Posted on 05/26/2004 7:38:26 AM PDT by jmstein7
I'll be waiting to see if your hyperbolic 'at any cost' has even a modicum of validity........although a single commercial doesn't really prove that point with a host of evidence to the contrary.
Just look at 2000. George W. Bush wanted to win, to be sure, and fought for the legitimacy of the election, but it was algor that was willing to break all the rules and laws to hijack the election.
There is no moral equivalency in what the two candidates did.......... one truly wanting to win 'at ANY cost' and the other only because he knew he actually HAD won.........facts that should not be in question in the mind of a conservative.
And there is no moral equivalency in 2004 between the two candidates either.
Here's what I see......
It's true. McCain opposes funding for vital breast cancer programs right here in New York. He opposes funding for the North Shore Long Island Jewish breast cancer program and wants to cut funding for NYU's program in women's cancer. McCain is even against funding for breast cancer mapping. That's right, John McCain even opposes funding for breast cancer mapping, essential to breast cancer research.
John McCain calls these projects, just "garden-variety pork." That's shocking.
Is this innaccurate? Is this McCain's record? Or are these lies?
If this is accurate, then this is a legitimate political ad. Taking a Senator's record, and laying it out to make a point is not even remotely 'at any cost.'
That's exactly what the Bush campaign is now doing with John Kerry, and he's griping too.
(I take it you were for McCain?)
Do you not agree that that ad pretty clearly says that McCain doesn't care that women are dying of breast cancer? That's certainly the message I get from it.
Do you believe that McCain didn't care about women dying from breast cancer?
I do not wnder that you have not noticed the great paint job on Kerrys new toy. The media has been strangely silent about the big letters under his name spelling PRESIDENT.
What the ad does is give McCain's voting record, which is not in support of those particular breast cancer issues.
One can draw the conclusions one wishes (as you obviously did), but I don't see the ad as below the belt.....just political.
When the Bush campaign lists all the NO votes Kerry has made on military issues, do you consider that in the same light as you do this ad? I think there's a parallel, and to me they're both fair.......unless, of course McCain didn't vote as the ad says he did.
And regardless of the effect this ad had on you, it doesn't support your assertion that Bush will do anything, regardless of its morality to win. It's just not true. Period.
I think it's fair to say that we disagree.
Indeed it is. :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.