Wednesday, August 25, 2004

They Played the Disability Card!

I am so disgusted. As I type this I am watching Kerry’s campaign roll out the torso of Max Cleland as a sympathy ploy and the nastiest of all nasty campaigning. This is the lowest thing I have seen during this campaign season-–no doubt. The other side can defend it in whatever way they see fit, but this is low…

Cleland sits there espousing lie after lie to the press –making more evident with every word his bitterness at losing his Senate seat in 2002. He blames the President for the campaign against him…saying that he was another vet that the President attacked –which of course is not only using reverse discrimination to play the disability card –but total bullshit. Max Cleland lost because the voters didn’t like his voting record. The campaign against him pointed out that voting record. Cleland would not sign the Homeland Security act because provisions were not made for –you guessed it –labor unions…once again a Democrat putting union interest above the safety of Americans. I am not looking to disparage Max Cleland, but being perfectly honest, many Americans do not know how the former Senator sustained his limb losses in Vietnam. Cleland lost three limbs on a non-combat mission when he picked up a grenade –and Cleland himself has said that the circumstances were certainly not heroic. I am not saying that, but he said that. He went to Vietnam and he served –but he shouldn’t sully his service now by using his disabilities to distract the debate at hand.

Cleland goes on with his slander and untruths claiming that the Bush campaign is behind the SBVFT ads (which they have absolutely no proof of and which Karl Rove, whatever you may think of him, would never allow –he is way too savvy for that). Howard Dean also made these accusations. I hope that the President finally becomes pro-active and sues the hell out of Cleland and Dean for both slander and libel. As I have stated before –there is proof of coordination between the Democratic 527s (such as with a direct link to the DNC website on their page and JK and THK being in attendance at their functions) and the Kerry campaign. Top Democrats sit in the boards of these groups (as previously mentioned)…Harold Ickes (The Media Fund/ACT) and Bill Richardson (The Center for Public Integrity).

Making poor sweaty Max Cleland roll all the way up to the ranch just to be turned around in the hot Texas sun…John Kerry…doust thou protest too much? Senator Kerry I believe that you are a sick sick man who will do anything and use anyone for your own ambition. You have lived off other’s fame and claimed it as your own. You have lived off other’s wealth and used it as your own. You have buried your book and your Senate record in favor of four short months of your life –and now you are playing the disability card…you and your alleged piece of shrapnel in your butt. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised –now that John Edwards is your VP –as he often played the disability card using junk science and children with cerebral palsy wheeled into court rooms to win millions of dollars, drive up health care costs and drive doctors out of business. Congratulations…today you win the political cheat shot of my life-time!


Bigandmean said...

The undeniable truth is that Cleland was elected because of the injuries he sustained and his disability. Had he not been injured, no one would have ever heard of him.

I'll say what everyone knows to be the truth but has been reluctant to say. Cleland used the disability card and has been doing so for close to 40 years. He had been virtually unchallenged in his political life. His political allies and opponents alike avoided critisism of Cleland. Who wants to be castigated for picking on the disabled guy?

His disability status and his military service have little to do with his ability to represent his state in the senate.

leftyjones said...

Just when you seem to have cast off the demon.....BAM! you come up with this.
Let's assume for a minute that everything you say was correct....100% correct.
What exactly are you trying to prove when you say something like this.....
" I am not looking to disparage Max Cleland, but being perfectly honest, many Americans do not know how the former Senator sustained his limb losses in Vietnam. Cleland lost three limbs on a non-combat mission when he picked up a grenade –and Cleland himself has said that the circumstances were certainly not heroic." ?

Was he in Vietnam when it occured? Was he serving his country? Would it have been likely to have happened if he had stayed home? Would it have been somehow more glorious or less life altering if he had been walking along and stepped on a landmine?
What if he had been maimed or killed by friendly fire? Are his injuries somehow just a little bit less than the guy who was eating dinner and took a sniper bullet?
I mean....the guy eating his dinner wasn't exactly fighting but since he got hit from someone else's gun it's a more noble injury......

If nothing else, I wish this part of the injury debate would stop. I especially wish that it wouldn't be couched in sentences that start with "I applaud his service.....or, I'm not looking to disparage....

Because YES you are.
Argue with what he is doing now. get mad if you think he is looking for sympathy because he is disabled. Slam every policy the man ever voted for but stop picking apart the injuries that these people received while serving their country.
At this rate, any soldier who returns home from Iraq without having been blasted apart by the enemy is somehow diminshed for simply not being injured and that...if you're looking for a travesty, or for mistreatment of the troops on the homefront....well, that is the greatest insult of all.
Anyone who spent time abroad, in a place where hostile activity occured deserves our respect. Anyone injured in that capacity...even if running along and falling and breaking their leg...deserves not to have their method of injury graded or picked apart by the public they are serving.
Let the military give out the special awards for bravery.
Let the public say thanks and show appreciation and leave it at that. Not sit here stateside and decide from our homes which situation was more glorious.

ALa said...

If I had wanted to disparage him I would have included the beverage that was supposedly being imbibed at the time of the accident. My point in mentioning the nature of his injuries was nicely summed up above by Big and Mean has served the party well to let people assume what anyone naturally would...

Tom said...


Obviously, you've never been in the military. When you're injured through your own stupidity or carelessness, even if in a combat zone, you do not compare yourself to guys who have been wounded in battle. Even the military doesn't equate the two, if you've ever read the regs governing the award of the Purple Heart. Max Cleland didn't get one.

He passed himself off as the latter because he saw a political advantage to it that he wouldn't have had with the former. He used it, like Kerry's bogus war record, to mask his left-wing anti-Americanism.

He got caught.

Politics is a rough profession, ain't it? You want to turn your service record into a political issue, then you better be ready to discuss and defend it like any other issue. One of the things that convinces me more and more that Kerry's "war hero" status is a bunch of bullshit is that he's so damn thin-skinned when challenged and looks for every possible way out of a direct confrontation with a critic. Cleland's the same way, which is why he whined about attacks on his "patriotism" when his cockamamie politics were under fire.

Tom said...


By the way, I don't know what you find so wrong with "I applaud his service" and "I'm not looking to disparage..." followed by criticism of how he shamlessly exploits and misrepresents that service now. Evidently, doll face Ala has more respect for his veteran status than he does, since he seems hell bent on turning it into a parody.

Put it this way, Ala's disclaimer is not as dumb as when your liberal friends say, "We're against the war, but we support the troops."

this we'll defend said...

No connection between the campaign and swiftvets - except for the two people that have resigned from the campaign so far, including the top lawyer for the campaign (supporting my earlier contention that this was not just a group of vets but a well-planned campaign activity). Ooops!

As far as Cleland - yeah, that was wrong. I won't defend it. I will point out, though, that Bush has been waving the bloody shirt over 9/11 since 9/11 including using it to justify an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with it. But that doesn't bother you at all. Especially now that we are "safer" because Saddam is gone, and you don't notice the daily casualties, the rage in the Islamic world, the disgust of our long term allies, the emboldened North Korea and Iran, and the exhaustion of our military and financial resources. Boy I feel safer.

this we'll defend said...

Bush's war hero status is well known. He kicked Cong ass. What a brave man. Hell, he even landed on an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished. Plus, unlike godless Kerry, he's a Christian, too. Right?


Tom said...

Oh, please, not the Ginsberg canard again.

Every story on the subject has included the fact lawyers representing the Kerry campaign are advising 527s, it's just that the liberal media bury the information. The FEC said it's only a matter to be looked into, but not prima facie evidence of illegal coordination. If the libs had a longer attention span, they would read further down in the DNC newsletter - I mean, the Times, and find the information.

I think Ginsberg should have stayed on, telling the faux hero Kerry to go fuck himself, which Kerry would probably attempt if he thought it would get him more gay votes.

You lefties need more straw for your arguments. Take it from your heads.

ALa said...

There are TWO DNC lawyers that work for --Riddle me that TWD...I dare you to find that information on CNN...

Tom said...

My, my, but the news Unfit for Command is slated to hit #1 on the best seller list has put some people on edge.

It's tough on libs when people want to consider ALL points of view.

ALa said...

or...find this in the mainstream press...

Tom: Did you see me at the Freedom Concert? I was wearing a BRIGHT red 'Hannitized' t-shirt and was on the railing on the right side of the stage? (I just ask because I made the shirt myself and a lot of people commented on it--and you said you were in front of the stage). Maybe we were next to each other and we didn't know it!

Tom said...


Unfortunately, I learned of your presence on this earth AFTER the freedom concert. My wife, sister, brother-in-law and I started out on the right side of the stage, taking turns climbing up on that wall to get a view of everything. Some of those security guys were really arrogant, weren't they? We must have asked them to move aside about 20 times. Anyway, an hour into the show we went and got something to eat, then came back and very sneakily got up to the front of the stage, where I got some great pictures of Sean, North, Marty, Levin and the wounded Iraq veterans, and got Sean to sign a copy of his book for my wife after his show ended.

I found out later that there was a long, long line of fans waiting for him to autograph their books.

They're probably still cursing me.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

An insider buddy of mine has given me the scoop on this. Apparently what we're seeing is just the latest movement in an elaborate two-step between the parties over campaign finance strategy.

It opened up with the Soros machine and several 527 groups spending obscene amounts of money in a coordinated fashion, and at first Republicans filed FEC complaints, and Democrats counterattacked in the blogosphere on a 1st Amendment basis, saying Republicans don't like free speech.

Then Republicans geared up 527 groups of their own (one of which quite POSSIBLY was the Swiftvets), and essentially started to try to "out-Soros Soros". Now the Democrats are responding the way Republicans originally did, and Republicans are responding to the response the way Democrats originally did.

It's come full circle; both sides are guilty.

One of Kerry's many "inaccuracies" lately has been his claim that all coordinated expenditures are prohibited by McCain-Feingold. Some are allowed, but they are limited by dollar amount.

Sec. 213. Independent Versus Coordinated Expenditures by Party. Requires political parties to choose between making the limited expenditures permitted to be coordinated with a candidate under 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d) and making unlimited independent expenditures. Before making a coordinated expenditure, a political party must file a certification with the FEC that it has not and will not make an independent expenditure with respect to the candidate to whom the coordinated expenditure will pertain. This certification must bind all committees established and maintained by the national and state political parties of the candidate who is the beneficiary of the coordinated spending.

Sec. 214. Coordination with Candidates. Provides that activity coordinated with a candidate will be considered a contribution to that candidate and states a new statutory definition of coordinated activity. Recent FEC regulations have limited the concept of coordination to situations where there is substantial negotiation and discussion between a candidate and an outside group or party that results in virtual control of the group's activities by the candidate. In this provision, coordinated activity means anything of value provided to a candidate who is or has previously during the same election cycle acted in coordination with a candidate on campaign activity.

Coordinated activity need not be express advocacy, and includes any of four types of payments:

A payment made at the candidate's request or suggestion or pursuant to a general or specific understanding with the candidate. This would cover a case where a group agrees to buy an ad or purchase supplies for a candidate.

A payment made to distribute or republish a candidate's broadcast or written campaign materials. This would cover reprinting and distribution of campaign brochures. Not covered are news broadcasts that use candidate ads, ads that replay a candidate's ad in order to advocate the candidate's defeat, or materials from a candidate's website republished at a cost of less than $1,000. (This last exception is intended to protect people who simply link to a candidate's website.)

A payment made by a person who in the same election cycle has served as a employee, fundraiser, or agent of the candidate in a policymaking position, or has participated in more than incidental discussions with the candidate or a political party that is coordinating with the candidate about the candidate's campaign strategy or the operations. This would prevent people who have worked with the campaign or participated in significant strategy discussions from doing "independent" expenditures. • A payment by a person who retains the professional services of someone who has provided those same services to a candidate during the same election cycle, where the person providing the professional services is retained to work on activities related to the candidate's campaign. Professional services are defined to include polling, media advice, fundraising, campaign research, political advice, or direct mail services (except for mailhouse services), but not lawyers or accountants. This provision would assure that pollsters, media advisors, fundraisers, etc. who do work for a candidate cannot become conduits for inside information about the candidate's strategy to outside groups. Without this prohibition, it will be very difficult to ensure that independent expenditures, or electioneering communications under Snowe-Jeffords, will be truly independent.

The provision also specifies that when a political party committee makes an expenditure that refers to a clearly identified candidate that expenditure is presumed to be coordinated with the candidate of that party unless the party certifies under penalty of perjury that there has been no coordination.


Now: can anyone discern here if this website is coordinating political activities with the Kerry campaign, to any extent LESS than Swiftvets with Bush?

McWizard said...

I remember the color of the sky when my buddy Dales brother slammed into a cement truck. They said he was at fault. Max Cleland plays with a grenade; DUI; and HE'S going to set the record straight.
Stinkin' Wanker!!!
He should pay society back just like the JERK that pulled out in front Danny did.

leftyjones said...

Please just stop with the SBV book. There have been repeated best seller books bashing Bush all year long and you know what....I don't believe that they'll change any more minds then the SBV book will. It's simply a case of preaching to the choir.
Now, this may have had a little more impact if it was 2 weeks til the election but this won't even be an issue come November.
I love when Republicans act as though the Dems are getting nervous.
Your man has had 4 years to prove why he should be re-elected and 3 years and almost 10 months since the last election he can't even pull a 50% number in any poll. With those kind of numbers, I'm not having trouble sleeping.

ALa said...

His approval rating is 51% as of the last Gallop poll -Clinton was at 52% the August before he won re-election and Reagan was at 54% -no President over 50% has lost re-election thus far. Any candidate that has beaten an incumbant has a big lead this far in (16-31 pts.). They have also had a bounce -not a loss -after their convention. That helps me sleep at night.

this we'll defend said...

Those polls were prior to the start of the campaign season, and we have been in this one for a while. We also have fewer undecideds than ever. Thus the numbers don't look good for Shrub.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Leftyjones, I am a swing voter in a swing state, and my big dilemma is whether to write myself in, or vote Libertarian, OR, hold my nose long enough to actually vote one of the two main candidates this time around (which I normally don't do).

When Republicans start talking "faith based values" and "social conservative" talk, I start to inch over to the D-side of the mainstream; and when Democrats start talking about either subsidizing the lifestyles of the lazy (making each inner city youth a sort of Halliburton in their own right with no-bid contracts on the labor of sitting back on the couch and demanding more checks) or being the U.N.'s bitch, then I inch to the R-side of the equation. That's the way it plays, with me.

This afternoon while grabbing drive-through for lunch, I heard Laura Ingram go on and on about gay marriage and how the Republicans will lose the conservative vote if they don't punish Dick Cheney for saying it's a matter for the States to decide. That made me feel very much like a Democrat to be hearing that, and when it comes to my vote it was a good day for Kerry.

But then that Kerry lead in the CancerMan poll evaporated when I heard excerpts of Cleland's whinefest that "disparaging the record of one Vietnam vet is disparaging the records of ALL Vietnam vets". And at the same time these Cleland types glom onto Kerry's slander of THOUSANDS of Vietnam vets and all that Winter Soldier agit-prop. Then I see so damn many "Hate Bush" books at the bookstore today, with "Unfit For Command" nowhere to be seen, that puts me solidly in the R-camp, both out of spite for the hate-Bush-hysteria (I tend to buck trends), and out of respect for logic (which Cleland just eviscerates with his snivelling, insipid demands).

Ron Brynaert said...

Maybe this will keep you up. The latest poll by The Economist puts Dubya's approval rate at 39%.

grant said...

I love your site! Keep it rocking!

ALa said...

CSMXF: How about this for 'subsidizing the lazy lifestyle'...I came across a 'Bush Bash' blog (on the blog roll) where the writer actually posted pictures of her car and said she had to 'pay insurance for that and her son's car and she was unemployed so could all her readers send money through PayPal because that's what good Democrats should do!' I kid you not! I should have book-marked it...
Uhhhh, get of your ass -stop typing a useless blog and get a friggin' job and tell your lazy ass son to pay for his own car...

Jason Mulgrew said...

even more intense!

jason mulgrew
internet quasi-celebrity

~Jen~ said...

In simple terms, Kerry has the majority of the country focused on his four month tour of Vietnam instead of picking apart his senate career and voting record. If he gets elected, it will be proved to be a brilliantly calculated move. If he loses, then it wasn't enough to make up for his uber liberal voting record.

The Cleland exhibition (doesn't it feel like he was on display?) was absolutely appalling. Just the latest part of the calculated smoke screen...

ALa said...

rab- that poll had apporx. 272 people in the poll who aren't reistered to vote/ aren't likely to vote --and phrased a question about McGreevey as ...he quit because he is gay...should he have? That is HARDLY why he resigned.
My Conclusion: Poll is bogus.
Once ear infection fully subsides -will be sleeping fine. Until then I will continue watching really bad late-night movies.

Tom said...


Relax. That post wasn't referring to you. You don't seem intent on dry humping to death the contrast between Kerry's and Bush's Viet Nam era military service.

You concentrate on the other silly contrast between their "attendance records" as politicians. (Kidding)

But since you mentioned the best sellers on the left and right, I think you make a big mistake including Unfit For Command in the latter category. Books bashing Bush (say that five times fast) as well as those praising him are indeed preaching to their respective choirs: "Mm, our side good, their side bad, me go cash royalty check now and get laid."

The swifties are a different animal altogether, because noticeably absent from their agenda is the monotonous contrast between liberal/conservative ideology that obsesses the Moores, Hannitys, Coulters, etc … Hey, it was Democrats in media who kept whining about the American people having to get to know Kerry after the convention, that’s when people start paying attention, etc. Well, they’re getting to know Kerry and they’re paying attention. They already know Kerry wants to tax everybody to death and invite UBL to the White House and that Bush wants to re-legalize slavery while outlawing abortion. But a lot of them are under 40 and don’t know who this rich schmuck Kerry is and why he thinks four months in Viet Nam qualifies him for the presidency.

The swifties will be an issue for as long as Kerry & Co. makes them an issue, and that could very well last until November, especially since circus stunts like the one with Max Cleland yesterday are falling flat and nitpicking various inconsistencies in his critics’ stories aren’t getting any traction.

Stay tuned, as they say.

Bigandmean said...

After the recent hurricane in Florida, there was a picture in a local paper of a wind damaged home with a neatly lettered sign in the front yard asking that FEMA send help. Next door, there was an equally damaged house with what appeared to be an entire family working to rebuild. I showed the picture to my son and he said the the democrats with the sign should talk to their republican neighbors.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

The cartoon "This Land" says it all, LOL.

Ron Brynaert said...

The Gallup poll is based on a likely voters. For registered voters...there is only a one point differential between kerry and bush.

And a question for you...
There is no doubt Cipel was unqualified to be hired as a homeland security adviser. Just as there is no doubt that the head honcho himself of homeland security is equally unqualified. Should Bush resign for appointing Tom Ridge even though he had no background in anti-terrorism?

attillathehunnybun said...

rab, you're really stupid. I'll bet you're ugly too. Stupid and ugly is no way to go through life.

this we'll defend said...

Rab, thank you.

ALa71, are you really truly saying the Economist is biased? Is any bad news reported about Bush automatically biased?

The Economist poll flawed, sheesh. Read a little more and watch Fox a little less.