Why are Kerry and Gephardt blamed for anti Dean ad?

[MIMStigator]

Why are so many Dean fans accusing them? I thought * was the one who thinks he can accuse people without proof.

No other campaign has to apologize for the ads or comment unless they are linked to them. Democrats who say they should are acting like REPUKES,making accusations with no proof.

[frustrated_lefty]

1. They're not being asked to apologize

They're being asked to repudiate the ad and disassociate themselves from it. Why? Ummm...because people previsiously involved in their campaigns are responsible for the ad to begin with?

[MIMStigator]

4. why should they repudiate them?

if people previously involved in their campaigns made them why are you associating THEM with the ads?

That's worse than the ads associationg Dean with Osama

[frustrated_lefty]

17. Because it is unclear

whether their previous employees left their campaigns because they wanted to run ads like this and were prevented from doing so by their bosses, or, instead, were instructed by their bosses to officially leave the campaign and run the ad, thereby allowing Kerry and/or Gephardt to deny responsibility.

You're not this naieve. Do you honestly not think they should both repudiate the tactics employed within the ad? Do you really think this ad is beneficial to democracy?

[MIMStigator]

22. it's not unclear. You have no proof their bosses instructed them

no I don't think the ad is beneficial to democracy, neither is accusing campaigns for action of former employees

[Scott Lee]

30. Has GepKerry publically denounced this ad yet?

I've noticed an eerie silence from them both on this simple act.

Well?

[MIMStigator]

32. why should they?

they're not involved. Innocent until proven guilty unless you're a repuke.

[stickdog]

37. Why should they? Because the ads are disgusting Repuke garbage. (nt)

[frustrated_lefty]

35. Again you use the word "accused."

A few vocal people may be throwing accusations around, but I think the majority are asking for Kerry and Gephardt to take a stance and come out in the open. "Do you advocate this or not?"

That's pretty simple. And you're right, I have no proof their bosses instructed them. On the other hand, you have no proof they didn't. The fact that the people who ran this ad were/are involved in the Kerry/Gephardt campaigns makes it a valid question. It is NOT, as you insist, an accusation. It is a question. And if they are in fact not involved with the ad, it only benefits them to come out in the open and repudiate it. It is to their benefit to say "I do not resort to these tactics, my campaign relies on issues, not fear tactics."

[MIMStigator]

38. "you have no proof they DIDN'T"? YOW!

Is that what deanies are about?

[littlejoe]

55. It is typical, and an old ploy to

try and define your opponent and their followers. In answer to your question, No, it is not what supporters of Howard Dean are about.

[frustrated_lefty]

58. Ok, it's fairly clear

you are enrapt in glee over a fear-mongering attack on a democratic candidate other than your own. Enjoy the moment. Since you refuse to address points, though, I think I'm going to look elsewhere for productive discourse.

[Melinda]

97. This is the same MIMSigator who accuses Dean almost daily

of anything even remotely unethical s/he can dig up. Ignore it.

[stickdog]

34. Worse? Get off it. (nt)

[Eloriel]

78. They should be asked to repudiate because

no matter who was responsible (and it IS likely they were at least aware), the ads are reprehensible, fear mongering, dishonest and unworthy of ANYone who calls themselves Democrats. If they don't repudiate, they tacitly approve: "Silence condones."

If they don't repudiate, the Dems have NO moral ground on which to stand to condemn what happened to Max Cleland. And I don't believe Georgins bought that, btw.

Do Kerry and Gephardt REALLY want to be in league with the likes of Saxby Chamliss and the GOP with this kind of dirty politics?

They may drag Dean's favorables down, but they're unlikely to improve their own.

[Capn Sunshine]

2. I'm sure they had little to do with it

It was only people from their campaign that produced it.

But to give benefit of the doubt, perhaps they all left their respective campaigns BECAUSE they couldn't run those ads.


All of this will be moot by February anyway.

[MIMStigator]

6. "perhaps they all left their respective campaigns BECAUSE they couldn't"

good point

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I believe Dove Turned Hawk has the most credible speculation

on the matter and that it does point to Gephardt. BTW, Dean fans have EVERY RIGHT to be disgusted by this campaign tactic. DTH has very carefully laid out the backgounds of the ad producers.

For ANY Democrat to be campaigning against another Democrat in a manner SO reminiscint of Lee Atwater who at least renounced his despicable behavior on his death bed is a pox on our party.

[MIMStigator]

5. we're democrats, we don't accuse on speculation

that's what REPUKES do

[slinkerwink]

7. you do the same thing by saying Dean can't do foreign policy

;-)

[MIMStigator]

10. didn't say he couldn't do it

said his lack of experience will be POLITICAL issue and will kill him

[sendero]

46. Like it killed..

... Bush*? More crystal balls around here than a cheap circus.

[mikehiggins]

28. Bogus

observing that a candidate might be lacking in a specific area (how many times have we heard that Clark is not really a democrat?) is not the same as running a villainous ad in the public media blasting one of our candidates unfairly and maliciously.

I think Gephardt should at least send that donation back to show his unwillingness to participate in this insult to our process.

I think the Dean camp, on the other hand, should be more careful about spraying blame around like water from a hose. There is no reason to think Kerry or Gephardt would authorise something like this, especially when they are facing a guy with more money than them and a reputedly sharp temper.

I'm sure neither of them would want ads playing round the clock in Iowa and NH claiming that their votes led to the invasion of Iraq.

And I'm sure that both men know that if they were involved there would be zero liklihood of its staying a secret.

So, the Dean camp should chill, and just deal with the ads without trying to blow it up into another example of the insidieous ABD cult.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. We connect the dots and that is what DTH did.

It can easily be cleaned up by Gep denouncing the ad and denying it.

DTH is a lawyer and we are well trained in deductive reasoning. I think his reasoning is spot on.

[MIMStigator]

16. it's not up to gephardt to clear it up

it's up to you to prove your speculation

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Again read the thread.

Besides, it is day one after the discovery. If I am wrong, I will admit it. Will you?

[MIMStigator]

20. I won't have to admit I'm wrong no matter what happens

because I'm right to say the candidates should not be accused without proof

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. How one obtains proof is to connect the evidence in the matter

based on your reasoning no one would ever be charged with anything.

[MIMStigator]

25. There's no evidence the candidates are involved

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. He makes a very compelling argument

Again, since this is rather new, I believe the evidence will fall in line. And if they are NOT associated, then the remedy is simply. Denounce the ad and make sure the money spent on it is wasted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=895256

[MIMStigator]

53. argument isn't compelling

Didn't knowDean accused them on his web site too. Scummy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. OK...we've gone full circle

Again....if there is NO connection, it is simple enough to denounce the ad as dirty politics that has no business in an INTRA party race, given that we are all presumably on the same side. ;-)

[KaraokeKarlton]

50. Yes it is

Because the president of the group that made the ad contributed $2000 to Gephardt's campaign. If Gephardt keeps that contribution and doesn't speak out against the ad he is sending the message that he approves the ad.

[Eloriel]

84. Nonsense -- not even logical. Not even clear understanding

of the actual meaning of the words you are using! Speculation can't be proven in the way you are demanding -- that's wqhy it's called speculation. It's a THEORY, an hypothesis. You go from there toward accumulating evidence and eventually (maybre) also proof.

The basis for the speculaation is pretty significant -- very strong and very recent ties of the perps to these two campaigns. Even many hardcore anti-Dean DUers have condemned this ad, to their vast credit. If Kerry and Gep fail to condemn this ad in THE most vigorous way, it means that in soime way they approve of this tactic, and it lends considerable weight to any theories (aka: speculation) about their complicity.

Edit: I absolutely do not put it past either one of these guys, espGep with his Joyce Aboussie.

[SEAburb]

89. That smells like McCarthyism //nt

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

[stickdog]

40. What REPUKES do is run disgusting SCAREMONGER hit pieces. (nt)

[AWD]

67. We don't accuse on speculation???

Strange......


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=872306#872460
my opinion went way down when he lied said he was hiding his guv records to protect medical information

He lied? How do you know this was a lie? This is pure speculation.

So why was he sealing his records? Do you know the reason, or were you speculating when you wrote that and accusing him of lying?????

[MIMStigator]

70. There was PROOF Dean lied about reason for hiding record

He told Chris Matthews he was protecting private information like medical information someone includes in a letter to him. His own campaign already said before the reason was POLITICAL.

The next day a Boston paper reported he released letters with that kind of medical information and included specific letters in the report.

[Eloriel]

81. Where is your parallel outrage over the ad itself?

Have you weighed in on that?If so, I'd like to see the link.

[Melinda]

98. YOU do it all the time - why the feigned indignation?

No one is fooled by your thread. :eyes:

[KaraokeKarlton]

8. Well maybe it's because those behind it are affiliated with them

And Edward Feighan contributed $2000 to Gephardt's campaign. Until both Gephardt and Kerry come out and denounce the ads and those running them they essentially are telling people they approve of them.

[MIMStigator]

11. They aren't approving the ads by not denouncing

nt

[KaraokeKarlton]

39. Yes they are

It's called enabling.

[MIMStigator]

42. it's called guilt by former association

nt

[KaraokeKarlton]

54. Gephardt hasn't sent back that $2000

If he keeps that money he is automatically affiliated with the group, period.

[MIMStigator]

62. B.S.

if he accepts the money he agrees with them he's the best candidate and can disagree with the kind of ads they make.

[KaraokeKarlton]

71. Then you can't ever criticize Bush for getting money

from Haliburton, Enron or any of the other corporate crooks.

[MIMStigator]

73. yes we can

.

[frustrated_lefty]

76. poop

[KaraokeKarlton]

87. not if you don't want to be hypocritical

n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

90. by that logic

has Dean sent back the $2000 from Halliburton?

[HFishbine]

9. Open your eyes

The ads are sponsored by a group headed by a Geprhardt campaign contrubutor (who has given to no other presidential campaign).

[MIMStigator]

12. So

so someone who wants one of the other candidates to win is responsible for the ads

DUHH

That doesn't give you the right to blame the candidates.

[HFishbine]

51. It does indeed

Unless and until Gephardt repudiates the ads than I blame him.

[MIMStigator]

57. so when REPUKES accuse democrats you assume it's true unless

democrat responds to the bullshit? GOT IT

[HFishbine]

63. Whaaaa?

No, when dems accuse democrats, I assume the republican candidate agrees unless he repudiates the claims. There. Got it?

[sandnsea]

13. I think Dean is running them

They aren't being run in NH because Dean thinks he's got it locked.

The ads focus on Dean's three weaknesses, taxes, NRA, and terrorism. The NRA being in the Democratic Party, the others with everybody. Running the ads serves two purposes. One, it throws out the objections before the opposition can. Answer objections before they're asked to take them out of play. That's sales 101. The second is that it keeps Deanie anger against the "establishment" and keeps the focus on that anger instead of the issues.

This argument is just as valid, if not more valid, than any innuendo that Dean has made against Kerry & Gephardt. In fact, his jumping to slander Gepahrdt & Kerry without any facts furthers my argument. And it's just as sleazy as the ads to begin with.

[MIMStigator]

19. Did DEAN accuse Kerry and Gephardt?

?

[sandnsea]

41. The implication is clear, on his web site

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002665.html

"The ad could have been bought and paid for by George Bush, but it wasn’t—it was bought and paid for by a secretive group of unnamed Democrats who will do anything to stop Dean.

Who are the Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values? Their press secretary is Robert Gibbs—who, until recently, worked on John Kerry’s campaign. Their Treasurer is David Jones, who used to raise money for Dick Gephardt. The president of the organization, Former Congressman Edward Feighan, was one of the earliest $2,000 contributors to Dick Gephardt’s presidential campaign..."

"...We know John Kerry’s been attacking Dean on guns, and Dick Gephardt’s been attacking Dean on Medicare and NAFTA. And just two months ago the New York Times reported that, “at least at a staff level, the Gephardt and Kerry campaigns… are sharing information about Dr. Dean that helps fuel each another's attacks.”

Maybe it’s all a coincidence that this new secretive group-- founded just last month-- has picked up the same line of attack that Kerry and Gephardt have been using for months."

[MIMStigator]

45. That's scummy

shocked that Dean is accusing them.

[stickdog]

52. Just as sleazy as Dems saying Dean is Osama's bestest buddy?

Please.

[SEAburb]

14. There are a lot of slanderous accusation being thrown

around, with nothing to back them up.

The point of these accusations are to stifle desent and free speech when it is harmful to Dean.

[MIMStigator]

27. hope Dean wouldn't hold prisoners at gitmo on this kind of evidence

nt

[stickdog]

56. So you approve of the "dissent" expressed in these ads? (nt)

[SEAburb]

68. it doesn't matter how I feel about the ad

The makers of the ad have the right to run it. It's a free speech issue.

Thank you for correcting my spelling, I'll be using that word a lot from none on.

The Dean dissent stiflers in action.

[stickdog]

94. It's not a free speeech issue. It's Dems running a Repuke scaremongering

shitpiece that says Dean can't compete with the Boy King on foreign policy.

[robbedvoter]

21. Attacking Dean is undemocratic - Gore decreed.

Only Dean is allowed to attack all others - with lies that they are all pro-war - praise Gore!
Campaign finance reform? who needs it? (against W or against fellow dem?)
POTUS can lie for National security - dean said it - so shut up!
C-Flag offense - a clever outreach to a state he didn't even had an office at the time. Don't you dare attack him.
Shelters to Enron in Vermont? How dare you question him? Are you working for other campaigns? (actual dean answer)
Affirmative action - "not based on color - welfare recipients are lazy" - shut up, you race baiter. Dontcha know Dean is the only candidate addressing race issues? Shut up!
Sealing records? W did it too! So what id I said it's for the upcoming campaign - I was joking, OK?
And the media encouraged the silencing and tarring of any offenders. It's been real...

[IndianaGreen]

33. The ad's message is that opponents of the Iraq war are pro-terrorists

That's the underlying message of the ad, which mirrors the rightwing's attacks on peace demonstrators across this world.

Is that the message the Democratic Party's Establishment wants to endorse, that to be antiwar is to be pro-terrorism?

Nothing would boost a Nader/Green candidacy in 2004 than to have the Democratic Party smear the peace movement as pro-terrorist! I would be the first to bold to a Green candidate if that were to happen!

[frustrated_lefty]

47. This is inaccurate.

I don't care who attacks who on factual policy issues. There may be ground to be made attacking Dean on sealed documents, for example, and I don't object to those attacks. This ad is the worst sort of fear-mongering. To make it worse, we have democrats pointing out that Bin Laden is still free and roaming around. This fact should be a denunciation of the Bush administration, an indication of the failure of the current government, and NOT an attack against a democrat.

[stickdog]

59. Common Sense: Attacking Dean with Repuke hit pieces is un-Democratic. (nt)

[SEAburb]

77. Stifling "dissent" is unamerican //nt

<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

[zulchzulu]

69. Absolutely

Al Gore, the self-appointed kingmaker, hath bestowed his great wisdom that we Democrats must lay down our swords and bequeath the throne to his dear and ever-changing choice to run against the same man that he lost too.

Run brothers! Run sisters! Run as best as you can....off the cliff!

For King Alfred! We must fall for King Alfred!

[IndianaGreen]

74. Actually, Gore won the election

Gore more votes than Bush in Florida. This is why the GOP wanted so badly to stop the recount, and in Miami-Dade they succeeded when they send a group of Congressional staffers to stop the recount.

Bush is an usurper!

[zulchzulu]

23. What Dean should do before Kerry/Gephardt renounce the ad

If I were Kerry or Gephardt, I'd have them renounce that ad AFTER Dean does an ad apologizing for lying about how he was always against the War in Iraq and disclose quotes last January and February where he agreed on not only the possible unilateralism that Bush wanted as well as his agreement on the Biden-Lugar amendment to the UN resolution.

If Dean comes clean on his real original views on the Iraq War, then and only then should the ad be renounced.

[zulchzulu]

48. Here's the script that Dean could use

(video of Howard Dean sitting in some library at a desk)

Hi, I'm Howard Dean.

As many of you may not know that have been supporting me, I have to admit something. It's going to hurt some of you, but the truth has to come out.

(camera zooms slowly to Howard as he speaks)

I lied to you. I was originally for the War in Iraq and I, like my other opponents in this race, agreed with the Biden-Lugar Amendment.

As I said in the Salon article last February, I was even agreeable to a unilateral strike in Iraq if Saddam did not cooperate.

Many of you that support me believe that I am the anti-War candidate. I'm not at all. I was for the first Gulf War, the Afghanistan war and like I said, originally for the present Iraq War.

I changed my mind after talking with Joe Trippi and seeing that I could use it as a convenient wedge issue.

For this, I am sorry I decieved you.

Thanks for understanding and please, please don't hate me.

(Howard smiles and fade to black)

Source:
"...Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

"On the campaign trail with the un-Bush" by Jake Tapper
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index1.html

[stickdog]

61. So you approve when Dems run Repuke hit pieces on each other? (nt)

[zulchzulu]

72. So you reject that Dean has no foreign policy experience?

Dean attacks everyone else but suddenly can't face the music or take it. It's interesting seeing Deaniacs acting like crybabies when their man has his vulnerabilities exposed.

While the ad was a bit manipulative, it was spot on about the reality that Dean would be skewered by Bush/Rove on this issue as well as many others.

Deal with it. If Dean can show he can face down this type of ad without playing the "victim" or acting like a hypocrite, then that would be a welcome change.

[IndianaGreen]

26. I think DoveTurnedHawk presented a compelling argument

The evidence points to Gephardt's money men:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=895256

The ad of Dean morphing into Osama, which will be copied by Karl Rove against the Democratic nominee (whoever he/she turns out to be), is a slander and a smear NOT against Dean so much as it is against millions of peace-loving people in America and the world that opposed the Iraq war.

They are not going to think too kindly of the Democrats in the Fall if a prowar candidate gets nominated by the party Establishment.

[MIMStigator]

29. so proof is that ad makers support other candidates

yeah real compelling

[SEAburb]

44. Didn't you know

it's impossible for supporters of a candidate to make a political ad, without the approval of that candidate. Well that's what some would like you to believe.

[MIMStigator]

49. and to think

they still would like us to believe it even though the approved ads say I APPROVED THIS AD

[zulchzulu]

75. What ad have OBL morphing into Dean?

Not this one:

http://38.113.97.196/websites/Health/images/flash/movie2.wmv

See these yet?
http://38.113.97.196/websites/Health/images/flash/movie1.wmv

http://38.113.97.196/websites/Health/images/flash/movie.wmv

[stickdog]

31. The folks acting like Repukes are the ones running the Repuke hit piece on

Dean.

[MIMStigator]

36. Ad runners and Dean supporters blaming candidates are both acting REPUKE

.

[stickdog]

64. Right. So why aren't Gep & Kerry denouncing this disgusting Repuke bs?

[MIMStigator]

66. same reason kucinich doesn't have to denounce them

they aren't responsible

[HFishbine]

79. You'd be singing a different tune

if "indpependent" Dean supporters sponsored an ad that insinuated that Clark is a republican corporate lobbyist.

[stickdog]

95. Kucinich WILL denounce them, if he hasn't already. (nt)

[frustrated_lefty]

65. The appropriate response at this point is: "poop"

[Nazgul35]

80. Beyond belief!!

I am amazed at the level of crap people are willing to support when it serves their purposes....

Just read the many posters above who accept and slam Dean supporters for pointing out that this attack was the lowest of low....and anyone who syas otherwise is either an idiot or has an ulterior motive...

These same people were probably up in arms over the tactics employed by the repugs to unseat Sen. Mac Cleland in 2002....

I can hear it now: "how dare they!" "That's so low!" "This shows just how low they are" etc....

But hey...in their universe of black and white expediency... that was a repug against a Dem....

But when the same tactics are used against one of our presidential candidates out of shere desperation...hey...it's ok....what are you deaniacts complaning about...

In fact, this is worse than what the repugs did to Cleland...they just put the picture of Sadam and Osama side by side....here, people from our own party are willing to morph Dean's picture into Osama....

You really cant get much lower than that....and if it is true about the Gephardt/Kerry connection, I am not too surprised, considering his tactics in 1988...but I am really disappointed in Kerry...

And all of you who don't see the problem with this ad should be ashamed of yourselves....you've finally sunk lower than the repugs....congrats!

[SEAburb]

82. And what proof do you have Gephardt and Kerry were involved

in the making of the political ad. Before you point fingers you should have some proof.

[Nazgul35]

83. And I even bolded the word "if"

and you missed it....which I knew was going to happen the way some posters react and post before they read the whole post...

Perhaps you should take a few breaths and actually read the whole post before you wail away at someone...

[salin]

92. apparently... speculation is scummy...while the ad itself is something the

target should be thankful for - as it will make him a better candidate... and of course his camp is the one responsible for it as it serves him best.

{parody ala orwell}

[SEAburb]

96. How much money will Dean suck out of his supporters

because of this ad. Dean's been attacked send more money.

[quaker bill]

85. The ad is intended for their benefit.

It is pure repuglican sleaze.

But then, the Washington elite has made common cause with the repuglicans in regard to this war. They probably should be using their campaign playbook as well.

Regardless of what a tree looks like or smells like, if you are picking apples off of it, it is an apple tree. This tree, regardless of it's roots is producing neo-con fruit.

This only makes sense coming from those who thought the war was a good idea and that the only problem with it is bad management.

[Tinoire]

86. They're not. My assessment is SOROS

Reposting from another thread:

the Soros/Clinton/DLC/AEI angle. Soros is only giving $15 million to the Democrats to ensure that no matter which party wins the election, his investments remain safe.

So not to rub it in to all the people who were celebrating the arrival of this money (I honestly mean that) but, if Soros is behind this, where will the devil's money take these Primaries? I still don't like Dean because he's an opportunistic Centrist who talks out of both side however Dean is not (yet)signed on to the neo-con agenda. They have no idea how Dean will behave and can not risk their investment. Dean's been getting, like Gore, a little too carried away with the populist rhetoric and might get confused down the road. He might even be like Clinton and waffle- agree to bomb the crap out of Iraq for 8 years straight and spin his way out of an obscene war (like Yugoslavia) but he's not a member of the AEI's good old boy club yet and no one knows just how loyal a servant of the Empire he'll be.

Then of course, Edward Feighan could be a true progressive but I highly doubt it. There's one group that thinks they can scare us into voting for just anyone with their rallying cry of ABB and "gotta look strong on security" and "gotta dismantle the terrorist network wherever it may be". This little line gives it all away:

... Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, doesn't have the military or foreign policy experience needed to take on "those who wake up every morning determined to destroy Western civilization."

This needs a lot more research. These primaries are going to be very, very ugly. The stakes are HUGE, corporations, neo-cons, and informed Progressives will be fighting ferociously over this election while sincere people remain totally oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes.

This is NO time for partisan politics and head-burying. We need to find out as much as possible about every single Democratic candidate out there and vote for the best, strongest one to defeat the Bush machine. And the strongest one is not necessarily Dean. Dean is waaaay too easy to defeat and you will NOT rally enough people behind him because of Dean's own contradictory statements, gaffes, and the fact that what he's paraded himself as to get the nomination is too easily turned to marshmallow fluff by his own words and record.

When Judicial Watch wins its suit to have Dean's records unsealed, Dean may end up finished and exposed as a fraud. I just pray that happens in enough time before the Primaries so that people can make an informed choice. If he turns out ok, then GOOD for Dean and GOOD for the Democratic Party because of all the support he has but, if he comes out as an opportunist hypocrite- then we can KISS THIS ELECTION good-bye and welcome to 4 more years of Bush. Partisanship be damned because it may very well damn us all.


Neo-cons
vs
Centrists
vs
Progressives
vs
Corporations
vs
sincere, confused people, who don't have a clue about what's really going on



====
Welcome to the Soros paid ads. Expect many more.

Edward F. Feighan was Bill Clinton's campaign Communications Director who got pretty close to Hillary at the Institute for Policy Studies
http://www.ips-dc.org/index.htm

It was Edward F. Feighan who introduced the Brady Bill in the House in 1987 as the NRA campaigned heavily against the gun control issue. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Aborn1.html

George Stephanopoulos was his Administrative Assistant and later his Chief of Staff.
http://63.147.65.175/books/chap0411b.htm

Served on the Clinton Administration: Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/congpres/sim00.html

[rucky]

101. Soros wants a corpratist who's anti-NAFTA . Clinton wants Clark...

And he & daddy warbucks are willing to meet halfway on NAFTA - as long as it means foreign investment & improved trade relations in RUSSIA. (Soros, Putin, Clinton - Feighan ties them together as founding partner in American Foreign Capital Partners (AFCAP) - google away!

Combine the soros factor with the ad's message of Dean's lack of "military experience", and the Clark campaign activism of individuals within the MWO org (soros-funded)... I'll make a prediction, here:

Clark/Gephardt is our predetermined ticket, most likely in that order.

The only thing standing in the way is that pesky populist and his minions. But MWO has minions, too - they were fair players before, but I wonder how the Soros money will affect their message. MWO has pull with the Deanies. There's alot of crossover in membership - Dean won the first straw poll & all. i predict Clark will win the next one (if there is a next).

ABB all the way, but I don't enjoy being manipulated, either. These guys have the whole globe carved out, don't they?

:tinfoilhat:

[frustrated_lefty]

88. Guys, let this die

The thread was started by a person who seems to experience great glee at the slander of Dean. It is non-productive, I think, read through it and judge for yourselves, but I think the best thing is to just let it die a quick death.

[salin]

91. Why is speculation about the origins of the ad considered more egregious

than the ad itself?

Curious.

[IndianaGreen]

93. The ad is a smear of all those that oppose the war in Iraq

the only remaining question is who are the scumbags behind the ad, and why.

[swittersnc]

100. just remove any potential association by other candidates

for a second and look at this ad the way it is. the fact of the matter is that EVERY democratic candidate should publicly renounce this ad and call for it to be pulled from the air.
ties to any candidate are pure speculation and, for the time being, not nearly as important as a unified stand by ALL candidates against this type of campaiging.
if there are concerns about a candidate, call them to question. bring them to the fore in public debate. but for the love of god, don't run a blatant attack ad such as this.
the dnc should also come forward in denunciation of this ad and the image it attempts to convey.
every democrat should be up in arms that any candidate is being attacked like this by people who claim membership in the democratic party (which the perps of this ad are, regardless of their campaign allegiances).

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.