Doesn't sound like tired old rhetoric to me. "Tax the rich" seems to be the foundation of Kerry's economic plan.

I guess you guys were right about Edwards mentioning Cheney's daughter. Kerry did it again - with much less finesse than Edwards had used - and Kerry's campaign manager said Cheney's daughter was "fair game" afterwards!?!?!

In reply to:

---

Edwards mentioning Cheney's daughter. Kerry did it again

---

do you think that was wrong??

i think it is right on time. one of the bush's administrations main focusing points is family values, yet they take a stance on an issue that completely goes against the 'values' of cheneys daughter. she is family too, right?? i am sure she has no interest in being included as political fodder, but like it or not, she is part of this issue. the kerry campaign using her, is no different than the bush campaign saying things about teresa kerry, and her vast riches thru heinz.

just like the gay family member was an issue for newt gengrich a few years back, i think this will be too. both sides are taking off the gloves, so dont act like the kerry campaign is punching below the belt.. one good swing deserves another..

bigjohn

Jorge - I have to agree w/ BigWill on this. You use the word rhetoric to belittle the assertion. Kerry outright intends to raise taxes on "the rich". His position on healthcare is that ALL americans should have access to government-funded healthcare....healthcare of the same standard that Congress enjoys. The funding for this massive proposal has to come from the tax-payer pocket. So, he is going to increase taxes on the rich to cover programs that benefit all those outside of the "rich" spectrum. Like Robin Hood, he is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It sounds all good and well in never-never-land, but here in the real world that is socialism....distribution of wealth and ever-expanding government control. There's a reason we don't distribute wealth....because the damn system is based on the idea that each person has to contribute to society in order to obtain those riches. The spirit of innovation depends on that drive for success, which cannot be cultivated in a society where everything is given to people at the expense of those that understand capitalism.

Zarak - That's why we have to pound it into these regimes that the war on terror encompasses those that harbor terrorists. It forces them to make a decision on where they want to be in this conflict. I admit that it's not an easy proposition, but it's the best we can do in this situaiton. Perhaps the thought of a president that is not bluffing will help to knock some sense into them.

BigJohn - You are missing a major point. The wife of a candidate is different than a child of a candidate. Potential first ladies have an active role (varying degrees) in government. They have made a choice to put themselves in the spotlight. Children of candidates have not made that choice and will not have an active role in government. For this reason, it is political taboo to bring children of candidates into dialog. This is doubly so when your intention is to use them as a political pawn in your assault on your opponent. Both Kerry and Edwards swam w/ the catfish and the rest of the bottom-feeders when they pulled this stunt. They could have easily brought up the difference in position between Bush and Cheney without going down the road they did. It was completely in poor taste and is just another example of how Kerry will do WHATEVER it takes to get into power.

What do you guys think about this story concerning Democrat Tactics? Let's see how much coverage this gets in the mainstream media.

It gets about as much coverage as any allegations in the National Enquirer. About as much mainstream coverage as Matt Drudge deserves. Rumors, allegations, BS. Big question-is Drudge really gay and does it really matter?

bigjohn, you have become such a partisan that using the candidates' family memebers as political fodder is acceptable?

Assuming your view is not unusual, that explains why America suddenly thinks it is OK to undermine the efforts of our soldiers for political gain. I'm completely disgusted by the media and the American public this time around. The tactics have been ugly and the coverage biased, the public has been duped and we're hurting the well being of future generations of Americans. This has been the Jerry Springer Show of Presidential elections.

I have heard zero mention of Kerry's rich wife by Bush or Cheney, btw.

I thought Kerry looked bad when he brought up Cheney last night. The gloves are off from now to November. Lest we forget-Cheney is no choirboy-ask the Senator Leah. I suspect he'll be slinging with the rest of them.

Big Will who is undermining the efforts of our soldiers? The reasons for going to war are questioned, but the job our troops are doing hasn't been in question. (with the exception of Abu Ghraib). It seems that Bush continually deflects criticism directed at his war back to the troops. The troops had nothing to do with the decision to go to war-they do as the Commander in Chief orders.

AAARRGGHH!! i have been lassoed into this thread..

i havent heard bush mention teresa in the debates, but i have seen many clips from some campaign speeches, where he mentions her and her money, and its influence. i also heard bush mention how kerrys wife, "uses foreign labor to manufacture her product, while kerry advocates keeping jobs at home".. he was trying to make a dig at the supposed flip-flop of ideas.. wow, havent heard the term in a while.

and i DONT agree that wifes are allowed to be under the spotlight, but not other family? whoever said that is fooling themselves. after all, isnt it the daughters, on both sides, that have been campaigning for their fathers? dont they bring their families on stage after every debate and convention? wernt the daughters on the MTV awards trying to 'pull' voters. it IS about family, and it IS about using them to gain advantage. thats politics, like it or not... i aint making the rules, just calling it how i see it..

and bigwill, i dont see the media bias against troops that you are speaking of.. i see car bombs, and angry iraqi citizens, and tired soldiers that have no clear indication of when and how they are gonna complete their job. the americans are not seen as liberators by the common iraqi, but infultrators. they see no progress, and none of the promises that were made have been fulfilled. and i dont wanna hear, "yea, but we got rid of saddam.".. the reson you dont see the 'feel good' stories of the war, is because THERE AINT ANY... those troops are tired, and dirty, and hungry, and scared, and just wanna get home. at this point, they dont care about bush, or kerry, or saddam, or you, or me..... they care about themselves, and getting their a$$e$ back home alive.

how's that for biased?? and i couldnt agree with you more on the springer comment.. and it goes for both sides.. as much as it sucks, that is the society that we have molded ourselves into. reality this, and reality that... we want things quicker, better, cheaper, and with the most possible entertainment value..

thats why the rest of the world hates us. our singular motivating factor is, whats in it for me......

bigjohn

Saying the war is a mistake, a grand diversion, and that we're going it alone is undermining the war effort. Period.
It makes it worse that Kerry claims to somehow be in favor of the war he condemns so roundly. I can't imagine what he would say about a war which he doesn't support. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, he'd make up stories about his fellow soldiers shooting civilians and raping women.
Issues of such critical national interest - such as war where real live Americans are fighting and dying - should not be used as tools in the hands of politicians for their own political gain. If he's against the war, he should say so, but don't undermine the effort when his alternative plan is essentially the same as the President's.
Why are we letting them get away with this stuff? Where is the heart of the American people? Where are the protests against these shennanigans?

Turbo,

Both are bad, but what's worse: lying about voter intimidation or discarding democratic voter registrations?