Remember the NAACP ad during the Bush-Gore campaign? It was when Bush was accused of being indirectly responsible for victims like the Texas dragging death victim James Byrd. The black and white ad showed a truck pulling a chain while the daughter spoke declaring "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again." Was this a nasty campaign ad or what? Republicans sure thought so. But evidently the Democrats thought NOTHING of it. Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather said not a thing about it. Even Joe Lieberman thought it was fine on "Meet The Press". But NOW the Democrats are up I arms about the Swift Boat ad. Do we sense a dichotomy here? It's OK to smear Bush but not OK to smear Kerry? (assuming that both ads are smears) To compound matters there are even some on the Right who are starting to decry the Swift Boat Vets ad saying that we shouldn't stoop to their level, etc. Even Bill O'Reilly thinks the Vets ad is not good. Many think the Vets ad is just nasty campaigning much like the Bryd ad was considered to be. I am so tired of Republicans backing away due to the accusations of the Left! It is time to decimate them! :firing: Personally I fully support the Vet ad because I see it as a first person indictment of Kerry (these guys were witnesses) whereas the Byrd ad was trying to imply that Bush was directly responsible for the death of those like James Byrd just because he did not support some hate-crime legislation (we already have laws against murder). What are some of the opinions here? Do you think these two ads are equal or comparable? Do you think such ads should be banned? Do you think both are just dirty campaign tactics as many claim them to be? Do you think Republicans should back off?