU--

Bush has said on many occasions that Kerry's service was noble.

Kerry made his service central to his campaign. It was practically 100% of the Convention.

Those swiftboat guys have been nipping at Kerry ever since VietNam. Long before Bush ever thought about public office. I saw a repeat of the Dick Cavett Show, aired in the 70's where Kerry squared off against John O'Neill. Those anti-Kerry vets have been telling their story for decades.

This is not Bush's doing. They said Bush can't stop them.

I respect how you feel you two, but in trying to resolve blame in this mud sling I am reminded that F-9/11 did $100 million box office . That's a huge Democratic political ad. And at no cost.

I agree with panzade.

Moveon.org has been doing Kerry's laundry, as well.

Sofia
Squinney got it right. Bush did his usual Me not Me.

IMO the controversy stems not so much from what Kerry did in Viet Nam but what he did when he was with the veterans against the war group. Someone should remind them that groups such as that brought an end to another war that we should never have gotten involved in and did not know how to fight. And as the case with the present war in Iraq was based in part upon a lie. "Gulf of Tonkin"

In addition one can smell the stink of the RNC at the bottom of it.

I'd say that Move On cancels out Swift Boats. The danger I'm seeing is that both parties are using proxy mud slingers in order not to get any on them.(mud). It's a new development in presidential campaigns and it does not bode well.

I have to disagree somewhat. Where connections between the current administration (rove and others) can be made to the SBV, Move On has been raising money and running ads for over a year before Kerry was nominated. Their beef is with Bush, and they are ABB-ers, not Kerry supporters.

To me, there is a difference.

Has Move On advertised anything that wasn't true? I haven't seen all of their ads. if you have, are they untrue?

I don't think it is making any difference what so ever. The whole thing comes off unseemly on the part of the swift boat people.

I do think that Kerry aught to just let it die now that he has taken up for himself. If he didn't take up for himself he would have seemed a pansy, but now he has and he aught to let it go.