I've heard alot of talk about "Duty, Honor, Country", so let's look at the facts. Duty: Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush did not. Honor: Kerry stood up for what he believed when he took the unpopular stance with Vietnam Vets Against the War, Bush practiced the same deceptive lies and malfeasance he now decries when he was at Harken oil. Where's the investigation into his insider trading? Country: Bush failed to listen to the Clinton security team when they tried to warn him of Al-Quaida. Later they failed to fully prosecute the war on terror in Afghanistan, allowing our arch-enemy Bin-Laden to escape at Tora-Bora, because W was prosecuting an illegal and ill-conceived war in Iraq, which he had been planning since day one of his presidency. Kerry at-least understands how important it is to act within international law and actually reads his briefing papers.

Let's talk about other issues. 1) Do you own a portfolio of stocks valued over $100k? No, then you probably won't benefit from W's tax cut on capital gains. But us working stiffs will still pay as much or more on our earned income. 2) Are we more secure or less secure since Bush has instituted his Patriot Act idiocy? Have you seen my civil liberties? I lost them under a Bush. The Patriot Act is showing who are real patriots by defying it. 3) Why is he cutting funding to schools when he promised that "No child will be left behind"? 4) Why has he cut benefits and pay to US Armed Forces and their families in time of war? 5) Why has he insisted that US Armed Forces not be subject to the International War Crimes Commission, and then authorized torture as evidenced in Abu Ghrab and elsewhere? 6) Why does W want to privatize the Civil Service, which was invented after the Civil War to curb crony capitalism?

And I won't even get started on Cheney, who is profiteering our tax dollars from this war through Haliburton. This is the worst administration to be in power since Taft.

They pulled a Swiftee on us...and laughed all the way to the bank.

And the Swifties have one of the biggest credibility issues of all. They claim they were present at the firefight where everyone including Kerry got Bronze Stars. If Kerry didn't deserve his medal, did the others deserve theirs? In my opinion, they are preaching to the choir. But they will have little effect on the unconverted.

The Vatican paper is already carrying an
article on its site denouncing the author
as a anti-Catholic hatemonger. And being
Catholic, I have already heard other Catholics
complaining about them... I'm not sure you
understand, but Catholics by and large do
not like what this Corsi fellow have to say...
I am mean the guy is a real lowlife... I am
in Illinois and if it is the same in Ohio
and Pennsylvania then it is hurting the
Catholic vote which is crucial. When the
Church denounces (even subtly) an anti-Kerry
group then you know there is trouble.

Furthermore, I don't think we need them to win.
So why align ourselves with bigots, morons,
cowards and the alike? It just makes the GOP
look bad...

Vote Bush, but Screw the Swifties

Tell me; Are there any good Democrats?

I mean it. Are there any in this country at all? One? I gotta tell ya....in watching political events in America, I'm fast coming to the
conclusion that there are no 'good Democrats'.

OK, maybe I should define "good' for the purpose of this discussion. By "good" I mean good for the country, and for the cuulture. I mean those who are willing to put country over party, and honor over party. And by that definition there are none.

I know... you think that a pretty sweeping statement, and you're quite right, it is. Yet, the evidence backing this statement has been
getting clearer, clear enough now that all but the most partisan Democrats can see it.

Tell me; were there any Democrats who led the charge to get Al Gore to sit down and shut up after he lost the last presidential election?
Any at all, willing to publicly do so? There were none.

Were there any Democrats who dared to suggest that Gore didn't play by the rules in Florida? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats who were willing to stand up and say that sticking Lutenburg into Torrecelli's slot was against the law and should not be pursued? Was there any who publicly denouced the party for doing so? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

And for that matter, were the Democrats as to Torrecelli's criminal acts? Were any willing to take him publicly to task? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats who denounced their fellow Democrats who claimed that president George W. Bush had Paul Wellstone and his
family killed? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats who dared to stand up against the criminal Clinton White House, for the good of their country and the world? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats, who did not,in spite of all evidence, did not defend Bill and Hillary Clinton, and shield them from the consequences of their actions, so the damage to their party's power would be minimized? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats who spoke up against the DNC taking campaign funding from their socialist brothers in Bejing? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Were there any Democrats willing to speak out against Bill Clinton, selling technology to China that would allow them to target missiles against United States citizens? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Where are the good Democrats willing to stand up and be counted against the constant scare tactics being employed by Democrats against our elderly, as regards Social Security? Are there any? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Where are the Democrats willing to say those in their party, who are now arguing against our defending ourselves and the world, vis a vie
the war on terrorism, are wrong? Are there any at all? Any at all, willing to publicly do so? None. No, not one. To a man, they're all mouthing the Howard Dean line about hw Bush lied, and it's all about oil, yada, yada.

Is there any Democrat who called for Newt Gingrich to get an apolgy and his money back, from those fines he paid, before he was later
found innocent of all charges? Any at all, willing to publicly do so?

Is there even ONE Democrat that gave back his $300 tax refund check after critisizing the present administration, and calling the refunds
a 'measure that will break the balanced budget'?

Oh, I'm sure there are those who will insist that this is a bigot's stand. Fine. Let's see how they fare with this... let's take a measurement.

I issue an open challange: Show me a Democrat who was willing to stand up to his party... who was willing to openly and publicly disagree with his party... who put the needs of the country over the needs of his party.

Oh, I mean, of course other than James Tafficant, who, interestingly was given the bum's rush by his party as soon as it was fairly painless to do so... The real reason? He was caught once too often,standing up to his party, of course. The message sent by the Democrats to their own on this one was clear... Lockstep or you're history the first chance we get.

Ditto for Zell Miller, who has basicly been disowned for backing George W. Bush. Other than these two can you name one? Can YOU point to where you, yourself have spoken out on these outrages?

Let's be clear, here; the Democrats have been taken over by the far extreme of their own party, and refuse to recognize it, or else are deathly afraid to make any complaint about it, for fear of being excommunicated. The message clearly has been sent to the rank and file of the Democrat party: Lockstep or step off. And nobody dares stand up to the party's radicals.

I fully expect the silence in response to this challange to be utterly staggering in scope. Care to take another shot, Kevin? I await your answer.

What is interesting is how some partisans, even on this board, malign not only candidates, but tens of millions of honest, hardworking Americans
simply because they hold different political views.

Maybe that's part of why the nation is so divided.

Almost certainly. It is almost a truism in modern politics that hard core Democrats and Republicans are not, at the end of the day, going to vote for a president of the other party. As much as they may be dissatisfied with their guy, they're not voting the other way because the stakes are too high. The two parties have essentially 35-40% of the electorate apiece locked up. Elections are decided, therefore, on turnout (mobilizing one's voters) and convincing the swing voters.