Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New Republican attack ad at Kerry, really really hypocritical and low

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ringmastery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:33 PM
Original message
New Republican attack ad at Kerry, really really hypocritical and low
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. kind of silly
was that meant to be persuasive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalBushFan Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good, now we can fight back by making an even worse about Bush's history.
Or would that be "below our level"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Standard fare
Everybody knows Kerry is rich. Glad to see Repubs wasting their money on this stuff. Bush wasn't exactly born with a rusty spoon in his mouth, which is also well know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. That last photo really looks....
...cyber doctored. I wonder if the republicans used Medicare funds to pay the creative people who did that ad. Ha, also what are GW's Cheney's, Rummy's life styles like? Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black :puke: :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm feeling beter and better about our chances n/t
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. They are so desperate they're just throwing everything at Kerry

hoping something sticks. They're running on empty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. You might be interested in what Citizens United is all about...
Edited on Sat Mar-06-04 07:42 PM by IndianaGreen
typical rightwing template:

Citizens United Foundation was established in 1992 as a non-partisan, non-profit research and education foundation, under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. CUF is dedicated to informing the American people about public policy issues which relate to traditional American values, including: the Constitution as the supreme limit on federal power, a strong national defense as the primary role of the federal government; free enterprise as the economic system that has enabled the American people to attain and maintain an historically high standard of living; belief in God and Judeo/Christian values as the fundamental attribute of our way of life; and the recognition of the family as the basic social unit of our society. CUF fulfills its mission through various projects, including: American Sovereignty Action Project, Center for Government Integrity and National Citizens Legal Network.

http://www.citizensunited.org/citizens_united_foundation.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fight_n_back Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is aimed at Democrats
to show that there isn't much difference between Bush and Kerry so we should just stay home.


75$ isn't a lot to pay for a haircut, if it includes a shampoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. wtf the most i have ever spent is 15 sorry 75 is alot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shoopnyc123 Donating Member (997 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap...
I can see Chris Matthews running this shit ALL next week...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ringmastery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. They were discussing the ad
on CNN's capital gang.

That's how I found out about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. All their op-eds are from the Washington Times.
That should tell us something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. If that's all they got
Kerry by a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TinaTyson Donating Member (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. Yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. A little background on Citizens United head, noted scumbag David Bossie
Remember him? Longtime Rethug political hitman, worked for Dan Burton, and involved in numerous efforts to discredit Bill Clinton

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/05/07news.html

WASHINGTON -- Ten days ago, David Bossie looked happy. Decked out in a tux, he was pushing his way through the very exclusive Vanity Fair reception following the White House correspondents dinner, slipping past Hollywood celebs and big-time Washington players, carrying two drinks. "Need those after the week you had?" I asked. Bossie's boss, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., had days before called the president a "scumbag." That was not the best PR for a conservative congressman who has had trouble convincing the public that his all-over-the-map probe of Clinton is not a partisan witch hunt.

"Not worried, not worried about it," replied an upbeat Bossie, who was the chief investigator for Burton's House committee investigating Clinton-Gore campaign finances. "I'm happy. We got great stuff coming up. Great stuff. You just wait."

It's not clear whether that "great stuff" was the prison tapes of Webster Hubbell. But the furor that their release has created -- especially in their doctored form -- resulted in Wednesday's sudden firing of Bossie from Burton's committee. And a number of Democrats and White House aides were delighted to see the demise of this right-wing attack dog who has long been peddling outlandish anti-Clinton conspiracy theories to anyone who would listen.

Before joining the government, Bossie worked for Citizens United, a hardball right-wing outfit best known for producing the 1988 Willie Horton ad that suggested Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, while governor of Massachusetts, was responsible for letting a violent criminal out of prison. Bossie and his Citizens United gang also made a mark in the 1992 campaign, when it produced an ad featuring Gennifer Flowers and sent out a fund-raising letter that gave the impression it was tied to the official Bush campaign. (The Bush campaign asked the Federal Elections Committee to shut down Bossie's political action committee.) Bossie and his allies scurried across Arkansas in search of sensational information on Clinton; at one point, Bossie got into a fistfight in Arkansas with a private detective who claimed Bossie had welshed on a $10,000 payment for anti-Clinton material.

more...evidently Bossie has returned to his old job--GOP scumbag, political hitman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katieforeman Donating Member (785 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. did you ever read The Hunting of the President by
Joe Conasan? There were a bunch of guys like this after Clinton- real nutcases. The book almost reads like a novel some of these Clinton haters were so outrageous. It would almost be funny if it hadn't been so damaging to our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yes, a great book. The great Gene Lyons of Arkansas coauthored the book.
I am a big fan of them both.

You are absolutely right. Yet David Bossie is still in business and will probably be on all the cable shows this week showing this despicable ad. Am going to be sure and send them this Salon article written by David Corn from The Nation magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Bahhhhhh Big deal
How many politicans aren't rich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. rotflmao
That was honestly the worst ad I've ever seen! This is going to be a beautiful year. How petty does this ad make them look? Have they now decided there's something wrong with having money????

Besides, when everybody finds out that A. the money came from John Heinz, a Republican and B. Teresa has done more things with that money than the entire Bush family combined, their whole premise is out the window.

I'm really starting to like the fact that Teresa was a Republican until two years ago. My son's teacher was bashing her and I told him to wait until he goes on his next full blown rant, then raise his hand and lower the boom.

They are so over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
20. If that's the best they can do.........................................
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. exactly my thoughts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
21. Plenty of material to slam back at Chimpy
Look for plenty of that coming down the pike.

If the Chimpy fans wanna play hardball, well they are in for some nasty...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
22. Bossie came up with Paula Jones, Wille Horton people too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woofless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. What I don't get is how they square this ad
with their protest of MoveOn.org ads that they are calling illegal? RNC is trying to pressure media outlets to pull MoveOn ads but have no problem with this? How are they different?

Woof
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
F.Gordon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. A question being igorned here
Moveon is operating as a Political Organization. A Section 527 organization that is monitored by the FEC. Moveon is operating within the law, something these shitheads don't care about.

Review their website;
http://www.citizensunited.org/citizens_united_foundation.html

Then you tell me if they are TRULY a Section 501(c)(3)organization.

-------------------------------------------------------------

To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.

The organizations described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to under the general heading of "charitable organizations." Organizations described in IRC Section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with IRC Section 170.

The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erection or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening of neighborhood tensions; elimination of prejudice and discrimination; defense of human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

To be organized exclusively for a charitable purpose, the organization must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. A charitable trust is a fund or foundation and will qualify. However, an individual or a partnership will not qualify. The articles of organization must limit the organization's purposes to one or more of the exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and must not expressly empower it to engage, other than as an insubstantial part of its activities, in activities that are not in furtherance of one or more of those purposes. This requirement may be met if the purposes stated in the articles of organization are limited in some way by reference to IRC Section 501(c)(3). In addition, assets of an organization must be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose. This means that should an organization dissolve, its assets must be distributed for an exempt purpose described in this chapter, or to the federal government or to a state or local government for a public purpose. To establish that an organization's assets will be permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose, the articles of organization should contain a provision insuring their distribution for an exempt purpose in the event of dissolution. Although reliance may be placed upon state law to establish permanent dedication of assets for exempt purposes, an organization's application can be processed by the IRS more rapidly if its articles of organization include a provision insuring permanent dedication of assets for exempt purposes. For examples of provisions that meet these requirements, download Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization.

An organization will be regarded as "operated exclusively" for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of the exempt purposes specified in IRC Section 501(c)(3). An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. For more information concerning types of charitable organizations and their activities, download Publication 557.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of an IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any managers agreeing to the transaction.

An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. Whether an organization has attempted to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities is determined based upon all relevant facts and circumstances. However, most IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations may use Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, to make an election under IRC Section 501(h) to be subject to an objectively measured expenditure test with respect to lobbying activities rather than the less precise "substantial activity" test. Electing organizations are subject to tax on lobbying activities that exceed a specified percentage of their exempt function expenditures. For further information regarding lobbying activities by charities, download Lobbying Issues.

For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3). See the FY-2002 CPE topic entitled Election Year Issues for further information regarding political activities of charities.
-------------------------------------------------------------

They simply pay the lobbying tax, then carry on with their bogus Section 501(c)(3)"shield". Clinton tried to take on these scumbuckets and got the IRS to go after them, and that was when "Judicial Watch" was created. Judicial Watch sued Clinton..... the battle continues.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Can we get Judicial Watch after them?
obviously a political organization, NOT meeting any of the specs

The IRS ought to pull their charter and make them register as a lobbying organization or sumthin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
24. The exploitation of 9/11 didn't last long
I'm starting to see desperation here. First the SOU flopped, the MTP interview was disastrous, the sending out the big guns last week failed, so they moved to the next series of ads. It's not going to work. A very hopeful :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-04 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
28. I just viewed the ad and all I have to say is
it makes the repukes look stupid, lame and shallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC