Bush: A new negativity

[arsbanned]

It seems we've never before seen the likes of low road campaining we are fom Bush and Co

It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Arsbanned, Dubya has to find a way to campaign to the middle to win, and he sure as hell can't get there based on his reactionary record... so he'll try to focus on something, anything, else.

We've already seen that the Bushies, particularly Cheney, have no values beyond winning, no sense of morality that the terms greed and deception won't accurately describe. So they must attack, because what they've done already is utterly indefensible...

 

[maluckey]

Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it. He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it. He was for Vietnam, then against, now for it. He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it. Who knows what Kerry will be for, or against tomorrow. Hell! he even confused himself with Sen Bob Kerry in one of his ads, which is still running even though it is 100 percent false. Kerry did not cast the vote to create oodles of jobs as suggested.......that was Bob Kerrey.

In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

Whatever happened to Dean? At least HE didn't change his mind or opinion every time the pollsters told him to. I kinda think in retrospect that he was a better choice than Kerry.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it. He was against upgrading and expanding the the military, now is for it. He was for Vietnam, then against, now for it. He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it. Who knows what Kerry will be for, or against tomorrow. Hell! he even confused himself with Sen Bob Kerry in one of his ads, which is still running even though it is 100 percent false. Kerry did not cast the vote to create oodles of jobs as suggested.......that was Bob Kerrey.

In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

Whatever happened to Dean? At least HE didn't change his mind or opinion every time the pollsters told him to. I kinda think in retrospect that he was a better choice than Kerry.

Some people Learn from their mistakes, some just make more Mistakes trying to prove the first wasn't a Mistake. Take your pick.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: maluckey
Kerry supported no child left behind act, now is against it. He was against upgrading and expanding the military, now is for it. He was for Vietnam, then against, now for it. He was for the Iraq invasion, then was against it, now is for it. Who knows what Kerry will be for, or against tomorrow. Hell! he even confused himself with Sen Bob Kerry in one of his ads, which is still running even though it is 100 percent false. Kerry did not cast the vote to create oodles of jobs as suggested.......that was Bob Kerrey.

In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

Whatever happened to Dean? At least HE didn't change his mind or opinion every time the pollsters told him to. I kind of think in retrospect that he was a better choice than Kerry.

Some people Learn from their mistakes, some just make more Mistakes trying to prove the first wasn't a Mistake. Take your pick.

some people blindly support their man just because they hate the social values of the other man.

now what wasn't true, or was even distorted, about Kerry?s record?

Kerry did not question the war on terrorism,

sure he said it wasn't a war but a police action, with limited few troop uses.

has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000,

1.) this will hurt the economy 2.)this doesn?t contradict what was said

supports wiretaps,

but he supports repealing the ability to tap as is necessary at the moment to fight terrorism

has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years,

EVER is bad enough, back then it was a much higher percentage on the over all cost.. I thought this was a dem?! what's up with the suggestion of a REGRESIVE tax?!

and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

maluckey got this one.. if the best retort to that you can muster is

yea well.. he's 'learning from his mistakes' then please, let him stay in the legislature ware he can put his tail between his legs every time some minor clause makes things politically inexpedient.

Vision, determination, leadership, strength of character.. all of these things are essential in a president, all are lacking in the special interest, waving like grain in the political wind, puppet that is John Kerry.

-but that's just my opinion.. I could be wrong.

 

[sandorski]

Did I say it was "distorted"? How about some context, did Kerry vote for a 50c Tax cut 10ish years ago? Does that mean within 6 months he'll raise gas taxes 50c?

 

[NightCrawler]

LOL....politics have always been really nasty, in the bad old days things could get really rough. The old brand of politics doesn't play well in today's touchy feely soccer mom society.

Just because someone attacks your position or candidate doesn't mean he's stepping down to new lows cause the the old lows are really low.

 

[XZeroII]

wow, and this is different from what the liberals do...how? They believe EVERYTHING negative that is said about Bush, but think that EVERYTHING bad that is said about Kerry is false. Then they complain about Bush when his campaign does it. Typical... :|

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: maluckey
In short, when Kerry says something that he stands by, I would listen. Until then, virtually anything Bush throws at him sticks because Kerry has likely been for it at some time in his career, and even though he is now against it, it is likely given his history that he will be for it soon enough.

So how can he be the "most liberal Senator, even more than Ted Kennedy" if he's such a consumate flip-flopper?

Edit: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
wow, and this is different from what the liberals do...how? They believe EVERYTHING negative that is said about Bush, but think that EVERYTHING bad that is said about Kerry is false. Then they complain about Bush when his campaign does it. Typical... :|

Of course its not different than what ANY politician does (why you single out what you define as "liberals" is very strange), but Bush vs. Kerry there seems to be a large gap:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
wow, and this is different from what the liberals do...how? They believe EVERYTHING negative that is said about Bush, but think that EVERYTHING bad that is said about Kerry is false. Then they complain about Bush when his campaign does it. Typical... :|

Only liberals are allowed to compaign negative.

 

[Czar]

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

wow, looks like someone is afraid of loosing his job

 

[maluckey]

Monsta Thrilla,

I don't understand your question...

The term "Liberal" isn't about political party or how often you change your views or attitude, it's about your beliefs, and the actions you take as a result of your beliefs. Ted Kennedy, while great at changing tunes, is amateurish when compared to Kerry. It has no relevance however, on how liberal he is/isn't. Kerry's liberal views on religion, marriage, abortion and just about every other belief make him liberal, not how often he changes his mind.

Is that what your were asking me to clarify?

Mark

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Monsta Thrilla,

I don't understand your question...

The term "Liberal" isn't about political party or how often you change your views or attitude, it's about your beliefs, and the actions you take as a result of your beliefs. Ted Kennedy, while great at changing tunes, is amateurish when compared to Kerry. It has no relevance however, on how liberal he is/isn't. Kerry's liberal views on religion, marriage, abortion and just about every other belief make him liberal, not how often he changes his mind.

Is that what your were asking me to clarify?

Mark

How can a person who you characterize as liberal change his mind and flip-flop so much? The two are very relevant. If you say the man has liberal views and votes that way, then he's not flip-flopping much is he? On the other hand, if he flip-flops, he wouldn't have nearly such a consistent liberal voting record as he does. So which is it?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: XZeroII
wow, and this is different from what the liberals do...how? They believe EVERYTHING negative that is said about Bush, but think that EVERYTHING bad that is said about Kerry is false. Then they complain about Bush when his campaign does it. Typical... :|

Of course its not different than what ANY politician does (why you single out what you define as "liberals" is very strange), but Bush vs. Kerry there seems to be a large gap:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Why would I need to address the conservative side of it? That was the topic of the thread. I was pointing out that the Bush Admin isn't the only ones doing this.

Also, it would make sense that Bush would have more negative ads. He is the incumbant (sp?). Everyone already knows him and his policies. Kerry, OTOH, still needs to establish his position on...just about everything. He needs to let people know who he is and what he stands for. Bush doesn't. This leaves Bush more time to run negative ads.

So it is NOT a republican conspiracy, like so many of you think.

 

[Gaard]

Also, it would make sense that Bush would have more negative ads.

Actually, Commander, I agree with you here. Why would anyone expect to see anything other than attack ads from a 'war president'?

 

[Infohawk]

I'd be curious to see what CADkindaGUY thinks about all this kerry-bashing. I know he isn't a fan of bashing, but maybe that's just a double-standard that is only used against Kerry?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'd be curious to see what CADkindaGUY thinks about all this kerry-bashing. I know he isn't a fan of bashing, but maybe that's just a double-standard that is only used against Kerry?

Just let me know when and I'll close my eyes. We all know how he has this thing about 'not giving Gaard anything to use'.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, XZeroII, everybody already knows Bush and his policies- that's why he's desperately pointing the finger at Kerry, rather than standing on the strengths of his accomplishment...

"Don't pay attention to what I've done, pay attention to what I'm telling you that the other guy might do..."

Having a Senate voting record is more of a liability than an asset in today's political climate, given that soundbite journalism and thirty-second campaign jingoes don't really do justice to some of the nuanced positions required to be an effective Senator, or President, for that matter.

Represent it as flip-flopping if you like, but it's more an issue of horse-trading, compromise, and consensus building. As has been posted many times before, Bush has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that it's more like a rotisserie- except in the places where he really should back down. Judicial appointments being the foremost- Dems pass 168, turn back the most radical 4, and he whines like a little princess, gives 3 interim appointments anyway- that's bipartisanship? What kind of "uniter" plays it that way?

 

[digitalsm]

Uh, I dont know where you people have been but the Kerry camp has been negatively attacking Bush since the primaries, they just aren't as upfront about it.

edit: fixed

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Uh, I dont know you peeps have been but the Kerry camp has been negatively attacking Bush since the primaries, they just are as upfront about it.

Why do you have to be so negative?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I'd be curious to see what CADkindaGUY thinks about all this kerry-bashing. I know he isn't a fan of bashing, but maybe that's just a double-standard that is only used against Kerry?

You've asked this same question of CAD a number of times. Yet, each time he ignores you. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were put on the don't give him the stisfaction list. I'm proud to say I'm a founding member.

Actually, it gets to be kind of comical after a while.

CAD - "Kerry flip-flops"
Gaard - "Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "Yes, the right has a problem with it."
Gaard - "That's not what I asked. Does Bush flip-flop?"
CAD - "I'm not going to give you the satisfaction."


CAD - "I'm against Bush-bashing."
Infohawk - "Are you against Kerry-bashing as well, or just Bush-bashing?"
CAD - no reply


CAD - "It's important to keep things in context."
heartsurgeon - an out-of-context Kerry quote (again)
Gaard - "Hey CAD, will you explain to heartsurgeon the importance of 'context'?"
CAD - no reply

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: XZeroII
wow, and this is different from what the liberals do...how? They believe EVERYTHING negative that is said about Bush, but think that EVERYTHING bad that is said about Kerry is false. Then they complain about Bush when his campaign does it. Typical... :|

Of course its not different than what ANY politician does (why you single out what you define as "liberals" is very strange), but Bush vs. Kerry there seems to be a large gap:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Why would I need to address the conservative side of it? That was the topic of the thread. I was pointing out that the Bush Admin isn't the only ones doing this.

Also, it would make sense that Bush would have more negative ads. He is the incumbant (sp?). Everyone already knows him and his policies. Kerry, OTOH, still needs to establish his position on...just about everything. He needs to let people know who he is and what he stands for. Bush doesn't. This leaves Bush more time to run negative ads.

So it is NOT a republican conspiracy, like so many of you think.

LOL. Who even insinuated that this was a "republican conspiracy"? That's so hilariously ridiculous. You can't be for real...

But you do make a good point about Bush not really needing to establish himself. But there's this passage:

"There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent."

Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."

In short, he's STILL going negative earlier than any of his predecessors. So the "well he's the incumbent" argument doesn't hold much.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Did I say it was "distorted"? How about some context, did Kerry vote for a 50c Tax cut 10ish years ago? Does that mean within 6 months he'll raise gas taxes 50c?

Hum... a regressive gas tax increase 10 years ago is out of play,

But that bush was a little tipsy and drove to slow is front-page-news worthy?

Give me a break.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: sandorski
Did I say it was "distorted"? How about some context, did Kerry vote for a 50c Tax cut 10ish years ago? Does that mean within 6 months he'll raise gas taxes 50c?

Hum... a regressive gas tax increase 10 years ago is out of play,

But that bush was a little tipsy and drove to slow is front-page-news worthy?

Give me a break.

Out of play, no, but the insinuation that he's chomping at the bit to implement it is patently ridiculous. You'd think Kerry is campaigning on that as a promise(and others) the way the ads put it. Times change, Needs change, Reasons change, just ask Bush.