The True Evil In This Campaign Season

The true evil, as I see it, is that issues have fallen completely by the wayside. Truly monumental issues are not being debated and are showing what an oligarchy the two party system is and has become.

The issues brought up by the right; John Kerry's Christmas In Cambodia. The left; Iraq. Those are the base issues on what's getting news coverage.

In the meantime critical issues are swept under the rug and never brought up for debate. The incredible tide of illegal immigration, no one is debating it out of fear of alienating the Latino vote. The drug war which is putting millions of Americans in jail and under control of probation officers when released due to ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws yet no one cares because all drug users must be criminals. The disintegration of the black community continues to accelerate with an ever increasing illegitimacy rate, failing public schools in minority communities and school choice is completely removed from debate. There is no discussion on how to reform social security for younger workers to privatize part of their future retirement or ensure the programs solvency as opposed to the current government Ponsi scheme that is SSI.

All of these are key issues facing our country and I'd be hard pressed to tell you either candidates stance on any of these issues. These lead me to believe more than anything that they are issues the major parties in this country don't think they can win votes on and can do more harm than good if they take a stand. Result? Political oligarchy. The status quo is good enough for those in power.

Whose fault is that, PAD? It seems to me every time Kerry starts trying to talk issues, the right-wing slime machine lets forth with another bucket of bile.

And this extends all the way to the top. Compare Bush's web site:

http://www.georgewbush.com/

To Kerry:

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

One takes up most of its space calling the other guy a flip-flopper, giving the "raw deal" on him, but basically says nothing about where the candidate stands.

The other candidate seems more interested in steering the argument back to where you'd like it, on the issues, PAD.

Perhaps you should tell the President to leash his attack dogs, so we can get talking about the things that really matter to all of us.

Kerry's website front page mentions Bush once.
Bush's website has freakin' Kerry flash game and several anti-kery sections prominantly located on the front page.



Bush has no class.

You really can't judge the candidates by their websites, Cheapy. I doubt either of them even know how to boot up a computer. They've probably never even seen their own websites.

[quote name='bmulligan']You really can't judge the candidates by their websites, Cheapy. I doubt either of them even know how to boot up a computer. They've probably never even seen their own websites.[/quote]

So they aren't responsible for something done in their name, on their behalf and for their benefit, something that is personally endorsed by and paid for through their campaigns?

Do you really believe the things you write here?

Do you think either of them have the time to read and approve everything listed on the website every day? Do you understand how busy a president and a senator can be during the day, afternoon, night? Honestly, you liberals think Bush sits in the oval office with his thumb up his ass whil Dick Cheney runs the country, don't you? You have NO concept of the president's daily schedule, much less a senator on a campaign trail.

Of course they are responsible for the websites content, but you can't judge the entire campaign, the partys' platforms, or the philosophy of either man by what's posted on a webpage, can you?

[quote name='bmulligan']Do you think either of them have the time to read and approve everything listed on the website every day? Do you understand how busy a president and a senator can be during the day, afternoon, night? Honestly, you liberals think Bush sits in the oval office with his thumb up his ass whil Dick Cheney runs the country, don't you? You have NO concept of the president's daily schedule, much less a senator on a campaign trail.[/quote]

Don't you think he should take personal responsibility for what's done in his name? Isn't personal responsibility what the Republicans are all about? Or is that only when it's convenient for you?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

what hypocracy? How about some proof there, mister literal......

Maybe what's on the webpage about kerry is TRUE, ever give that a thought? Of course not, because you're a lock step liberal. You believe the Democratic agenda by default and would never question their motives because they are pure. Never question their intent because they are honest, and therefore believe that everything put forth by the Republicans is evil and untrue. Jesus, YOU'RE the walking contradiction.

And because your hair trigger won't allow you to see otherwise here's a suprise for you: I am NOT a Bush supporter.

[quote name='bmulligan']what hypocracy? How about some proof there, mister literal......

Maybe what's on the webpage about kerry is TRUE, ever give that a thought? Of course not, because you're a lock step liberal. You believe the Democratic agenda by default and would never question their motives because they are pure. Never question their intent because they are honest, and therefore believe that everything put forth by the Republicans is evil and untrue. Jesus, YOU'RE the walking contradiction.

And because your hair trigger won't allow you to see otherwise here's a suprise for you: I am NOT a Bush supporter.[/quote]

The hypocrisy comes from the fact that Republicans expect personal responsibility from others, yet never seem to take personal responsibility themselves. Think of all of the blunders of the Bush administration over the past few years -- the intelligence failures pre-9/11, the mistaken believe of WMDs in Iraq, the failure to put enough troops into Afghanistan -- and yet not one administration offical has been fired. Not one. George Tenet finally resigned, but only after the 9/11 Commission report came out.

You're even excusing the guy's web site, something that could be stopped with one key stroke on a computer.

As far as me being a lock-step liberal, you don't know a single thing about me. I respect the truth, and I respect fair play, and right now I don't see any of that coming from the Republican camp. All I see are smears and vicious attacks and things taken out of context to make a nasty point. And if you try those tactics in this forum, I will be here to answer you each and every time, because I've had it with this garbage.

[quote name='dennis_t']As far as me being a lock-step liberal, you don't know a single thing about me. I respect the truth, and I respect fair play, and right now I don't see any of that coming from the Republican camp. All I see are smears and vicious attacks and things taken out of context to make a nasty point. And if you try those tactics in this forum, I will be here to answer you each and every time, because I've had it with this garbage.[/quote]

[quote name='dennis_t']

The hypocrisy comes from the fact that Republicans expect personal responsibility from others, yet never seem to take personal responsibility themselves. Think of all of the blunders of the Bush administration over the past few years -- the intelligence failures pre-9/11, the mistaken believe of WMDs in Iraq, the failure to put enough troops into Afghanistan -- and yet not one administration offical has been fired. Not one. George Tenet finally resigned, but only after the 9/11 Commission report came out. [/quote] How is bashing Kerry an example of lack of personal responsibility? How about some 'facts' on that? Fact is that intelligence failures hapened well before 9/11 and well before the Bush administration. This does not absolve Bush from blame, however, one cannot place blame directly and completely upon his shoulders. The 9/11 report confirms this.

You're even excusing the guy's web site, something that could be stopped with one key stroke on a computer.

Click to expand...

I'm not excusing anything, I'm just not automatically assuming that the Republicans are lying about everything on Bush's website which is something you have already done and have based your argument upon.

As far as me being a lock-step liberal, you don't know a single thing about me. I respect the truth, and I respect fair play, and right now I don't see any of that coming from the Republican camp. All I see are smears and vicious attacks and things taken out of context to make a nasty point. And if you try those tactics in this forum, I will be here to answer you each and every time, because I've had it with this garbage.

Click to expand...

Yet you see fair play coming from the Dems? I think I know all I need to about you. You don't deny being in lock step, do you? You think republicans copywrighted smearing and vicious attacks? Democrats practically invented the genre. If you think Democrats are bastions of fair play then I don't think I even want to know more about you.

[quote name='bmulligan']
I'm not excusing anything, I'm just not automatically assuming that the Republicans are lying about everything on Bush's website which is something you have already done and have based your argument upon. [/quote]

The discussion wasn't about lying, bmulligan. If you'll recall, PAD's original complaint was that the issues were getting short shrift because of all of the personal attacks. I put the Bush and Kerry web sites side by side, so everyone could judge for themselves who is indulging in personal attacks (I believe that to be Bush) and who is trying to talk about the issues (I believe that to be Kerry).

That said, I don't think I've heard many -- if any -- personal attacks against Kerry that don't fade in the light of day. They are all based on half-truths, quotes taken out of context, lies, and out-and-out smears. And again I ask you, bmulligan -- if you have any proof that any of these attacks against Kerry are true, then show us the facts and let us discuss them.

[quote name='bmulligan']Yet you see fair play coming from the Dems? I think I know all I need to about you. You don't deny being in lock step, do you? You think republicans copywrighted smearing and vicious attacks? Democrats practically invented the genre. If you think Democrats are bastions of fair play then I don't think I even want to know more about you.[/quote]

Right now, yes, I do think the Democrats are playing fair when compared with the Repubs. I see Democrats talking about the issues. I see Democrats talking about hard facts, not sleazy gossip and innuendo. I see Kerry denouncing an ad that questions Bush's war record. I don't see any of the slime the Republicans are peddling. And again, if you have an example of an unfounded attack by a Democrat against Bush, or something going on in this campaign that you feel proves the underhandedness of the Democrats, feel free to share it here so we might discuss it.

[quote name='dennis_t']

Don't you think he should take personal responsibility for what's done in his name? Isn't personal responsibility what the Republicans are all about? Or is that only when it's convenient for you?

The hypocrisy is astounding.[/quote]

Yeah, I mean John Kerry really should stand up and say "I really wasn't Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. That was BOB KERREY, I'm JOHN KERRY. Get it right next time staffers!"

John Kerry is an Experienced Leader in the Intelligence Field – John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee.
John Kerry.com Archived on Google
Bob Kerrey biography.

You forgot about another non-issue that is perhaps the greatest one of all: the runaway spending perpetuated by Congress and Bush. The really sad thing is that whoever wins it will continue since both candidates continue to promise more and more government spending.

ditto....

I wish I had an endless supply of money, and an endless resivoir to draw my next years salary, and all my creditors had faith I would repay them next year....

"Republicans are for smaller government" ....

Oh God, don't even get me started on government spending and what this Congress and President have done. It's damn near criminal. No wait, it IS criminal. In an effort to take away election year causes away from Democrats they spent us into oblivion. You'll get no argument from me on that one.

The republicans have controlled congress for the past 10 years pretty much ( they did not have control of the senate for less than 2 years) and yet you blame Democrats for spending?

Is that kind of like when Reagan bitched and bitched about a balanced budget and ran up huge defecits?

Who blamed Democrats? I blamed this Congress, thie REPUBLICAN Congress and the REPUBLICAN President.

Tip O'Niel, Jim Wright and the Democratic leadership proclaimed every Reagan budget proposal DOA. The defecits in the 80's were purely run up by a Democratic Congress. The ones now are partly attributable to an econmic downturn, war but most importantly out of control spending.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The true evil, as I see it, is that issues have fallen completely by the wayside. Truly monumental issues are not being debated and are showing what an oligarchy the two party system is and has become.

The issues brought up by the right; John Kerry's Christmas In Cambodia. The left; Iraq. Those are the base issues on what's getting news coverage.

In the meantime critical issues are swept under the rug and never brought up for debate. The incredible tide of illegal immigration, no one is debating it out of fear of alienating the Latino vote. The drug war which is putting millions of Americans in jail and under control of probation officers when released due to ridiculous mandatory sentencing laws yet no one cares because all drug users must be criminals. The disintegration of the black community continues to accelerate with an ever increasing illegitimacy rate, failing public schools in minority communities and school choice is completely removed from debate. There is no discussion on how to reform social security for younger workers to privatize part of their future retirement or ensure the programs solvency as opposed to the current government Ponsi scheme that is SSI.

All of these are key issues facing our country and I'd be hard pressed to tell you either candidates stance on any of these issues. These lead me to believe more than anything that they are issues the major parties in this country don't think they can win votes on and can do more harm than good if they take a stand. Result? Political oligarchy. The status quo is good enough for those in power.[/quote]

I'm going to have to agree with the people going "Who's fault is it?" and it's Bush's. Kerry, I also don't like, said "we shouldn't be opening fire stations in Iraq and closing them here" and all Bush ever says to that is that the Iraqis are free, and that is good, but still.

Bush rather gay bashing the senter stage, or maybe the moon idea he had that failed, to get things off the big issues, like Iraq, the fact we hardly have anyone in Afghanistan now, or the fact that Bush wants Mexicans to have more rights and benifits than US citicians.

I just love when the Kerry people act shocked and appalled at the negative campaigning of the Republicans. On Paula Zahn's show on CNN last night, they had a town hall debate in Ohio between a senior adviser for the Kerry camp. and one from the Bush camp. When a questioner asked of them, "what's with all the attack ads?" the Kerry adviser asserted "the Kerry campaign hasn't run any negative ads!" The room (of undecided/independent voters) erupted into laughter. Why? Because everyone in the room who had even occasionally turned on their TV in the past few months knew the truth - that pro-Kerry interest groups are spending tens of millions of dollars running attack ads against Bush precisely so that Kerry himself doesn't have to. And there are some nasty ones out there. I don't believe Kerry has condemned them all either. He wouldn't have time to condemn all of them, and nor would he probably want to. Why the double standard for Bush?

As far as Bush's web site having anti-Kerry ads all over it.... I haven't seen the rules that say campaigns have to be perfectly nice and happy go lucky. Be honest- is that really the kind of Presidential campaign you want? Where criticism and bad-mouthing of the other candidate is strictly off-limits? Kerry is standing around whining "aww shucks guys, gosh darnit, why are you all so mean to me?!" If he can't even stand up to a few attack ads in the midst of campaign season, I wouldn't be too confident in his ability to handle the political pressures of the office after he's elected. Does he expect automatic immunity from hard nosed politics just because he's a war hero? There are plenty of contradictions in his thinking, but no logic or consistency whatsoever.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who blamed Democrats? I blamed this Congress, thie REPUBLICAN Congress and the REPUBLICAN President.

Tip O'Niel, Jim Wright and the Democratic leadership proclaimed every Reagan budget proposal DOA. The defecits in the 80's were purely run up by a Democratic Congress. The ones now are partly attributable to an econmic downturn, war but most importantly out of control spending.[/quote]

Again PAD, please get your facts straight. The deficits were run up by REAGAN. The president writes the budget. Congress actually CUT down what Reagan asked for. The deficits he ran would have been worse if they gave him everything he asked for.

Plus also note Congress was split under Reagan, the repubs had the Senate. The dems did not reclaim the Senate until 1986

[quote name='bmulligan']You think republicans copywrighted smearing and vicious attacks? Democrats practically invented the genre. If you think Democrats are bastions of fair play then I don't think I even want to know more about you.[/quote]

I'd like to see some evidence of the Dems inventing smear tactics. I can remember Nixon and Watergate, Bush Sr. and Willie Horton, and Dubya's smear on McCain in South Carolina. And these were not done by third parties; these smears were from the campaigns.

[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who blamed Democrats? I blamed this Congress, thie REPUBLICAN Congress and the REPUBLICAN President.

Tip O'Niel, Jim Wright and the Democratic leadership proclaimed every Reagan budget proposal DOA. The defecits in the 80's were purely run up by a Democratic Congress. The ones now are partly attributable to an econmic downturn, war but most importantly out of control spending.[/quote]

Again PAD, please get your facts straight. The deficits were run up by REAGAN. The president writes the budget. Congress actually CUT down what Reagan asked for. The deficits he ran would have been worse if they gave him everything he asked for.

Plus also note Congress was split under Reagan, the repubs had the Senate. The dems did not reclaim the Senate until 1986[/quote]

Sorry, but Congress controls the purse-strings, end of story. The president submits a recommendation, but Congress usually radically alters a lot of it. You have a much better argument in how the Republicans have gone in 10 years from promising to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment to voting for the biggest deficit in history. Not that the Democrats haven't supported most of the increases, many times while calling for more...all while criticizing Bush and the Republicans in Congress for overspending! In short, both parties have (and continue to be) unbelievably irresponsible and some day there will be hell to pay.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who blamed Democrats? I blamed this Congress, thie REPUBLICAN Congress and the REPUBLICAN President.

Tip O'Niel, Jim Wright and the Democratic leadership proclaimed every Reagan budget proposal DOA. The defecits in the 80's were purely run up by a Democratic Congress. The ones now are partly attributable to an econmic downturn, war but most importantly out of control spending.[/quote]

Again PAD, please get your facts straight. The deficits were run up by REAGAN. The president writes the budget. Congress actually CUT down what Reagan asked for. The deficits he ran would have been worse if they gave him everything he asked for.

Plus also note Congress was split under Reagan, the repubs had the Senate. The dems did not reclaim the Senate until 1986[/quote]

Sorry, but Congress controls the purse-strings, end of story. The president submits a recommendation, but Congress usually radically alters a lot of it. You have a much better argument in how the Republicans have gone in 10 years from promising to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment to voting for the biggest deficit in history. Not that the Democrats haven't supported most of the increases, many times while calling for more...all while criticizing Bush and the Republicans in Congress for overspending! In short, both parties have (and continue to be) unbelievably irresponsible and some day there will be hell to pay.[/quote]

True, except for the pesky fact that the President can veto any budget coming from Congress he doesn't approve of. Clinton did it. And presumably Reagan could have done it, were he horrified by the deficits being run up.

Al Gore was the first politician to use Willie Horton for political purposes in the 1988 Democratic primaries. This is one of the all time leading political myths that it was GW's campaign item. Lee Atwater merely expanded on the concept and stated if he could make every voter aware of Willie Horton Dukakis would lose. Lee was right.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Al Gore was the first politician to use Willie Horton for political purposes in the 1988 Democratic primaries. This is one of the all time leading political myths that it was GW's campaign item. Lee Atwater merely expanded on the concept and stated if he could make every voter aware of Willie Horton Dukakis would lose. Lee was right.[/quote]

Your facts are getting away from you again, PAD. Gore only asked Dukakis about "weekend passes for convicted criminals" during a debate, a reasonable and issue-based question that hit hard. He never mentioned any names.

It took Republicans to dig up Willie Horton and use him to scare the crap out of white America. So sorry, but Horton is another in the ever-growing line of cheap Republican smears.

Here's a link, if you want to read more about it:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003919/

I think instead of useless TV ads that are so full of spin any facts would be tossed to OZ with Dorothy and Co., we should have more debates. One debate a week, alternating between VP and Presidential candidates, so that people have more than two chances to hear what the candidates have to say.

The problem is that people in general are stupid enough to take the slander thrown by both sides at face value, and believe it to be true. These schmucks are actually SWAYED by things like Bush's Vietnam record, that idiocy of Kerry in Cambodia, etc. WHO GIVES A SHIT. We currently have a President in office that used to drink-and-drive, snort coke, whatever. We had a President in office for TWO terms that was essentially a hippie that dodged the draft.

Real news like what position candidates take on REAL issues takes a backseat to what pretzel the President choked on last week, or what fatass staffer was giving the Pres a blowjob.

I WANT DEBATES DAMMIT. DEBATES!

BUZZZZZZZZ!

Robert Novak, Washington Post, 10/22/99: Al Gore’s mean streak was not engineered by [adviser] Bob Shrum…In his failed 1988 campaign for president, Gore nailed Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for the Willie Horton affair long before George Bush Sr. took up that cry.

Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal, 10/29/99: One thing we know about this White House is that it plays for keeps. Recall that the candidate who first raised the prison furlough (Willie Horton) issue against Mike Dukakis in 1988 wasn’t George Bush. It was Al Gore.

William Kristol, Newsweek, 11/1/99: Big Al can be a tough, mean player, not afraid to be tough and inaccurate himself. After all, he’s the guy who introduced Willie Horton to the American public in his primary campaign against Michael Dukakis.

Roger Simon, U.S. News, 11/1/99: Bradley will spend much of his prep time anticipating Gore attacks. “We always expect to be attacked by Gore,” says a senior adviser to Bradley…And just as he did in 1988 when he raised the Willie Horton issue against Dukakis, Gore intends to take whatever shots he deems appropriate.

Sam Donaldson, This Week, 11/28/99: Al Gore does use fear. Remember 1988, it was Al Gore when he was running in the primaries for president who found Willie Horton, and he used Willie Horton against Dukakis.

Andrew Cain, Washington Times, 12/7/99: Mr. Gore has never been reluctant to go for the jugular. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Mr. Gore was the first candidate to raise the Massachusetts prison furlough program and Willie Horton issue against fellow Democrat Michael Dukakis.

Jeanne Cummings, Wall Street Journal, 12/8/99: Mr. Gore’s approach shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with his political history. His 1988 presidential bid foundered well short of the Democratic nomination, but not before Mr. Gore slammed Rep. Richard Gephardt for backing Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for supporting a controversial prison-furlough system.

Katharine Seelye, New York Times, 12/10/99: Mr. Gore’s combativeness has been evident in the past…After all, he was the candidate who in 1988 first raised the issue of prison furloughs in Massachusetts, laying the groundwork for Vice President Bush to seize on the image of Willie Horton.

Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, 12/11/99: He is aggressive, outspoken and increasingly eager to draw sharp—some would suggest unfair—contrasts with his opponents. The approach, reminiscent of his 1988 effort, has rejuvenated the Gore team…In that race, it was Gore who first pinned rival Michael S. Dukakis for a controversial prison furlough program.

Susan Page, Late Edition, 12/12/99: We’re reminded this week…what a fierce campaigner he is. He showed us before. In 1988, he was the one who raised the issue of prison furloughs against Michael Dukakis in the primaries, before the Bush people had heard of it. He’s a very fierce campaigner.

Dan Balz, Washington Post, 12/20/99: Gore prefers the cut-and-thrust of traditional politics and has often defined himself by criticizing his opponents. It was Gore, after all, who in 1988 introduced Willie Horton into the presidential campaign.

Damn Lexis-Nexis proving me right yet again.

Regardless of who started it, it continues. They make a choice whether or not to include personal attacks as a campaign item--it is not forced upon them.

Let's not play fast and loose with the facts and call yourself a winner just yet, PAD.

In reviewing this history, it's important to make some crucial distinctions. Gore never mentioned that Horton was black; indeed, he never mentioned Horton by name. He merely drew attention, correctly, to the damaging fact that Dukakis had tolerated a furlough program for especially violent criminals in his state even after a horrific incident strongly suggested this was a bad policy. It's conceivable, of course, that Gore was warming up for more explicit and racially tinged use of Horton's story later in the primary fight. But that would have been uncharacteristic of him. In any event, Gore dropped out of the race shortly after the debate.

Now recall what the Republicans did with Horton's story: An "independent expenditure" group aired an ad for Bush showing a picture of Horton. A Republican fund-raising letter in Maryland showed pictures of Dukakis and Horton alongside the following text: "Is this your pro-family team for 1988?" Horton told Playboy magazine in 1989 that a woman who identified herself as working for "an organization affiliated with the Bush campaign" phoned him and wrote letters to him up in prison trying to get him to endorse Dukakis. The official Bush campaign, of course, kept its distance from such efforts, and claimed to use Horton only in race-neutral ways. But there is plenty of evidence that it was heartily appreciative of the racial subtext. In his book about the 1988 campaign, Pledging Allegiance, Blumenthal quotes an anonymous member of the Bush campaign team as saying, "Willie Horton has star quality. Willie's going to be politically furloughed to terrorize again. It's a wonderful mix of liberalism and a big black rapist." Although Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, always insisted publicly that for the Bush campaign Horton was never a racial symbol, Atwater slipped in a speech he gave to southern Republicans right before that year's Democratic convention:

There is a story about a fellow named Willie Horton who for all I know may end up to be Dukakis' running mate. Dukakis is making Hamlet look like the rock of Gibraltar in the way he's acted on this. [This was a reference to Dukakis' search for a vice-presidential candidate.] The guy was on TV about a month ago and he said you'll never see me standing in the driveway of my house talking to these candidates. And guess what, on Monday, I saw in the driveway of his house? Jesse Jackson. So anyway, maybe he'll put this Willie Horton guy on the ticket after all is said and done.

As was noted at the time by Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post and others, Atwater was pretty clearly equating Jesse Jackson with Willie Horton because both happened to be black. Gore never did that. He never did anything close to that.

Click to expand...

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003919/

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] BUZZZZZZZZ!

Robert Novak, Washington Post, 10/22/99: Al Gore’s mean streak was not engineered by [adviser] Bob Shrum…In his failed 1988 campaign for president, Gore nailed Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for the Willie Horton affair long before George Bush Sr. took up that cry.

Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal, 10/29/99: One thing we know about this White House is that it plays for keeps. Recall that the candidate who first raised the prison furlough (Willie Horton) issue against Mike Dukakis in 1988 wasn’t George Bush. It was Al Gore.

William Kristol, Newsweek, 11/1/99: Big Al can be a tough, mean player, not afraid to be tough and inaccurate himself. After all, he’s the guy who introduced Willie Horton to the American public in his primary campaign against Michael Dukakis.

Roger Simon, U.S. News, 11/1/99: Bradley will spend much of his prep time anticipating Gore attacks. “We always expect to be attacked by Gore,” says a senior adviser to Bradley…And just as he did in 1988 when he raised the Willie Horton issue against Dukakis, Gore intends to take whatever shots he deems appropriate.

Sam Donaldson, This Week, 11/28/99: Al Gore does use fear. Remember 1988, it was Al Gore when he was running in the primaries for president who found Willie Horton, and he used Willie Horton against Dukakis.

Andrew Cain, Washington Times, 12/7/99: Mr. Gore has never been reluctant to go for the jugular. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Mr. Gore was the first candidate to raise the Massachusetts prison furlough program and Willie Horton issue against fellow Democrat Michael Dukakis.

Jeanne Cummings, Wall Street Journal, 12/8/99: Mr. Gore’s approach shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with his political history. His 1988 presidential bid foundered well short of the Democratic nomination, but not before Mr. Gore slammed Rep. Richard Gephardt for backing Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis for supporting a controversial prison-furlough system.

Katharine Seelye, New York Times, 12/10/99: Mr. Gore’s combativeness has been evident in the past…After all, he was the candidate who in 1988 first raised the issue of prison furloughs in Massachusetts, laying the groundwork for Vice President Bush to seize on the image of Willie Horton.

Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, 12/11/99: He is aggressive, outspoken and increasingly eager to draw sharp—some would suggest unfair—contrasts with his opponents. The approach, reminiscent of his 1988 effort, has rejuvenated the Gore team…In that race, it was Gore who first pinned rival Michael S. Dukakis for a controversial prison furlough program.

Susan Page, Late Edition, 12/12/99: We’re reminded this week…what a fierce campaigner he is. He showed us before. In 1988, he was the one who raised the issue of prison furloughs against Michael Dukakis in the primaries, before the Bush people had heard of it. He’s a very fierce campaigner.

Dan Balz, Washington Post, 12/20/99: Gore prefers the cut-and-thrust of traditional politics and has often defined himself by criticizing his opponents. It was Gore, after all, who in 1988 introduced Willie Horton into the presidential campaign.

Damn Lexis-Nexis proving me right yet again.[/quote]

I note that in trying to prove your case, you quote people (Page, Seelye, Cummings) who instead prove the point I made -- that Gore mentioned only the prison furlough program in his debate with Dukakis, as part of an issue-based question.

I also note that many of the sources who do say Gore raised Horton by name (Novak, Gigot, Kristol, Simon, Cain) are right-wing commentators, not journalists, who offer no proof of their assertion outside of their own opinion.

It took Republicans to find Willie Horton and turn him into an election-year smear. Gore never did that, and some of your very own sources agree. You can't prove Gore brought up Willie Horton by name, because it didn't happen.

[quote name='dennis_t']I also note that many of the sources who do say Gore raised Horton by name (Novak, Gigot, Kristol, Simon, Cain) are right-wing commentators, not journalists, who offer no proof of their assertion outside of their own opinion.
[/quote]

And the rest of the 'commentators' were left leaning news 'reporters' who happened to have the same opinion. Irregardless if Horton's name was or wasn't mentioned by Gore. The premise was true and the idea was presented by Gore to smear the Duke. Republicans just latched on to a good idea.

And why are you mad that someone forced Dukakis to become responsible for his actions? Wasn't he responsible for everything during his watch? I remember someone saying that responsibility was a democratic tennet. I guess republicans are the only ones who are held to that standard in your world.

[quote name='bmulligan']And the rest of the 'commentators' were left leaning news 'reporters' who happened to have the same opinion. Irregardless if Horton's name was or wasn't mentioned by Gore. The premise was true and the idea was presented by Gore to smear the Duke. Republicans just latched on to a good idea.

And why are you mad that someone forced Dukakis to become responsible for his actions? Wasn't he responsible for everything during his watch? I remember someone saying that responsibility was a democratic tennet. I guess republicans are the only ones who are held to that standard in your world.[/quote]

I guess Republicans really don't do nuance.

There's a difference between questioning the furlough program and scaring voters by insinuating black criminals will be running loose if Dukakis wins.

I don't think that it's a lack of nuance - I think it's an inability to think beyond the capacity of a five year old.

Seriously, bmulligan. Just stop typing. You just sound dumber every time your fingers hit keys.

seppo

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Al Gore was the first politician to use Willie Horton for political purposes in the 1988 Democratic primaries. This is one of the all time leading political myths that it was GW's campaign item. Lee Atwater merely expanded on the concept and stated if he could make every voter aware of Willie Horton Dukakis would lose. Lee was right.[/quote]

Your facts are getting away from you again, PAD. Gore only asked Dukakis about "weekend passes for convicted criminals" during a debate, a reasonable and issue-based question that hit hard. He never mentioned any names.

It took Republicans to dig up Willie Horton and use him to scare the crap out of white America. So sorry, but Horton is another in the ever-growing line of cheap Republican smears.

Here's a link, if you want to read more about it:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003919/[/quote]


PAD is a Republican, all they do is spin the "facts" and when the facts aren't on their side they make things up, or better, like PAD, completely ignore what was said before and change the subject.

Bush is a dumbie, but Kerry isn't any beter, either way this country is screwed.

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Who blamed Democrats? I blamed this Congress, thie REPUBLICAN Congress and the REPUBLICAN President.

Tip O'Niel, Jim Wright and the Democratic leadership proclaimed every Reagan budget proposal DOA. The defecits in the 80's were purely run up by a Democratic Congress. The ones now are partly attributable to an econmic downturn, war but most importantly out of control spending.[/quote]

Again PAD, please get your facts straight. The deficits were run up by REAGAN. The president writes the budget. Congress actually CUT down what Reagan asked for. The deficits he ran would have been worse if they gave him everything he asked for.

Plus also note Congress was split under Reagan, the repubs had the Senate. The dems did not reclaim the Senate until 1986[/quote]

Sorry, but Congress controls the purse-strings, end of story. The president submits a recommendation, but Congress usually radically alters a lot of it. You have a much better argument in how the Republicans have gone in 10 years from promising to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment to voting for the biggest deficit in history. Not that the Democrats haven't supported most of the increases, many times while calling for more...all while criticizing Bush and the Republicans in Congress for overspending! In short, both parties have (and continue to be) unbelievably irresponsible and some day there will be hell to pay.[/quote]

True, except for the pesky fact that the President can veto any budget coming from Congress he doesn't approve of. Clinton did it. And presumably Reagan could have done it, were he horrified by the deficits being run up.[/quote]

Good point, meaning that he has some power over it. However, most of the time it is extremely difficult to do so because there are a few things in there that he doesn't agree with but many he does. A president may decide just to sign the bill as he feels the good outweighs the bad. But you're right, there is some responsibility there no doubt.