CLASSLESS BUSH

[reeds]

and you republicans always bash Clinton...if that isnt the pot calling the kettle BLACK...

President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign commercials — on the air just one day — have angered several relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and a firefighters union that has endorsed Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) demanded the ads be pulled.




The White House defended the commercials, which show images of the skeletal remains of the World Trade Center and firefighters bearing a stretcher through the rubble.


"It makes me sick," said Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr., in the attacks and leads a victims families group called Peaceful Tomorrows. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That truly is what Ground Zero represents to me."


In Bal Harbour, Fla., the International Association of Fire Fighters Union approved a resolution asking the Bush campaign to pull the ads, spokesman Jeff Zack said. The resolution also urges Bush to "apologize to the families of firefighters killed on 9/11 for demeaning the memory of their loved ones in an attempt to curry support for his re-election."


The union gave Kerry an early endorsement in the presidential race.


The controversy erupted as Bush's re-election campaign began airing the commercials nationally on cable television and on broadcast stations in about 80 media markets in 18 states.


The ads refer both to the terrorist attacks and to the recent recession, and are designed to project Bush as a candidate offering "steady leadership in times of change." The commercials do not mention Kerry.


One of the ads shows the charred wreckage of the twin towers with an American flag flying amid the debris. Another ad — and a Spanish-language version of it — use that image as well as firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble as sirens are heard. Firefighters are shown in all the ads.


Bush had told House and Senate leaders in January 2002 that, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue" in that election year. His aides on Thursday defended the use of the images.


"Sept. 11 changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed the world," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. "The president's steady leadership is vital to how we wage war on terrorism."


The administration arranged for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and three others to appear on network and cable broadcasts to defend the ads. One Bush aide said the controversy gave the president's commercial priceless free publicity, with millions seeing clips of the ad.


Several relatives of victims also praised the ads.


"These images honor those whose lives were lost," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon (news - web sites) at the hands of hijackers.


Deena Burnett, a Little Rock, Ark., resident whose husband Tom was one of the passengers on United Flight 93, which crashed into a Pennsylvania field, said the ads were "a perfect reminder of what happened that day."


And Bernard Kerik, the former New York police commissioner who lost 23 officers that day, said Bush has every right to use the images to show his leadership abilities just as Kerry has used footage of his military service in Vietnam in his ads.


"It's comparable. It's about the president's history. It's about his leadership ability," said Kerik, who is on a roughly $140,000-a-year contract with the Defense Department to help establish security and stability in Iraq (news - web sites).


Bush is not the first politician to cite the terrorist attacks in campaign ads. In 2002, New York Gov. George Pataki mentioned the tragedy in an ad that was shown to victims' families for approval before it was broadcast.





But the images in the Bush ads have sparked a furor.

Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, died in the World Trade Center, said Bush should not use the tragedy as "political propaganda."

"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened," a reference to the effort the Bush administration has made in working with the Sept. 11 commission investigating the intelligence failures.

Harold Schaitberger, the firefighter union's president, said: "We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders."

Terry Holt, a Bush-Cheney spokesman, defended Bush's support for homeland security, saying spending has tripled in the three years since the attacks.

[MavKikiNYC]

Looks like that No-Child-Left-Behind legislation may've come 25 years too late.

[reeds]

Bush using the 9-11 tragedy as political propaganda...and you guys have the guts to talk about Clinton and morality issues.....WAKE UP...

[Dooby]

Bush could have used the Care Bears in his ads and there would be people saying it was offensive.

[MavKikiNYC]

Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, died in the World Trade Center, said Bush should not use the tragedy as "political propaganda."

"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened," a reference to the effort the Bush administration has made in working with the Sept. 11 commission investigating the intelligence failures.

Harold Schaitberger, the firefighter union's president, said: "We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders."

Hmm.....despite the fact that this exact same article has been posted in another thread, where it was discussed extensively, perhaps there are a couple more things to say.

First, Schaitberger, the firefighter union's president, himself explicitly politicizes the issue by connecting his opposition to the use of images of firefighters to budget cuts for first responders. Are these comments exploitative as well?

Second, Breitweiser is the president of an advocacy group for family members of vicitms of 9-11, and has for months been accusing the U.S. government of knowing about the imminence of an attack and has been finger-pointing and demanding investigations as to why more wasn't done to prevent the attack. She has criticized both President Bush and Condaleeza Rice for not testifying publicly about potential government intelligence failures prior to 9-11. Thus her motives can hardly be considered apolitical. Is her opposition to the Bush campaign's references to the attacks on 9-11 (and the use of images from that day) politically motivated? If so, are her comments exploitative?

Was Bush supposed to address in 8 months that which Clinton had failed to address in 8 years?

Please have a semblance of a point before posting.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

But it's ok for democrats to drag up suspicion about Bush's service record on the grounds that a few people couldn't remember seeing him.

I'm not a republican, but people like reeds worry me.

Seriously dude, lose the righteous indignation. You post this article, prefaced by whining about republican mudslinging, but does this make you any better than the Clinton-bashers you despise?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
Bush using the 9-11 tragedy as political propaganda...and you guys have the guts to talk about Clinton and morality issues.....WAKE UP...

I guess I'm missing something here Reeds because I don't see the analogy that you attempt to make between Clinton's acts of immorality and this campaign advertisement for Bush. I would guess that the implication is that Clinton did something morally wrong and it wasn't OK with republicans and Bush did something morally wrong and it was not OK with republicans. Now in the statements you've made you've broadly included a multitude of complaints about Clintons alleged immoral behavior and compared it to a signular instance of behavior associated with Bush which you allege to be immoral.

1st let's look at some definitions so we don't get confused. Please bear with me hear because it helps me review the definitions of some key words to make sure that I communicate clearly.

po·lit·i·cal adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

prop·a·gan·da n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.


im·mor·al adj.
1. Contrary to established moral principles.
2. Not moral; inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or the divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious; licentious; as, an immoral man; an immoral deed.
3. violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral]
4. not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, unethical]
5. morally unprincipled; "immoral behavior" 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; "led a very bad life" [syn: bad]
6. marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good

dis·hon·es·ty n.
1. Dishonor; dishonorableness; shame. [Obs.] ``The hidden things of dishonesty.'' --2 Cor. iv. 2.

2. Want of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; want of fairness and straightforwardness; a disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray; faithlessness.

3. Violation of trust or of justice; fraud; any deviation from probity; a dishonest act.

4. Lewdness; unchastity. --Shak.


So it appears to me in this context that immoral would mean going against the established or generally accepted principals of right and wrong of society. In the context of this argument, society would refer to the American public. Now honesty is pretty much a generally accepted principal by almost all of our society. Whether it is in consideration for hiring someone or being hired by someone, establishing a business or personal relationship with someone, or even the mass media communications we has a society highly value honesty and it is a frequent demand or request. The chief complaints about Clinton were his dihonest behavior. Those accusations spanned the entire spectrum of the definition of dishonesty that I posted above. From lying on TV in an address to the American public to lying in court under oath to accusations of stealing and fraud, to unchaste acts with various people Clintons detractors claimed a plethora of alleged dishonest acts, some of which Clinton was forced to admit to in public record.

Now you accuse Bush of committing an immoral act with his advertisements that you allege to be "policitical propaganda". Looking a the definition of propaganda, I cannot see anything that would be remotely immoral about something that was propaganda in and of itself. 9/11 has been a constant theme fo this administration since September 11, 2001 in the same manner that Pearl Harbor was a constant theme of FDR's administration from December 7, 1941 until the death of FDR. Both were heinous and cowardly acts of war committed against the United States. Even after FDR's death, this theme remained and even strongly influenced the signing of the treaty to end war with Japan on the USS Missouri. This location was chosen to purposefully remind the Japanese of how we over came their initial act of war which among other things decimated our fleet of battleships. FDR strongly used the theme of the War and Pearl Harbor in his election campaign of 1942. It was a highly relative issue in the presidential race.

The most likely critique that I can come up with that you are making is that Bush is using images of 9/11 for his own self serving interests which in this case would be getting reelected President. Of course we have a historical precedent of FDR doing something very similar, and there has been very little crticism of him for doing this. But there was criticism, just not from the vast majority of Americans. Also, serving you own self interests is not immoral in and of itself. This only becomes problematic when you server you self interests at the expense of the public which you serve. Personally I don't see Bush doing this. 9/11 is still a relative issue. The war on terrorism is still going and we as a nation are still vunerable. Bush is pointing to his record of leading our nation in this time of crisis and reminding us of the work that needs to still be done. Now you may not like the job Bush has done. You may not think that Bush is the best man to continue to lead us. You may not think that there really is much work still to be done and that the war on terrorism is over. However I see no compelling evidence to even suggest that Bust doesn't believe that he did well leading the nation, is the best man to continue leading the nation and that there is still much work to do in the continuing war on terrorism. I would also argue that the relatively limited outcry against these ads of Bush signify that most Americans do not find them morally repugnant.

So in conclusion Reeds, your comdemnation of Bush by comparing his political ads smacks of self serving and dishonest policital rhetoric with exceedingly little factual basis. Maybe you honestly believe this and that it will benefit our society as a whole. However it seems hard that a person of obvious intelligence as you appear to be would continue with such an intellectually dishonest argument after more fully reviewing the facts and still believe that.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Dooby
Bush could have used the Care Bears in his ads and there would be people saying it was offensive.

Exactly. The only thing classless here is democraps using an emotionally charged topic to be negative against a man who was heroic in his response to 9-11.

[Mavdog]

Dooby wrote

Bush could have used the Care Bears in his ads and there would be people saying it was offensive.

hey, anybody who is so low life as to subject me to those sappy symbols of sweetness in an ad IS being culturally offensive in my book! NO[img]i/expressions/heart.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: reeds
Bush using the 9-11 tragedy as political propaganda...and you guys have the guts to talk about Clinton and morality issues.....WAKE UP...

Ah yes, Bill Clinton. The same Bill Clinton whose actions while President inspired these comments:

From the McLaughlin Group, November 1998:

Item: Army blast. Back in 1995, Colonel James McDonough, now retired Army, led the first U.S. forces into Bosnia. While McDonough was doing that, President Clinton was in the Oval Office Annex engaging in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky. And as that activity was taking place, was on the telephone discussing Bosnia with the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Operations panel, Alabama Republican Sonny Callahan.

"The act of casual sex at a moment of great importance smacks of callous indifference, sophomoric arrogance, and reckless disregard of the sanctity of U.S. soldiers' lives. Clinton's behavior was so bizarre and contemptuous of their stake in the matter that it might have shaken their trust in their commander-in-chief," so says Colonel McDonough, who now works for Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey in the White House.

COLIN POWELL (U.S. Army, retired; former chairman, Joint Chiefs): (From videotape.) We're very, very disappointed in the president. What he did was disgraceful; it disgraced the Oval Office, it disgraced the presidency, and it disgraced him.


"Clinton has weakened the services and fostered a corrosive anti-military culture. Should Mr. Clinton lead us into military conflict, he would do so without any trust. Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his dysfunctional administration. Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his troops?" A harsh judgment of the president from the pen of Major Daniel Rabil, Marine Reservist. What Major Rabil is echoing is the doubt and disgust towards Commander-in-Chief Clinton spreading through military ranks, present and retired. And Rabil, along with others still in uniform, risks being decommissioned for his public statements, or worse.

"I was doing fine at my Army retirement ceremony until presented a certificate of appreciation signed by Bill Clinton, commander-in-chief. As the signatory's name was read, an audible chuckle rose from the audience, representing ranks from private to general, across multiple armed services, inclusive of civilians, active and retired. After the retirement festivities, I wrote a letter to Mr. Clinton returning that certificate in four pieces. Simply stated, I have honorably adhered to the oath my father administered at my commissioning over 27 years ago. Values are fundamental, necessary and non-negotiable. Mr. Clinton, character is important, and you've negotiated yours away. I urge the Army to adopt making Mr. Clinton's certificate optional at future retirements so as not to embarrass soldiers." So says Army Colonel John Baer, recently retired.

[MavKikiNYC]

Compare Clinton's attitude toward U.S. troops in 1995 with that of President Bush in November of 2003.

Then again, doubtless there are some who would suggest that Bush's Thanksgiving Day trip to Iraq was just political propaganda.

Whether 'political propaganda' or 'presidential leadership' , acts such as this from a man with Bush's character will sure give the concept of "political propaganda" a postive spin.

[MavKikiNYC]

Rudy Giuliani calls the ads both "appropriate" and "relevant".

Classless Rudy. (Doesn't have much of a ring to it either.)

[madape]

Today's featured opinion article in the Wall Street Journal's, Opinion Journal

Is 9/11 an Issue?
President Bush talks about his record, and Democrats demand that he shut up.

Friday, March 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

September 11, 2001, marked the worst foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor--the bloodiest ever on the American mainland. It's certainly been the defining event of George W. Bush's Presidency. But according to Democrats and their media echo chamber, it now shouldn't be a campaign issue.

Yes, that was the message being peddled in yesterday's papers by reporters provided with outrage-laden quotes from a single firefighters' union and activist relatives of victims of the World Trade Center attacks. With a series of new campaign ads featuring fleeting images of Ground Zero, they charge, Mr. Bush is "exploiting" the tragedy.


"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks," said International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger, who happens to have endorsed John Kerry way back in September. "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said outspoken victims' family activist and litigant Monica Gabrielle. The theme was quickly picked up by television talkers.
Please. We write this from offices that are 200 yards from Ground Zero and were rendered uninhabitable for almost a year by the attack. (The photo below was the view from our windows.)



The threat of another such assault, and how to prevent it, has dominated our politics for three years. From tax cuts designed to save the economy from the double-whammy of terrorism and recession, to the Patriot Act, to regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of Mr. Bush's "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," just about every recent major policy is inextricably linked to the event so mildly depicted in these Bush ads. Isn't an election supposed to be about such things?

Even Democrats know that it is, so they are manufacturing this outrage for a political purpose: President Bush still polls extremely well on his handling of the war on terror, and Democrats are trying to define the debate in a way that keeps him from playing to his strengths. The polls also show that Mr. Bush scores well as a "leader," so Democrats are also trying to stop him from reinforcing that image.

But what is Mr. Bush supposed to do, stop being President? Incumbency clearly has its large (and sometimes unfair) advantages. Yet try as we might, we can't seem to recall similar outrage about Bill Clinton's use of incumbency when he was running for re-election--at least not outrage that got any media traction.

Where, for example, was the tut-tutting about the former President "exploiting" the Oklahoma City bombing by giving an election-year speech there in April 1996? We'd also take the current handwringing a bit more seriously if we heard any similar worries about John Kerry "exploiting" his service in Vietnam.





One of the oddest things about the hullabaloo over the Bush ads is that these are precisely the kind of campaign spots the self-appointed media referees always say they like: positive, and focused on the candidate's message and record, not on tearing down the other guy. Despite Mr. Kerry's crocodile tears about the Republican "attack machine" and "smear" campaign, neither the President nor any other high-ranking Republican has so far taken a serious jab at either Mr. Kerry's character or his record.
Yet in case they eventually do, Democrats are also busy trying to take that off the table. When Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss recently talked about Mr. Kerry's Senate votes against most U.S. weapons systems, he was assailed for attacking Mr. Kerry's "patriotism." This is an extension of the Max Cleland-as-martyr myth, asserting that it was somehow unfair for Republicans to attack the former Georgia Senator and Vietnam vet in the 2002 elections for his vote against the Homeland Security department.

So the Bush campaign is being presented with something of a Catch-22: Any attempt to talk about the President's own record will be branded "exploitative," while any talk about Mr. Kerry's will be called an attack on his "patriotism." Our advice to Mr. Bush is to choose his message and ignore the whining.

As for Democrats, they'd be wise to get over the idea that Mr. Kerry's Vietnam biography will cover them on the defense issue. For most Americans, 9/11 was the defining event of a generation, and they'll want to hear a serious debate about which candidate has the best policies to keep them safer in the years ahead. The more Democrats complain about Mr. Bush running on national security, the more voters may suspect that Democrats don't have any serious anti-terror ideas of their own.

[reeds]

Classic..just the answers I thought you bush lovers would have..classic..the brainwashed Texans come through as usual...too classic....

[ocelot_ark]

You faggot yankees want it which way, Reeds?

[madape]

Originally posted by: reeds
Classic..just the answers I thought you bush lovers would have..classic..the brainwashed Texans come through as usual...too classic....

I beleive I just posted the featured opinion article from the most respected newspaper in the country that lays out exacltly why your opinion isn't worth it's weight in shit. Last time I checked the Journal wasn't published from Dallas.

[reeds]

"You faggot yankees want it which way, Reeds? "...now theres a CLASSY post...your true colors are shining through now.....


Whatever....

Still pissed about the civil war not going the way you would of liked mr. ARK???? sounds like your still bitter... what a joke

[dude1394]

Reeds,,,you, the dimocrats and the whole new york, washington based media and just trying desperately to try and take off the table the discussion of 9/11. Did it happen? Yea.. Was bush president...Yea. Did you not get to see his performance as president during that crisis. Yea... Did he do something about it.... HELL YEA!!! So go cry on someone elses shouler.

It's just crud and the dimocrats are desperate to try anything to take it off the table. Bush will destroy kerry in november. And you know why, because kerry has just as much character as most of the other liberals in this country. They constantly use demagoguery and crap to win political power. He doesn't stand for anything!! Tell me what? Even your own party think he's a loon and they are right.

How about showing me some postings of the outrage you felt with the Byrd commercial in 2000. Or was that ok? Normal double standards for liberals.

[Drbio]

reeds has officially become a troll.....nothing of substance to offer at all.

[reeds]

Bullshit DrBio..if I was touting bush you would never say that...but since I am against him you talk trash...please dont talk about substance- that quote of yours lacked substance big time

[reeds]

21625 posts you have, and all are full of "substance"???? YA RIGHT...lol

[Drbio]

reeds- you do nothing here but start up shit. You do not participate in ANY talk whatsoever regardingthe Mavericks. You only exist to piss up every thread you infest. You fool noone and your time here is worthless. You contribute nothing to this board.

[reeds]

"You do not participate in ANY talk whatsoever regardingthe Mavericks. "....I will give u that..although I use to..but i found that this board is WAY too narrow eyed when it comes to their mavericks...Some on here do know basketball, but they are too much a ra ra Mavs, narrow sited, and not being realistic....so instead of telling it like it is and getting my ass chewed, id rather get it chewed under the LOUNGE area....thats all

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: reeds
"You do not participate in ANY talk whatsoever regardingthe Mavericks. "....I will give u that..although I use to..but i found that this board is WAY too narrow eyed when it comes to their mavericks...Some on here do know basketball, but they are too much a ra ra Mavs, narrow sited, and not being realistic....so instead of telling it like it is and getting my ass chewed, id rather get it chewed under the LOUNGE area....thats all

Have you ever thought that you "get your ass chewed" all the time because you are WRONG all the time? [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Reeds doesn't believe in any kind of ra' ra'. Especially when it comes to his country.

[reeds]

"Reeds doesn't believe in any kind of ra' ra'. Especially when it comes to his country"

Oh thats not true- I am Proud to say I live in the USA. I am just not proud of what the current leader did- bombing a country for not having WMD- killing all those innocent people- NO- I AM NOT PROUD OF THAT..but hey, we can justify it by saying Sadaam was an evil evil man...hmmm...didnt we back his country a few years ago when they had the conflict with IRAN??? Strange to say the least

[Drbio]

Typical closed minded liberal response. Using WMD's as teh sole justification of war. Don't consider the hundreds of thousands of murder Iraqi's or the unfortunate tribes who have been banished into Iraqi deserts, or the tortured citzenry, or the kidnapped Iraqi men forced to perform all kinds of unspeakable things, or the track record of Saddam, or any other terroristic fact. Let's just point to hte liberalistic crybaby drivel that WMD's have yet to be found when intelligence directed that they existed.

As long as we can pick and choose, the liberal leftists will be happy.

[dude1394]

So reeds are you proud of clintoon for bombing iraq with the same intelligence? Are you proud of clintoon bombing innocents from 10,000 feet in kosovo? And yea we DID back them against IRAN and it was the RIGHT MOVE AT THE TIME.. Unless you are saying that iran is the right model for the middle-east..

But yea we did support Hussein against Khomeini. What was that 20-30 YEARS AGO... Not a "few years" as you try to intimate. Of course since then he has... used wmds on his own people. Invaded kuwait, defined the settlement of that war and supported terrorists against this country all the while threatening his neighbors to the point that we had to have many troops in saudia arabia and basically police 2/3rds of the nation to keep him from killing even more. All the while starving his people by diverting the oil for food for weapons.

And in the last place so what if we supported hussein against khomeini and the soviets. What are we supposed to have a foreign policy carved in stone that shouldn't change.

[seelenjaeger]

So you were right supporting Iraq to START A WAR vs. IRAN, which has cost roughly 1,000,000 lives while IRAQ WAS USING WMD in this war?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
Classic..just the answers I thought you bush lovers would have..classic..the brainwashed Texans come through as usual...too classic....

Reeds you might want to look in the mirror. Changed "bush lovers" to "bush haters" and "Texans" to "liberals" and you statement seems to fit you like a glove. Would any evidence that we presented change your opinions on Bush? I highly doubt it.

Certainly Bush is not perfect. No president has been. There are legitimate issues and actions to criticize Bush on where he has been less than perfect. But to compare his use of 9/11 in campaign ads to the debauchery, dishonesty, and disingenuous behavior of Clinton that caused many historians to rank him as the most dishonest president in history, beating out even Richard Milhouse Nixon; is a sign of a view completely out of touch with reality and completely driven by political spin doctoring in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary. You come across as nothing more as a blind and deaf puppet that has been brainwashed by the far left liberal factions in the democratic party. Perhaps if you had used intellectually honest and compelling arguments the responses to your posting would have been different. But then you would have needed to change your premise to something more realisitic. Oh, you still could have critized Bush, just not in the way that you did. You sound like nothing more than a whining sore loser in your posts and complaints of a campaign ad that will likely be instrumental in getting Bush reelected.