Best ad that you might never see on your TV

[Cyrus]

Here's the people's choice for the best Bush In Thirty Seconds ad. The networks, with CBS first among them, refuse to air it.

Entry of Charlie Fisher, Denver, CO (http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

CBS is a private company and has free speech rights itself. Those rights include the freedom to *not* air opinions with which it disagrees.

This is clearly *not* an issue of censorship unless of course you have tangible evidence of government coercion.

[Utah]

Did they say why they wouldn't run it? There is nothing offensive about the add.

I do get a kick out of the Liberals worrying about deficits considering all liberals want to do is spend, spend, spend.

The best ad though for being completely disingenuous is the ad attacking Billionaires since moveon.org is heavily financed by a billionaire.

[Ed Miller]

all liberals want to do is spend, spend, spend

You are SOOOO right. I'm like a liberal and I can't make it from one end of the Forum shops to the other without dropping five dimes on like a whole new wardrobe.

[Taxman]

"spend spend spend"? Evidence to back this up? Let's see, record debt under Reagan and Bush Jr. (including current pressure by the GOP itself for Bush to lower spending). Much lower debt under Clinton or Carter or any other Democratic president. I guess the Democrats are just more thrifty.

[ACPlayer]

all liberals want to do is spend, spend, spend.

Bush and the current (republican run) congress must be very liberal! Vote them out!

[Lazymeatball]

Um, Reagan had a democratic congress and Clinton had a republican congress led by Newt Gingrich. it would be simplistic to leave the actual branch of government that decides the national budget out of this discussion of spending during certain time periods.

However Bush's spending right now is a little (maybe a lot)out of control for a Republican, but you can hardly believe that a Democratic president would spend less. I don't understand why the Republican congress is going along with it.

[Utah]

I dont disagree. Many conservatives are furious at Bush for the growth in spending as it goes against the heart of conservative principles.

[Cyrus]

"Bush's spending right now is a little (maybe a lot) out of control for a Republican, ..."

Try "for any President".

"...but you can hardly believe that a Democratic President would spend less."

Actually, that should not be too hard to believe because the record shows that it is true. Democratic Presidents during the post-WWII era in America have brought the deficit down while their GOP counterparts have brought it up. Sometimes way up! Republicans such as Teflon Ron and Dubya arrived at the White House on promises to cut down the "spenDocrats's" habits -- and they immediately went on a binge!

But since the biggest chunk of the money those GOP folks are spending goes to that most destructive item of the budget (literally and figuratively), the military, then Ah, but that's alright then! This is about defense! And there's no such thing as too much money for the military, is there?

Because, as we all know, WE ARE IN GRAVE DANGER!

Classic conservative con.

[Utah]

Actaully, National Review had a good article on this a few weeks ago that stated it isnt really a Republican or Liberal thing. NR reasoned that it is simply a function of being in power and using that power to buy constituencies. Bush's percription drug bill was pure brilliant politics and it was right out of the Dick Morris/Clinton playbook - take away the main arguments for the other side. So what if you tick off your core, they aint going anywhere.

Because, as we all know, WE ARE IN GRAVE DANGER!

Are we not? Have we not been attacked several times? To you, what would constitute grave danger (with apologies to Jack Nickelson)?

[adios]

Hate to tell you this Cyrus, Clinton spent more than Reagan or George Herbert Walker Bush. That fact shows why these arguements are absurd.