SwiftVets.com

[m_drummond]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely contribute, but not in the way that Terry Global Crossing Clinton expects.
________
Vaporizer

[Anker-Klanker]

Wonder what would happen if a bunch of people sent in that letter exactly as composed except for the reversal of the names? I know it wouldn't make sense. But it would sure expose the fraud for what it was. And just think, a Kerry-friendly editor would actually have to read all the letters just to be sure that the right one(s) were printed.

[arlene welker]

I just heard that Kerry had a pre-debate manicure! I guess they tried to scrub off his orange coloring at the same time. I say "leave it", Halloween is just around the corner!

ICK and YUK! I like a real man!

[Steve Z]

Terry McAwful seems to think that Gore won the first 2000 debate on the issues, but the Republican spin won over the pundits.

I distinctly remember watching that debate, where Gore was deploring a "poor little girl" in Florida who didn't have a desk at school, because (according to Gore) George W. Bush's brother underfunded the public schools. It later turned out that the state of Florida had funded an entire new chemistry lab for that high school, and that "poor little girl" had a brand-new desk the very next day when the contractor finished the lab one day late. When this fact got out in the media, Gore lost credibility...

Then there was the one about Gore inventing the Internet, and his Mom singing him a lullaby when Gore was 27 years old. And Terry McAwful thinks Republicans can spin???

When it comes to twisting the truth, Kerry will make Gore look honest--right after the debate, here come the de-bunkers out of their bunkers!
_________________
The traitor will crater!

[Dimsdale]

Silly Dems forgot to do their editing:

In the first presidential debate, I was hoping to hear two things.

First, I wanted to hear John Kerry lay out his plans for Iraq and for winning the war on terror. I was sorely disappointed. Kerry once again staked out another "strong plan" to bring peace to Iraq and to refocus our efforts to fight terrorists around the world. Sadly, his plan is "I would do it better" or "differently," but he leaves us starving for details by stating that he "cannot come up with a plan until he sees what the situation is in January." I bet the President wishes he could wait and see what happens, then make decisions with hindsight!

Second, I wanted to hear President Bush tell the truth about Iraq, but he has already told me what I need to know: we will stay the course and defeat the terrorists on their turf, not ours. And why should we be broadcasting our plans to the terrorists anyway? While everyone that has actually been to Iraq has said that the "mainstream media" is reporting the wrong story, by emphasizing the actions of a few terrorists and ignoring all the good that America is doing in Iraq, President Bush still presents a version of Iraq seen through a clear vision of optomism and clear objectives.

This debate made it clear: John Kerry is not a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. Every time he had a chance, he sided with communists over America. His record of accomplishment in the Senate is lacking only one thing: accomplishments. George Bush is taking us in the right direction.
_________________
Everytime he had a choice, Kerry chose to side with communists rather than the United States.

[DenisC]

CNN is showing 81% saying Kerry won. I guess they are following orders.
_________________
DenisC
173rd Airborne, RVN '65-67'

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Nah... it's just that the freepers haven't freeped it properly yet.

There are other forums that were standing ready to flood those polls by the thousands. Get an early advantage that large and people will not be bothered to vote.

Much less go through all the trouble of clearing their cookies, anonymizing their browser and voting many times with bots, as some of the more dedicated cheaters do.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[davman]

This support for Kerry came at a bad time

October 4, 2004

BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement





Last Thursday's presidential debate was still in progress when the e-mails started trickling in from citizens around the country. At 8:28 p.m. CST, Catie Tierney of Douglas, Ga., wrote: "John Kerry did an AMAZING job tonight. His arguments were valid and very well-said. I sincerely hope he wins the election this fall. He will make a far better president than Bush."

Harvey Jones chimed in: "Have you noticed Bush's body language? He seems to be blinking an awful lot. I hear this is one of the usual signs of lying."

Next up, Anne Horton Wood of Knoxville, Tenn.: "John Kerry showed the voters why he should be president, while Bush looked and sounded like a whiny little boy who has grown old, but has never grown up."

At 9:31 p.m., the trickle of e-mails turned into a hurricane.

"I am an undecided voter in Florida," wrote Andrew Monaco, "and I wanted to let you know that I think John Kerry won the debate.... Kerry was more in command of the issues and looked more presidential. The president was flustered and distracted."

Joyce Mulazzi of Suwannee, Ga.: "John Kerry proved he is a LEADER by discussing his plans for our country and discrediting President Bush's claims. George Bush proved that he is a CHEER-LEADER by . . . stating over and over again about the hard work he's done. It's not hard work lying to us, alienating us from the rest of the world, ruining our environment, and making the rich richer."

Pam Gordon, Orchard Lake, Mich.: "Kerry was the clear winner. He was poised, knowledgeable and outlined his points clearly."

Kristine Serrano, Westminster, Co.: "I am a registered independent who has decided to vote for John Kerry. President Bush looked very unprepared for the debate. Sen. Kerry . . . possessed excellent command of every issue."

The flood of "Kerry won!" messages continued all Thursday night and well into Friday -- more than 500 in all.

And not one supported Bush.

You've got mail!



Even most Bushies concede the debate was not the president's finest moment -- but come on, 500 to 0? These e-mails seemed about as authentic as the missives I get from Congo dictator Mobuto Sese-Seko, asking my help in transferring his secret stash of millions.

News organizations throughout the country were inundated with the pro-Kerry e-mails. The Democratic National Committee acknowledges sending e-mails to supporters encouraging them to go online on debate night and write e-mails to "the editor of your local paper." On the DNC's Web site, there's even a sample letter to get you started. Dozens of pro-Kerry bloggers and Web sites also encouraged readers to flood the media. Many included lists of the e-addresses of reporters and columnists.

Bad idea. This was the wrong e-mail campaign directed at the wrong people at the wrong time.

The !#@*! factor



Think of the thousands of reporters tapping away on deadline. Cell phones being what they are, maybe these journalists are instant messaging or e-mailing with a source or a colleague or an editor, or they're online doing some quick background research. Every time a "ping" announces e-mail, they click over to it -- only to find another half-dozen unsolicited testimonials.

An organized campaign like this is also an insult. As if we're supposed to write, "According to the e-mails this journalist received, 100 percent of the country now supports John Kerry for president...."

Instead, the move backfired. The Washington Post was among those ripping the effort, noting that one e-mail praising Kerry's performance arrived in the paper's in-box more than four hours before Jim Lehrer's first question.

I sent a mini-questionnaire to about two dozen of these e-mailers. Are they involved in Democratic politics? Did they write the letter on their own? How did they come across my e-mail address?

"My friend's mother sent me a list of media outlets," said one. "I guess you could say I was encouraged, but the words, thoughts, and motivations are mine."

David Rondeau, Stoneham, Mass.: "Do I work for the Kerry campaign? No. Am I 'involved in politics' as a concerned citizen? Yes. I got the list [of e-mail addresses] from a blog.

Richard Spears: "I wrote [you] based on a suggestion from a friend that's involved in politics."

Daniela Cusack, a grad student at UC Berkeley: "Some friends said they heard it would be helpful to e-mail media outlets to make sure they accurately portray who won the debate (clearly Kerry)."

Everybody who responded to my questions was sincere, smart, polite. Many were apologetic about flooding my e-box.

No need to apologize. You didn't knock on my door or call me in the middle of the night.

But whether you're a Kerry campaign worker or just a concerned citizen, remember:

It's always a good idea to wait until the event is over before you look back on it.


E-mail: rroeper@suntimes.com. Republicans, Democrats and independents welcome.