NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.optonline.net/News/Article/Feeds?CID=type%3Dxml%26channel%3D32%26article%3D12258332)

Even as a liberal (I don't consider myself a Democrat), I have to respect him for doing this

Yay i think thats 2 things I agree with Bush on.
Now if I could just remeber what the first thing was?!

Of course Bush doesn't like the ads. All the Liberals are calling it an illegal campaign ad for Bush. Then again, Farenheit 9/11 and NoFX's album "The War on Errorism" were both illegal campaign ads for Kerry...

Yeah, now Kerry should denounce move on .org, and Michael Moore among others.

That is funny.....Kerry has been calling for that, but when pressed about the moveon.org ads says he has no control over them. :rolleyes:

What I do find hilarious is that the anti-Kerry ads were only supposed to be shown in 3 states with a budget of like $500,000 yet they have far eclipsed the power of the moveon.org ads with their multi million dollar budget.

I'd respect him more if he'd done it right away, instead of sitting back and waiting to see ... what? general public opinion?

Either way, Kerry called for him to denounce those ads a week or two ago and he's just now doing it? Seems to me like he waited just long enough for them to get stuck in the public's minds.

This is actually an extraordinarily radical campaign finance reform statement - that no outside group should be allowed to comment during elections.

It also directly contradicts what Bush said when he signed McCain/Feingold:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

Bush is now saying that he thinks these restrictions should be even more all-encompassing.

BTW, the new anti-Bush MoveOn ads are made with disclosed PAC contributions. When he signed McCain/Feingold, Bush trumpeted public disclosure as a way of cleaning up campaigns...

Of course Bush doesn't like the ads. All the Liberals are calling it an illegal campaign ad for Bush. Then again, Farenheit 9/11 and NoFX's album "The War on Errorism" were both illegal campaign ads for Kerry...
who that worked on kerry's campaign showed up in either of those? and who that is a friend of kerrys family is putting money into those ads? and what official democratic attack dogs are heading those?

That is funny.....Kerry has been calling for that, but when pressed about the moveon.org ads says he has no control over them. :rolleyes:

What I do find hilarious is that the anti-Kerry ads were only supposed to be shown in 3 states with a budget of like $500,000 yet they have far eclipsed the power of the moveon.org ads with their multi million dollar budget.

Kerry has specifically denounced ads that attack Bush's military service, which, up until now - was more than Bush had done.

Besides, moveon.org was running ads long before the Democratic primaries, I doubt very seriously that Kerry does have any control over them. They don't care about Kerry, they just care that Bush gets the hell out of the White House.

That is funny.....Kerry has been calling for that, but when pressed about the moveon.org ads says he has no control over them. :rolleyes:

Um, maybe that's because MoveOn was founded in 1998, slightly before Kerry ran for president? That does seem to imply they aren't the same organization. Oh, and Kerry has denounced the specific content of the ads, even though they're true. Bush has refused to comment on the substance of the Swiftie ad.

The Swifties are much more recent, and their ties to the Bush admin - and Karl Rove - are legion and well-documented. Also, for those paying attention, this is the same thing he did againt McCain, and even uses some of the same people his daddy did going after Dukakis. This is business as usual for the Bushies.

What I do find hilarious is that the anti-Kerry ads were only supposed to be shown in 3 states with a budget of like $500,000 yet they have far eclipsed the power of the moveon.org ads with their multi million dollar budget.

I think by "hilarious" what you mean is "illustrative of the media's right-wing bias". You've got a situation where the documentary evidence, and the closest eyewitnesses, support Kerry. (Modulo a one-month error on a Cambodia journey.) Yet the media are taking these allegations seriously, and displaying them as he said/she said?

Otherwise, how do you explain how many times the Swifties are on news shows, versus how many times the MoveOn people are? (And who told Bob Dole to hit the talk show circuit bad-mouthing one of Kerry's purple hearts, gained in a circumstance similar to Dole's first one?)

Tereasa Heinz Kerry funnels money to move on. org through the Heinz Corporation.

Kerry has specifically denounced ads that attack Bush's military service, which, up until now - was more than Bush had done.

Besides, moveon.org was running ads long before the Democratic primaries, I doubt very seriously that Kerry does have any control over them. They don't care about Kerry, they just care that Bush gets the hell out of the White House.

Well, the guys who put the anti Kerry ads out have stated that they are in no way connected with the Bush campaign, they just want to keep Kerry the hell out of the White House. If their information is false, I would expect a lible suit to be filed. They are actually begging Kerry to sue them. They want him to so he will have to answer questions under oath.

Last week, Bush said Kerry's Vietnam service was honorable, denounced all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same. This week Bush said that Kerry's Vietnam service was admirable and denounced the swiftboat ads and all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same. When will John Kerry denounce the $62 million spent on attack ads against Bush. Oh that's right, he denounced one ad. Jeesh...

Otherwise, how do you explain how many times the Swifties are on news shows, versus how many times the MoveOn people are? (And who told Bob Dole to hit the talk show circuit bad-mouthing one of Kerry's purple hearts, gained in a circumstance similar to Dole's first one?)
as usual dole is behind the times, he started attacking kerry's war record with the switf boat vets against kerry at the same time that they are getting ripped into little pieces for being lying political scum

Tereasa Heinz Kerry funnels money to move on. org through the Heinz Corporation.

Not true; the Heinz foundation gave some money to a group (the Tides foundation) that has also given money to MoveOn. But that money was earmarked for other projects.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224

Are you a Fox News watcher?

Well, the guys who put the anti Kerry ads out have stated that they are in no way connected with the Bush campaign, they just want to keep Kerry the hell out of the White House. If their information is false, I would expect a lible suit to be filed. They are actually begging Kerry to sue them. They want him to so he will have to answer questions under oath.

And then they included someone from the Bush campaign in one ad and are funded by top Republicans in Texas. There is a difference here.

Why should he waste his time suing? Libel suits don't help anything in the long run, the people who want to believe it already do, and a lawsuit isn't going to change their minds.

Last week, Bush said Kerry's Vietnam service was honorable, denounced all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same. This week Bush said that Kerry's Vietnam service was admirable and denounced the swiftboat ads and all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same.

Can you provide a link for Bush saying that Kerry's vietnam service was honorable and admirable? I'm honestly curious; I've heard a few times that Bush hasn't commented on Kerry's vietnam service (he certainly didn't contradict someone who dissed it in front of him), and I'd like to know if that's wrong.

Note, also, the head of the RNC and Bush's spokesperson trying to portray Kerry as some wild-eyed lunatic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20193-2004Aug20.html

Edit: ah, yes, he did say that today. About time.

All those 527 groups are just a mess. We have a Hungarian financier who has sworn to remove Bush from office on one side, and a group of veterans who dispute Kerry's war record on the other. Neither group should be given the power they have. If this continues, we will no longer have a presidency. The office will be replaced by the office of the CEO.

And then they included someone from the Bush campaign in one ad and are funded by top Republicans in Texas. There is a difference here.

Why should he waste his time suing? Libel suits don't help anything in the long run, the people who want to believe it already do, and a lawsuit isn't going to change their minds.

Well, as private citizens they can do as they please. I think the whole 527 arragement should be scrapped and NO political ads should be allowed. TV has only existed for about 60 years. We got along fine for 140 years without it and managed to elect presidents without using advertisements. I say we don't allow them anymore and get back to what is more important like reality TV. ;)

Last week, Bush said Kerry's Vietnam service was honorable, denounced all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same. This week Bush said that Kerry's Vietnam service was admirable and denounced the swiftboat ads and all 527 ads and called on John Kerry to do the same. When will John Kerry denounce the $62 million spent on attack ads against Bush. Oh that's right, he denounced one ad. Jeesh...

Yeah, Kerry attacking Bush on the SBVT is pretty ridiculous after George Soros has dumped millions into anti-Bush ads. But you know, it's all just dirty politics.

All those 527 groups are just a mess. We have a Hungarian financier who has sworn to remove Bush from office on one side [because he thinks Bush has done a shitty job] - added by D, and a group of veterans who dispute Kerry's war record on the other [because they're ticked off that he became a protester when he got back] - added by D. Neither group should be given the power they have. If this continues, we will no longer have a presidency. The office will be replaced by the office of the CEO.

What do you propose to do? Take away their right to free speech because the masses are stupid enough to take anything they see on TV to be absolute truth? Neither group has any power, per se, other than affect on the masses.

Today the swift boat veterans said that they do not care how Bush feels about the ads. They have something personal against Kerry and they will not stop. Kerry embellished his role in Vietnam and falsely testified against them in the Senate. (they claim)

There has been no proven connection between Bush and these ads. There are only accusations. Over 10,000 people contributed to the swiftboaters website. The average donation was $59.00. Of course some Republican contributors, once they heard the story, would contribute. But, the swiftboaters say that they will take contributions from anyone, including Soros. They say that their veteran members are Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Bob Dole is a real hero. He was wounded in battle and lost the use of one of his arms.

Today the swift boat veterans said that they do not care how Bush feels about the ads. They have something personal against Kerry and they will not stop. Kerry embellished his role in Vietnam and falsely testified against them in the Senate. (they claim)

They can believe that and say so all they want, but if they have to make up lies to do it, it's not really a good goal, now is it?

Bob Dole is a real hero. He was wounded in battle and lost the use of one of his arms.

So you have to lose a limb to be a "real hero." I would think anyone who volunteers to go and fight for their country could gain the title of "real hero." Anyone who works in a field where they regularly put their lives on the line for others' could be termed a "real hero." Losing a limb doesn't make you a hero, it's a possible consequence of being one.

Then again, Farenheit 9/11 and NoFX's album "The War on Errorism" were both illegal campaign ads for Kerry...

How so, when FARENHEIT 9/11 doesn't mention Kerry at all, and mentions the Democrats negatively? (Moore criticizes the party leaders for not having stood up to Bush on going to Iraq.)

What do you propose to do? Take away their right to free speech because the masses are stupid enough to take anything they see on TV to be absolute truth? Neither group has any power, per se, other than affect on the masses.

Is there an absolute right to place TV or radio ads? Obviously there is a problem when things of this nature get blown out of all proportion. So like children who cannot play with their toys properly, you take them away from them.

Is there an absolute right to place TV or radio ads? Obviously there is a problem when things of this nature get blown out of all proportion. So like children who cannot play with their toys properly, you take them away from them.

What is inherently different about my freedom of speech if I put a sign up in my yard or stand on the corner holding a sign vs. placing a TV or radio ad? Nothing, really - except the monetary cost to me. Sure, more people see it, but any intelligent person is still going to make up their own mind.

The worst is yet to come..We will be sick of both of them by Nov.

What is inherently different about my freedom of speech if I put a sign up in my yard or stand on the corner holding a sign vs. placing a TV or radio ad? Nothing, really - except the monetary cost to me. Sure, more people see it, but any intelligent person is still going to make up their own mind.

Then why is there all the fuss from Kerry? Maybe the swift boat guys are right about him and he knows it?

As a disabled veteran I am not amused by his constant barrage of reminders about what he did 36 years ago. Why he thinks that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president is beyond me. It does nothing of the sort. I don't know a single veteran that is going to vote for him.

Bob Dole is a real hero. He was wounded in battle and lost the use of one of his arms.

Not true. According to Ann Coulter, losing a limb in a war means you're an idiot, not a hero.

As a disabled veteran I am not amused by his constant barrage of reminders about what he did 36 years ago. Why he thinks that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president is beyond me. It does nothing of the sort. I don't know a single veteran that is going to vote for him.

Quite a few are, including at least one former chair of the Joint Chiefs.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34048
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/

Stormin' Norman has also declined to endorse Bush, and hinted he is voting for Kerry.

Kerry's actually not bringing up Vietnam as much as you think - it only got one reference in his nomination speech. The whole ruckus with the swifties - including all the free media they're getting, as you noticed - is doing a good job of drowning out Kerry's policy positions.

Bush doesn't want to fight this one on the issues, or on his record.

BTW, thanks for your service to the country; us lefties do appreciate it, even if we disagree on political issues.

Then why is there all the fuss from Kerry? Maybe the swift boat guys are right about him and he knows it?

Or perhaps because they have been shown to be lying through their teeth? - or at least some of them.

Besides, as a voter, I'm not all that worried about what the candidate did 30 years ago - unless he was a serial killer or something. Obviously, the man had the balls to sign up for the military and go to fight for his country. Once he was there, he realized how unnecessary our involvement there was, so when he got back he started protesting. He also saw or heard about some pretty bad things (which we all know not all soldiers participated in -but some of them did). When asked about said bad things, he testified about them.

As a disabled veteran I am not amused by his constant barrage of reminders about what he did 36 years ago. Why he thinks that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president is beyond me. It does nothing of the sort. I don't know a single veteran that is going to vote for him.

I think the only reason he keeps talking about it is the fact that he keeps getting attacked for it. I don't really worry about what he did 36 years ago either, but I haven't seen anything where he suggested that "that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president." Besides, do you know what the average lifespan for someone of his rank was in Vietnam? 4 months is pretty damn long in comparison.

By the way, I respect you for service to our country, just as I respect Kerry for his service. The route of military service was never for me, but I hold those who volunteer for it (or even those who were drafted and went and served) in very high regard.

However, I would not respect someone who failed to voice their opinions on a subject "just because the military didn't agree," whether they were ex-military or not. When you sign up for the military, you basically sign yourself over to them for however long they keep you there. When they let you go, you are a free citizen, and you are morally obligated to speak up if you feel that your country is doing a wrong.

Then why is there all the fuss from Kerry? Maybe the swift boat guys are right about him and he knows it?

As a disabled veteran I am not amused by his constant barrage of reminders about what he did 36 years ago. Why he thinks that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president is beyond me. It does nothing of the sort. I don't know a single veteran that is going to vote for him.
I am a kerry supporter, and I agree, the emphasis on military service is stupid. There are PLENTY of reasons to elect him without bringing up his military record. Besides, him taking credit for something he actually did isn't as bad as bush using the Iraqi olympic team as political ammunition. One is actually a credit to the person, the other is an unforseen positive side effect.

Not true. According to Ann Coulter, losing a limb in a war means you're an idiot, not a hero.
I assume we're talking about a temporary thing, because last I saw, he used the arm just fine.

I assume we're talking about a temporary thing, because last I saw, he used the arm just fine.

No, his right arm is pretty much crippled. He carries a pen in his right hand so that people won't try to shake it..

It doesn't mean he's right about Kerry, and he's participating in the distortion of what Kerry said to the senate.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002013026_webbush23.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4534274/

It does also lead one to wonder who gave Bob Dole his talking points - he's not exactly a loose cannon.

I assume we're talking about a temporary thing, because last I saw, he used the arm just fine.

No, Bob Dole has absolutely no use of his right arm.

Regarding why Kerry's vietnam service has cropped up, as quoted on talking points memo:

The Bush campaign machine, well oiled and already rolling, should not be underestimated. The current president's father gained a formidable reputation as a nasty campaigner, though the presidential fingerprints were carefully wiped off negative blueprints administered by Lee Atwater, the first Mr Bush's ruthless chief strategist.

Karl Rove, a disciple of Mr Atwater, is similarly meticulous about keeping the president publicly above the fray. Yet it is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."

Note that nobody has accused the Financial Times of being a left-wing rag.

"I've been Vice President for 8 years, I'm a war hero, and I am SHARON STONE'S COUSIN."
"God Bless America, AND NO PLACE ELSE!"
-Brian Lewis, Most-likely a Democratic candidate from "Head of State"

Uprightmonkeys, here is a link for Bush calling Kerry's service admirable.http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L4DI80.html

I don't think I will be able to find last weeks Bush statements. If I come across it, I will post it.

I am not registered for the Washington Post. Can you tell me who exactly said what about Kerry?

If Kerry would talk about something BESIDES his service in Nam such as:

1. College Tuition
2. The Environment
3. The Economy
4. Education
5. The War on Terror
6. The War in Iraq
7. His Senate voting record

then perhaps no one would talk about his record in Nam.

I'm against Kerry because he's only voted TWICE (that's 2 times) this year, and I disagreed with him both times. He voted against extending the assualt weapons ban and against more legal pretection for pregnant women.

I'm against Kerry because he's only voted TWICE (that's 2 times) this year, and I disagreed with him both times. He voted against extending the assualt weapons ban and against more legal pretection for pregnant women.

What was the bill in question that was "against more legal protection for pregnant women?"

I am not registered for the Washington Post. Can you tell me who exactly said what about Kerry?

Try www.bugmenot.com

Try www.bugmenot.com
Login details for www.washingtonpost.com
Account #1
caspian@nocards.org
caspian

Why has no one condeemed John Kerry for not telling MoveOn.org to stop. They have compared Bush to Hitler and spent 63 million but the guys that were bashing Kerry(which I dont think his war record means anything about how he would do as president, I'm against him for his stance on the issues) fought in a war with him.

The worst is yet to come..We will be sick of both of them by Nov.

I'm already sick to death of both of them. They are worse than my 4 and 6 year olds. Nader is starting to look better and better every day (and yes, that was a bit of sarcasm).

I just wish there was ONE candidate that I could actually get behind and say "Yes, I BELIEVE this person should be the president." Right now, I feel like it's trying to pick the least rotten apple of the bunch.

Why has no one condeemed John Kerry for not telling MoveOn.org to stop. They have compared Bush to Hitler and spent 63 million but the guys that were bashing Kerry(which I dont think his war record means anything about how he would do as president, I'm against him for his stance on the issues) fought in a war with him.

Kerry has spoken out against some of the ads run by moveon.org, specifically the ones suggesting Bush has lied about his service in the national guard.

As for comparing Bush to Hitler, that may be unfounded, but there were no out and out lies in it, nor were the attacking on the basis of military service - they were attacking on the basis of Bush's record as a president (which has been strangely fascist-leaning). Besides, I think that ad was run before Kerry's was announced as the Dem. candidate - not sure though.

Yeah, now Kerry should denounce move on .org, and Michael Moore among others.Um, the "swift boat" ads are full of discredited lies whereas Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 has been thoroughly fact-checked. In fact, Moore is offering a big wad of money to anyone who can disprove any part of it. If you think you can do it, step right up and claim your money. Put up or shut up.

9-11 Commision Confirms key F 9/11 Facts:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24
(More resources can be found in the top right-hand box.)

Then why is there all the fuss from Kerry? Maybe the swift boat guys are right about him and he knows it?

As a disabled veteran I am not amused by his constant barrage of reminders about what he did 36 years ago. Why he thinks that 4 month period of time qualifies him to be president is beyond me. It does nothing of the sort. I don't know a single veteran that is going to vote for him.
Gee Biff--wouldn't you be offended if someone called you a coward, a faker, and a liar? Wouldn't you be offended if someone spread bullshit about your military service on national television? God damn you're a hypocrite--if you weren't so blinded by your dislike of John Kerry, you'd be disgusted by what the Swift Vets have done, especially since their accusations against Kerry's service record have been debunked more than once, and yet you have the gall to say that Kerry's getting mad because he knows they're right? Whatever, dude.

Why has no one condeemed John Kerry for not telling MoveOn.org to stop. They have compared Bush to Hitler and spent 63 million but the guys that were bashing Kerry(which I dont think his war record means anything about how he would do as president, I'm against him for his stance on the issues) fought in a war with him.First of all, you ignorant fuckwit--Kerry did condemn the Moveon ad that questioned Bush's National Guard service. He did it the day it hit the fucking airwaves.

Secondly, Moveon never compared Bush to Hitler. Someone submitted an ad to their contest that compared Bush to Hitler, and Moveon members not only rejected the ad roundly, Moveon itself removed the ad from its website. The fact that you continue to try to spread these inaccuracies just proves how blindly partisan you are, and how beneath contempt your opinions are in general.

And since it looks like I'm going for 3 in a row here, let me add that what Bush essentially did today was argue for a suspension of the First Amendment, by asking for all advocacy groups to stop their advertising and their exercise of their right to free speech and expression.

First of all, you ignorant fuckwit--Kerry did condemn the Moveon ad that questioned Bush's National Guard service. He did it the day it hit the fucking airwaves.

Secondly, Moveon never compared Bush to Hitler. Someone submitted an ad to their contest that compared Bush to Hitler, and Moveon members not only rejected the ad roundly, Moveon itself removed the ad from its website. The fact that you continue to try to spread these inaccuracies just proves how blindly partisan you are, and how beneath contempt your opinions are in general.
I saw O'Rielly not like a week ago give this argument (the one Incertonia is responding to) almost verbatum, including saying, not implying, that MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler.....good ol' fox news......

First of all, you ignorant fuckwit--Kerry did condemn the Moveon ad that questioned Bush's National Guard service. He did it the day it hit the fucking airwaves.

Secondly, Moveon never compared Bush to Hitler. Someone submitted an ad to their contest that compared Bush to Hitler, and Moveon members not only rejected the ad roundly, Moveon itself removed the ad from its website. The fact that you continue to try to spread these inaccuracies just proves how blindly partisan you are, and how beneath contempt your opinions are in general.

Is all this race about military records does nothing else matter. Personally I could care less what the canidates have done on anything BUT their decisions that they have made for the country. I wasn't talking about his national guard ads either I was suggesting the ads that said he LIED to the country.

I saw O'Rielly not like a week ago give this argument (the one Incertonia is responding to) almost verbatum, including saying, not implying, that MoveOn.org compared Bush to Hitler.....good ol' fox news......

It does get better; one campaign has used Hitler imagery in a negative ad... guess which one. http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/

I was suggesting the ads that said he LIED to the country.

Are you saying that Bush hasn't lied? Remember the non-existent IAEA report, or "we have found the weapons of mass destruction"? The conversation with Cheney on 9/11 that the 9/11 commission couldn't verify?

Take your pick from here... http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

It does get better; one campaign has used Hitler imagery in a negative ad... guess which one. http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033/I remember when that happened, and was amused that the Bush campaign went where a group that can legitimately be called liberal--Moveon.org--refused to go because they thought it was too outrageous.

Not true; the Heinz foundation gave some money to a group (the Tides foundation) that has also given money to MoveOn. But that money was earmarked for other projects.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224

Are you a Fox News watcher?

uh huh. If you actually believe that then you must be a fool. That is what we like to call laundering. Of course there is no direct chain. However, the chances of Kerry's wife just happening to donate money to a company that just happens to support MoveOn.org are very slim. She gives them money, then they use it for their own purposes, and donate to MoveOn.org using money that would originally have been spent on something else.

uh huh. If you actually believe that then you must be a fool. That is what we like to call laundering. Of course there is no direct chain. However, the chances of Kerry's wife just happening to donate money to a company that just happens to support MoveOn.org are very slim. She gives them money, then they use it for their own purposes, and donate to MoveOn.org using money that would originally have been spent on something else.Oh Jesus Christ--The Tides Foundation is huge and gives money to literally hundreds of projects. The money that the Heinz foundation gave to it was specifically earmarked for particular projects, none of which included Moveon.org.

If Kerry would talk about something BESIDES his service in Nam such as:

1. College Tuition
2. The Environment
3. The Economy
4. Education
5. The War on Terror
6. The War in Iraq
7. His Senate voting record

then perhaps no one would talk about his record in Nam.

I'm against Kerry because he's only voted TWICE (that's 2 times) this year, and I disagreed with him both times. He voted against extending the assualt weapons ban and against more legal pretection for pregnant women.

He voted more times then that, those are just his big votes people like to nitpick.
And the Lacy Peterson law is wrong because the court is still out on Laci Peterson's death.
YOu should wait till after the case!
I'm glad he voted against it.
Tell me why a fetus had more rights than a mother?
Abortion precedants the law has many ramifications and thus voyed agaibst. Kerry believes in choice for woman. No parasitic organism has more rights.

He voted more times then that, those are just his big votes people like to nitpick.
And the Lacy Peterson law is wrong because the court is still out on Laci Peterson's death.
YOu should wait till after the case!
I'm glad he voted against it.
Tell me why a fetus had more rights than a mother?
Abortion precedants the law has many ramifications and thus voyed agaibst. Kerry believes in choice for woman. No parasitic organism has more rights.

Laci Peterson law? Is this the law that makes it a double murder if the woman happens to be pregnant? Yeah, ok, I don't mind him voting against that.