Attack Ads Redux
Seems someone doesn’t like my take on the RNC ads. Go here and you can read about other articles regarding the ads.
They link to this and this which do paint the pending RNC campaign as a bit nefarious. I would agree.
I am rather amused at matt & jason’s attempt to discredit me based on my position on the second amendment. I think it’s leftist speak for he’s an extremist. Funny how when you know your rights, you’re an extremist. Funny, these antigun folks still fall on the old lies for gun control and can’t prove it because no serious scholarship affirms their views. People do that when they’re on the wrong side.
There is an old saying:
“If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table.”
Good advice.
Update: Rich agrees with my orginal assessment:
[Democrats are] all for fighting terrorism, as long as we don’t actually, you know, fight terrorists.
November 24th, 2003 at 11:46 am
Wasn’t an attempt to discredit you. For our readers, that ticker would be all that was required to do that.
And I’m not really anti-gun. I just don’t think it passes the common sense test to argue that the 2nd amendment was meant to allow people to have these kind of weapons. Govt tyranny could not be suppressed with any kind of weapons that you can buy, the only hope in that case would be soldiers ignoring orders to put down rebellions. Fair chance of that.
November 25th, 2003 at 2:50 pm
In this case, Rich is full of it. We’ve been through this a zillion times, but I’m not aware of any prominent Democrat arguing that we ought not to be fighting terrorists. It also belies his militaristic perspective that to him, the only way to “fight terrorists” can be with US troops.
Gen. Clark gets this one right:
Fox News didn’t bother to include that one in their list of quotes. I wonder why not…
November 25th, 2003 at 2:56 pm
I’m not aware of any prominent Democrat arguing that we ought not to be fighting terrorists
I think the issue stems from inaction. The dems are perceived to be doing nothing. As you’ve said before, some of them have plans for dealing with stuff but they get little press coverage. Hence, a lot of folks interpret it as doing nothing.
As for the Clark quote, maybe fox was saving clark some embarassment for his asinine quote. bush is obviously fighting terrorists, he’s just doing it in afghanistan and iraq. Granted, I think the flypaper theory is more of an after thought.
November 25th, 2003 at 3:01 pm
I don’t think Clark’s comment is asinine at all. The 9/11 terrorists aren’t in Iraq. And as I’ve indicated in other threads, our presence in Afghanistan is too minimal to seriously argue that we’re still actively doing much there.