DNC Policy to Malign McCain's Military Record

If the legislation she voted for could REASONABLY result in 1st graders being taught about sex and/or condoms (and I have no idea if it did or didn't), is bringing that forth sleazeball?

The key word is "reasonably". The ads at issue did not spell out specifically what the legislation was- but rather simply described some scenario of what it MIGHT cause to happen. The ads were designed to play on the then still significant public resistance to public school sex education in general. If the ads had simply said, "She voted for a bill allowing sex education instruction in public elementary schools", it would have been "fair game" as a factual statement.

And while I do not know the specifc content of the legislation, I do not think that it is reasonable to assert that she voted for a bill to allow instruction on condum use to first graders unless the bill actually spelled that out.

On the other hand, a bill allowing instruction on sex education at the elementary school level could reasonably be expected to result in 6th graders, for example, having some knowledge of sexual activity. But the ads were not about that. They were about legislation maybe leading to instruction on condum use to 1st graders. A purposefully exaggerated worst case scenario is usually not a "reasonable" projection.

Mr. Carey was able to prove that she indeed voted for legislation that what the ads stated was, at the very least, plausible.

That doesn't answer my question though. My question was about attack adds in general. Any thoughts on that?

What say you Sherm? After all, you're the one constantly harping there is not enough meaningful debate. To me, this is a 'meaningful' subject. So what are you're thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

The U.S. is signatory to multiple International Agreements banning torture.

Personally I think that is a good thing.

But regardless if you think we should sign such agreements fact is we have.

If the Pritt campaign would have reminded folks about the 600,000 plus first time unemployment claims in Underwood's first term they would have won. imo.

They should have done some "man in the street" interviews how it was.

It was horrible.

So is keeping a suspect awake for hours, which is a common police tatic, torture Sherm? Or how about playing music very loud? Is that torture?

You can try and turn this around to indicate that I support torture. This is a is a common practice you use when one disagrees with you. Regardless, the simple fact is, there is gray area when it comes to this topic. Until you’re willing to define what is and isn't torture on a case by case basis, you stand a very good chance of being a hypocrite when it comes to torture.

Since you want to discuss Charltotte Frank, I have a question for you. I assume you supported her write in candidacy in 92. My question is, why? After she spent the entire primary season saying democrats should and would come together, why would you basically support a what turned pout to be a lie?

Aaron wrote:Since you want to discuss Charltotte Frank, I have a question for you.

I wasn't wanting to discuss Charlotte Pritt. I was wanting to discuss Cecil Underwood. And so we did.

I assume you supported her write in candidacy in 92. My question is, why? After she spent the entire primary season saying democrats should and would come together, why would you basically support a what turned pout to be a lie?

What lie?

Why would a primary election candidate say that Democrats should "come together" before the primary election? It would be, and was, the nominee (Caperton) that would call for Democrats to come together, after the primary. The very nature of a primary election campaign is to split off as much party support for one's own primary campaign as one can- and let someone worry about the party "coming together" AFTER the primary election. So I doubt that anyone in 1992, or any other pre-primary election season, was calling for the party to "come together".

But indeed I did support the write-in campaign. I had already given up on the Democratic Party several years before Pritt ran for governor. The write-in campaign- which Charlotte did not organize nor even authorize, by the way- was conducted neither by Charlotte Pritt nor by Democratic party loyalists. We were Democratic Party renegades- and who ended up with having Charlotte Pritt, in 1993 and 1994, opposing our efforts to start a new political party based on the electral results of the write-in campaign. Charlotte remained loyal to the party, and so she won the 1996 nomination. It was then that the Republican wing of the Democratic Party spun off that "Democrats for Underwood" political action committee. So it was the Caperton and Manchin Democrats, not Charlotte Pritt, who left the Democratic party.

I specifically remember Charlotte Pritt, when ask9 about the tone of the primary campaign, stating that democrats would come together after the primary in 92 to support the democratic winner. When Caperton won, that didn't happen. Whether she authorized the write in campaign or not, she could have stopped it simply by campaigning for Caperton. She didn't do that. That as much as anything else that happened led the democrats for Underwood.

Whether it was intentional or not, she did lie.

That as much as anything else that happened led the democrats for Underwood.

"Democrats for Underwood" did not come about until 4 years later- in 1996.

dammit zig dont keep confusing him with the facts...

I know a ton of them are stupid Frank but if I remember what happened 16 years later, I'm quite sure some of the smarter democrats (now there's an oxy moron, huh!!!) remembered what happened 4 years prior in 1996.

Whether she authorized the write in campaign or not, she could have stopped it simply by campaigning for Caperton.

You don't know what you are talking about. I was the treasurer of that write-in campaign. My objective was to start a new political party- with or without her permission. We failed in that effort then- but succeeded several years later.

I will spare her the public dissemination of the private details of Ms. Pritt's efforts to have the write-in campaign not take place. But suffice it to say that those who know me know that I do pretty much as I damn well please, and to hell with political correctness and admonitions to work within existing political structures- neither Charlotte Pritt's, nor then Democratic Party chair Chuck Smith's, nor current party Chair Nick Casey's admonitions notwithstanding. Casey sued some of us in 2004, and he lost. And he might again in 2008. If so, he will lose agian.

I answer only to Ms. Ziggy, and to the law- specifically to Chapter 3, the WV elections code in the matter at hand. You can blame it on Charlotte Pritt or on the tooth fairy. But once set into motion in mid-August of 1992, that write-in campaign and the effort to build a new political party was not going to stop. And so it didn't, and it hasn't.

And despite our several invitations, Charlotte Pritt has even today refused to have anything to do with it.

With friends like you, who needs enemies.

So you can show me where she publicly campaigned with Gaston Caperton and publicly admonished those behind the write in campaign, huh Frank!!!

At any rate, you cost here any shot at the 96 election. I'm sure she was grateful, huh Frank!!!

Aaron wrote:With friends like you, who needs enemies.

I suspect that thought has crossed her mind more than once.

But as someone or other managed to have printed under my name in our senior yearbook, "I am as I am, and so will I be".

If what you say is true and she didn't approve, you and your group gave Underwood the governor's office in 96. You must be so proud

Aaron wrote:If what you say is true and she didn't approve, you and your group gave Underwood the governor's office in 96. You must be so proud.

So does the wimpy WV Democratic Party- which generally cannot distinguish itself from Republicans- deserve to have a continuing monopoly of WV politics?

The Democratic Party, both in WV and nationally, may need to lose a few more elections before it finds its bearings. And I am willing to help make that happen.

Ziggy,

You, sir, are an asset to the process. I am always frustrated at people who vote for one side or the other strictly because "they're not Democrats/they're not Republicans." If the best either party can do is say "I'm not that guy," they deserve to lose horribly, just as Kerry did in 2004. If Underwood's win meant the Democrats got more serious about their ideals, then it was ultimately in the Democrats' best interests and even a partisan Democrat (which you are clearly not) should be happy with such an ultimate outcome. I wish we had responsible parties this country but I also wish I had more money and better hair.

Incidentally, as I read the country right now, if Obama sticks to what he actually thinks differently than the Republicans, I think he will win. If he veers into character assassination, I think he will lose. Jim Oberweis here in Illinois is a great example of someone who should be winning elections because his district agrees with his policies, but doesn't, because he can't seem to get over a campaign based on negative opinions of his opponent.

BO is running against a war hero and a rather principled fellow (at times I think his principles suck, but they are there all the same). There's no sense trying to attack his character, especially when Republican policies are so unpopular. Similarly, Republican Jim Oberweis here ran a negative campaign against an accomplished scientist and small business owner who was really quite bright and affable. If he wanted to win (and I was rooting for him), he should have emphasized policy rather than personality.

ziggy wrote: The Democratic Party, both in WV and nationally, may need to lose a few more elections before it finds its bearings. And I am willing to help make that happen.

And take down (your words) progressive candidates as well?

So you're one of those that would cut off his nose to spite his face guy's, huh Frank.

I've heard of you but I've never actually known any that...

Well, anywho...

SheikBen wrote:If Underwood's win meant the Democrats got more serious about their ideals, then it was ultimately in the Democrats' best interests and even a partisan Democrat (which you are clearly not) should be happy with such an ultimate outcome.

If the nose is the problem then it has to go. Sometimes, no, often, the right thing to do is quite painful and you wish you had better options.

Did Obama register for the draft when he was 19?

National Political Rule #7:

Only Republican Candidates, Republican Elected Officials, Republican Appointees and/or their supporters shall be questioned, querried, commented about or criticized relative to their US Military connection. association or service.




.