Replies

Apparently the Democrats' argument goes something like this: Sure, Kerry ran those ads. But that was waaaay back in the Democratic primary, so those ads were only intended to appeal to Democratic primary voters. If Republicans or independents happened to view the ads and take away a negative impression of Bush, well, we can't control that. Now, we're in the general-election campaign. It's a whole new ball game. The clock starts over.

Please. No clocks, no ball games. Kerry ran the first negative ads of the '04 presidential campaign. Period.

Mercurio gets it.

But the debate over who picked the fight, John Kerry or President Bush, spreads from coast to coast.

"Debate"? You'd have to be an idiot not to see Kerry and the dems have been attacking President Bush for months. Then when the first ads by Bush are released they had to search high and low for what to criticize and came up with the fleeting 9/11 visuals. They knew that footage would be used eventually, so I'm sure they had their ducks in a row on trotting out the Bush bashers.

Then this latest wave, and people like Chris Jansing exclaiming over how NEVER EVER EVER has a sitting president named an opponent so SOON, as if she has not heard one unkind word from the Kerry camp directed Bush's way. I wanted to slap her this morning (and there are days she can be OK, but today she was being a fool).

Yes, it appears Mercurio does get it and I'm pleased he's pointing out the plain state of the record.