And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?

Let's take an example of his truthfulness:

"Health Care Humbug

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post

AMERICANS HAVE come to expect political ads to stretch the truth, but
a recent duo from the Bush campaign cross the line. One, titled
"Medicare Hypocrisy," tries to blame Democratic nominee John F. Kerry
for the recent hike in Medicare premiums. The second, called
"Healthca Practical vs. Big Government," says the Kerry health care
plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" costing a
whopping $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

On the matter of Medicare premiums, Mr. Kerry landed the first
below-the-belt punch. Seizing on the news of a 17.5 percent increase
in Medicare premiums, the Kerry spot said President Bush "imposes the
biggest Medicare premium increase in history" -- as if the decision
about how much seniors would pay were up to Mr. Bush, rather than
determined by a preset formula. Still, if Mr. Bush didn't "impose" the
premium hike, he's not blameless, either: The biggest part of the
increase is attributable to higher payments to physicians provided by
the new Medicare bill that he backed; another chunk is the result of
the bill's extra payments to insurers to induce them to offer coverage
to seniors.

The Bush campaign responded with an ad that made the Kerry campaign
look like a model of honest rhetoric. "John Kerry: He actually voted
for higher Medicare premiums -- before he came out against them," the
Bush ad said, managing to simultaneously blame Mr. Kerry and summon
the Kerry-as-flip-flopper image. The ad seeks to score points off Mr.
Kerry's statement that a 1997 law instituting the premium formula was
a "day of vindication for Americans" -- as if Mr. Kerry had been
celebrating socking it to seniors. In fact, the law, the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, included a well-intentioned effort to rein in
Medicare costs, but what Mr. Kerry was praising was its child tax
credits for working-class families and expanded coverage for uninsured
children. Does Mr. Bush disagree with that assessment?

This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of
advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington
bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan
-- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the
Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not
surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think
tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's
description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our
nation's health care system."

In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to
which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer
mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks
to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary
program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of
catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for
individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of
the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage
for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government
program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance
speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor
children who are eligible but not signed up."

There's a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of the two
campaigns' health plans. But so far no one's having it.
"

On 16 Sep 2004 15:17:41 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

-snip-
I disagree profoundly with Kerry on several issues that are important to
me, so I'll be voting against him. Seeing how he lied about the Assault
Weapons Ban, equating them to machine guns (they're not) and saying that
lifting the ban on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors makes Americans more at danger from Terrorists (what an absurd
thing to say, yet he said it)... He's another slicky-boy politician who
can't tell the truth about anything. I don't trust him any more than
I trusted Clinton, they're both cut from the same cloth. Then the guy
misses what, 70%? 80%? of his senate obligations, and he wants a
freaking promotion?

I don't think so.