I'd be playing up Yasser Arafat's endorsement of John Kerry. No, it doesn't really mean anything.

But, it might sway a bunch of Jewish voters in certain swing states (Florida, I',m looking in your direction)

What a fantastic way to get someone to vote for you, trying to make them mad at the other guy instead of trying to point out how you yourself might have some merit. Fecking brilliant.

hey man, it's all about getting votes. in election this close, you gotta go for every vote you can get, by any means neccesary.

I'm not saying it's noble. I'm just saying, that's how you win.

Call me a realist.

I agree. In fact, if I were GW, I would be pointing out that just about every single leader around the world is endorsing Kerry. That'll show 'em!

nope. I just stick to Arafat. The fact that a terrorist has endorsed John Kerry could be used against him.

*cough*

Isn't that exactly what all political parties have been doing since the beginning to achieve office at any level? They all lie and shove the lies down our throats.

Except this wouldn't even be a lie. Yasser Arafat DID endorse Kerry. All I'm saying Bush should do is to point that out, and allow voters -- notably Florida's Jewish population -- to draw its own conclusion.

While we're at it, here's another "endorsement" I'd bring up if I were Rove/GW, as reported by terrorism expert Evan Kohlman:


The Ansar al-Sunnah Army in Iraq has issued two new statements, including congratulating Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Tawheed wal-Jihad Movement on being designated by the White House as a terrorist organization. Referring to Usama Bin Laden as “our Shaykhâ€

If Dubya says that, and I'm Kerry, I say, "Do you really want to legitimize the opinions of terrorists?"

I heard Iran endorsed George Bush

Are you one of the people who's said here how pathetic it is that so many "democrats" or "liberals" are stupid for wanting Kerry based on the "Anyone But Bush" platform?
If you are, and even if you aren't, it's the same thing.
And do you seriously want any candidate elected into office based on negatives? How about being someone who wants the political machine to be revamped into something the country can be proud of? Like maybe what good a candidate can do for THE WHOLE country, seeing as how we will all have to live with the results of the election, not just the people who voted the candidate into office.
Wouldn't it be better to base a campaign on that?
And you don't care if your preferred candidate is noble or not, as long as he wins?
You ever hear how if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem?
Realist huh? Great, seeing as how the "realists" of the world are the ones who screw things up at every opportunity.
Do you think it was very "realistic" of the original 13 colonies to want to rebel against British Rule? If they had been "Realists" this country wouldn't exist. They wanted something better than what they had.

Heck, both campaigns are based on how bad the other guy is, so why not, eh?

I'm glad you people all consider the leader of Hamas a world leader. He is irrelevant as he is in this election as he should be in Palestine's future.

Word.

Oh, enough with the righteous indignation.

Here's a newsflash for you: No matter which candidate wins, he won't be noble.

Listen, I think my candidate is the best one for the job. Whatever it takes to make enough other people believe that, so long as it's legal, is fine with me.

And you'd say the same thing about whichever candidate it is that you endorse.

If i were George W. Bush, i'd jump off a bridge and die....

good one.