Bush's first campaign ads invoke 9/11

[gldstwmn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4420934

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:09 p.m. ET March 03, 2004WASHINGTON - President Bush’s re-election team unveiled his first campaign advertisements Wednesday, and they in part use the events of Sept. 11, 2001, to focus on his “steady leadership” during turbulent times.
The Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign waited to launch the ad campaign until after the Democrats chose their presumptive nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who locked it up with impressive victories across the country on Tuesday.

Campaign officials said they saw Kerry as a formidable opponent and predicted that Bush would be at best tied or behind in the polls until the Republican National Convention in New York in September. Recent polls have put Bush behind his Democratic opponent.

“We’re obviously starting this race in a place where we thought we would, which is even or slightly behind, and I think that’s going to stay that way for the next five or six months,” said Bush’s campaign pollster, Matthew Dowd.

The four Bush ads, one of them in Spanish, will begin running Thursday in at least 16 important battleground states and on more than five national cable television channels.

Two ads refer to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the Bush campaign seeks to present Bush as a tried and tested leader who has risen to the challenge. One ad, titled “Tested,” shows, among other images, a damaged building from the World Trade Center ruins behind a U.S. flag.

“The last few years have tested America in many ways,” the voice-over says. “Some challenges we’ve seen before. And some were like no others. But America rose to the challenge.”

‘Steady leadership’
It concludes: “President Bush. Steady leadership in times of change.”

An ad called “Safer, Stronger” points to the problems the United States has faced since Bush took office in January 2001: a recession, a declining stock market, a dot.com boom gone bust and “a day of tragedy.”

“Today, America is turning the corner. Rising to the challenge,” the ad says. This one is also done in Spanish.

A 60-second ad titled “Lead” focuses on what may well be Bush’s greatest weakness, the inability of the economy to generate a lot of jobs despite strong growth.

“And as the economy grows, the job base grows and somebody who’s looking for work will be more likely to find a job,” Bush says in the ad.

Seated next to him is his wife, Laura, whom the Bush campaign sees as an enormous asset. She lauds her husband for “the strength, the focus, the characteristics that these times demand.”

Multimillion-dollar purchase
The ads constitute a multimillion-dollar purchase as the Bush campaign begins to dip into more than $100 million in cash it has on hand. The ads are positive looks at the president’s record, with no attacks on Kerry.

Dowd said a large section of the electorate would see the ads, but he would not say which states they would run in to avoid tipping off the Bush strategy to the Democrats.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was quick to respond.

“These ads are expected to reference Bush’s ‘steady leadership’ as president, but they would be remiss to leave out some ’steady’ facts when it comes to his leadership: a steady loss of jobs, a steady increase in uninsured Americans, a steady decline in education funding, a steady erosion of veterans’ benefits, a steady attack against the Social Security Fund, and a steady rise of the deficit,” he said.

[strandinthewind]

And you are surprised :shrug: This is the only issue or at least the strongest issue W can run on, even though D's think W is not strong on this or any other issue, etc., as evidence by T MC's comments!!! :cool:

On a better note, W will spend a significant amount of his HUGE warchest in these first three months. While he can raise money, the D's are getting started. Don't be surprised when Slicky Bill and Hill start appearing everywhere for the DNC and Kerry.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And you are surprised :shrug: This is the only issue or at least the strongest issue W can run on, even though D's think W is not strong on this or any other issue, etc., as evidence by T MC's comments!!! :cool:

On a better note, W will spend a significant amount of his HUGE warchest in these first three months. While he can raise money, the D's are getting started. Don't be surprised when Slicky Bill and Hill start appearing everywhere for the DNC and Kerry.

I am not surprised, just truly disgusted by it. Can't wait to see Hill and Bill out for JK. I do hope they remember their friends in Colorado.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I am not surprised, just truly disgusted by it. Can't wait to see Hill and Bill out for JK. I do hope they remember their friends in Colorado.:)

Wait until they haul out the flight suit again :laugh:

I have no problem with W noting how he handled 9-11 because that is a legitimate part of his Presidential record and many are happy with the way he handled it, esp. Afganistan. But, I think they, they being Karl Rove, are using it to foster the tired "Don't you dare be treasonous and vote Democratic" crapola they used in the interim elections. I think Americans are wisened to it a little more this time.

[dissention]

Hill will be out there front and center, but expect Slick Willy to stay in the shadows. Hill will be the VP choice and there is no way that our fellow Democrat's will let Bill f*ck this up. This is our shot and they know that Bill is damaged goods to everyone who isn't a Dem.

[strandinthewind]

I do not think it will be Hill because there is nothing to gain by that, Hillary does not want to be VP - she wants to be Pres., I do no think she and Kerry are the best of friends (not that that matters too much), and she cannot get around her saying for four years that she will serve out her NY Sentatorial term, and New York will most assuredly vote for Kerry with or without Hillary.

I think the NM Gov. for the hispanic vote and the vote of thos e outraged by W's immigration "plan." Or, to get a fighting chance in the South, perhaps Edwards. Yet, some other pundits think Gerphardt ot some other person from the mid-west in an effort to secure that region where pretty much everyone agrees the results of the election will be determined.

As they say, only time will tell.

BTW - someone said it would be Bill Clinton :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

I think the NM Gov. for the hispanic vote and the vote of thos e outraged by W's immigration "plan." Or, to get a fighting chance in the South, perhaps Edwards. Yet, some other pundits think Gerphardt ot some other person from the mid-west in an effort to secure that region where pretty much everyone agrees the results of the election will be determined.

As they say, only time will tell.

BTW - someone said it would be Bill Clinton :laugh:

Yep, there is a lot of talk in the state of our good ol' Gov running on for VP....but he is such a slime...haha..so it would be nice to get him out of office here...but then he'd be national lol...so who knows...every time someone brings it up he smirks and denies he'll run...so I think there's a good chance he will...:rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wait until they haul out the flight suit again :laugh:

I have no problem with W noting how he handled 9-11 because that is a legitimate part of his Presidential record and many are happy with the way he handled it, esp. Afganistan. But, I think they, they being Karl Rove, are using it to foster the tired "Don't you dare be treasonous and vote Democratic" crapola they used in the interim elections. I think Americans are wisened to it a little more this time.

I have a huge problem with 9/11 not being prevented by President Bush. It's nothing he should be crowing about.

Now, here's another eye witness account of Georgie's formative years:

http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20040301_tsurumi_president/

"At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." Recently, President Bush's Federal Appeals Court Nominee, California's Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, repeated the same broadside at her Senate hearing. She knew that her pronouncement would please President Bush and Karl Rove and their Senators. President Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, are leading a radical revolution of destroying all the democratic political, social, judiciary, and economic institutions that both Democrats and moderate Republicans had built together since Roosevelt's New Deal."

[strandinthewind]

Having a problem with the wat he handled 9-11 supports my point that it is a legitimate campaign issue :cool:

[DeeGeMe]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wait until they haul out the flight suit again :laugh:

I have no problem with W noting how he handled 9-11 because that is a legitimate part of his Presidential record and many are happy with the way he handled it, esp. Afganistan. But, I think they, they being Karl Rove, are using it to foster the tired "Don't you dare be treasonous and vote Democratic" crapola they used in the interim elections. I think Americans are wisened to it a little more this time.

Excuse me--but remember-on 9/11 Bush flew as far and as fast as he could in the OPPOSITE direction of the East Coast. That's real leadership alright. And it took him how many days to actually go visit Ground Zero following the attack? And does anyone remember the video of him sitting there after Andrew Card told him of the second attack-with that stupid look on his face (well, dumber than usual, anyway). Just sat there, didn't get up, didn't say, "Oops--need to go be presidential now." No, he sat there like the bump on the log that he is. And Afganistan--that was kind of a no-brainer, wasn't it? Did Bush really do anything differently than anyone else would have in the same position?

[strandinthewind]

I think you guys are missing my point, I am not saying that W's actions wqere good or bad after 9/11. I am merely saying it is a legitimate campaign issue because it happened during his Presidency, etc. If it is not a legitimate campaign issue, then both sides should not bring it up, etc. I lament most, but not all of W's post 9-11 but I think we and they should be able to discuss it. My biggest beef with "them" discussing it is that in the television ads, Karl Rove very effectively suggests and implies that if you are against W, you are against the fight on terrorism, which makes me sick. I am very well aware that this concerpt is not knew in political advertising and all incuumbent use this don't change horses in midstream tactic. W and Rove's use, howevdr, is too extreme for me and IMO obviates the chance for any real debate on the many significant issues surrounding 9/11.

[CarneVaca]

The Democrats, being the rubber-spines that they are, will probably squander a brilliant opportunity to fight back. Fight fire with fire, I say. How hard would it be to get one or two of the 9/11 victims' families in a TV spot raising certain questions:

"Mr. Bush, why are you protecting Saudi Arabia for its role in the attact that killed my son?"

"Mr. Bush, why did you allow 50 members of the bin Ladin family to fly out of the US in the aftermath of 9/11 when grieving American citizens were not allowed to get on a plane?"

"Mr. Bush, why won't the White House return my family's phone calls to address our concerns about the attack that made me a widower and my children motherless? For instance, why did the White House ignore highly credible intelligence reports that an attack of this magnitude was imminent?"

"Mr. Bush, not a day goes by that I don't think about my husband who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. And not a day goes by that I don't fret about raising my children without their father. Why are you suppressing information regarding the intelligence breakdown that allowed 9/11 to happen? What do I tell my children, Mr. President, when they ask me how this could happen?"

If the Republicans are going to use it, the Democrats should use it too. And they would be right.

But the Democrats are probably going to lose this one. Already I see signs of incompetence. On Tuesday night, when Ralph Reed was accusing Kerry of voting for 236 tax increases (whatever the number was, it was very specific), all Donna Brazil and Rep. Ford could muster when prompted by Wolf Blitzer to respond was vague inarticulate nonsense. Ford said, well, Kerry has voted double or triple the amount of times as that to cut taxes.

You can't fight a very specific number, 236 (or whatever it was) with vague references of "double or triple." It makes you look like you're waffling, which is a huge issue with Kerry anyway. And by the way, I bet that 236 (or whatever it was) most likely was false and out of context. The Republicans are liars.

But the Democrats are idiots and wimpy so they won't get my vote either.

[strandinthewind]

Amen, DB's response should have been something like, well he voted for Bush I's tax increase. That would have shut them up right there because people are quick to compare W to his father and that ws a R tax increase.

[strandinthewind]

Bush Campaign Defends Ads With 9/11 Images

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=13&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_el_pr/bush_political_ads_9

My fav. quote:

[Karen] Hughes said the ads are a tasteful reminder of what the country has been through the last three years.


"I can understand why some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president and first lady Laura Bush brought to our country in the aftermath of that," she said.

______________________

Tasteful my ass :mad:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not think it will be Hill because there is nothing to gain by that, Hillary does not want to be VP - she wants to be Pres., I do no think she and Kerry are the best of friends (not that that matters too much), and she cannot get around her saying for four years that she will serve out her NY Sentatorial term, and New York will most assuredly vote for Kerry with or without Hillary.

I think the NM Gov. for the hispanic vote and the vote of thos e outraged by W's immigration "plan." Or, to get a fighting chance in the South, perhaps Edwards. Yet, some other pundits think Gerphardt ot some other person from the mid-west in an effort to secure that region where pretty much everyone agrees the results of the election will be determined.

As they say, only time will tell.

BTW - someone said it would be Bill Clinton :laugh:

As usual, we disagree. She will get the VP nomination, mark my words. Of course she wants to be president, but she'll use the VP seat in order to be do so. As for saying that she'll finish her Senate term, that's hogwash. If the opportunity arises, she take it instantly. And it has nothing to do with the NY vote, they know it'll go to Kerry. They will try to appeal to the female vote and, like it or not, she's very popular with this generation. Many of the baby boomers can't stand her, but they'll vote anyways just to get Shrub out of there. It's a win-win situation: we get Shrub out and a Democrat in, then Hillary will run in 2012.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Tasteful my ass :mad:

I wouldn't imagine any ass being very tasty. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
As usual, we disagree. She will get the VP nomination, mark my words. Of course she wants to be president, but she'll use the VP seat in order to be do so. As for saying that she'll finish her Senate term, that's hogwash. If the opportunity arises, she take it instantly. And it has nothing to do with the NY vote, they know it'll go to Kerry. They will try to appeal to the female vote and, like it or not, she's very popular with this generation. Many of the baby boomers can't stand her, but they'll vote anyways just to get Shrub out of there. It's a win-win situation: we get Shrub out and a Democrat in, then Hillary will run in 2012.

Don't get me wrong, although I think she is okay even is she most certainly is, like all other politicians, lying opportunistic crapola,. I would not mind her getting the VP nomination. I think, however, it would be a polarization that will make the perhaps 5% swing votes not want to run to Kerry as her needs them to do, etc. But, time will tell :laugh:

[darklinensuit]

9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads
36 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a firefighters union said Thursday they're angry that President Bush (news - web sites)'s new campaign ads include images of the destroyed World Trade Center and firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble.


They say the ads are in poor taste and accuse Bush of exploiting the attacks. Bush's campaign defended the commercials as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror, saying they were a tasteful reminder of what the country has been through the last three years. The campaign had said in the past that it would not use the attacks for political gain.


"It makes me sick," Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr., in the attacks and leads a victims families group called Peaceful Tomorrows, said Thursday. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That truly is what Ground Zero represents to me."


"September 11th was not just a distant tragedy. It's a defining event for the future of our country," Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser, told "The Early Show" on CBS on Thursday. "Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed our public policy in many important ways, and I think it's vital that the next president recognize that."


The first ads started running Thursday on broadcast channels in about 80 markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be critical to the election, and nationwide on select cable networks. The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), focusing instead on improving Bush's image after criticism by Democrats in recent months. Bush is expected to spend a large part of his $100 million war chest on ads.


One of the ads shows the charred wreckage of the twin towers with a flag flying amid the debris. Another ad — and a Spanish-language version of it — use that image as well alongside firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble as sirens are heard. Firefighters are shown in all the ads.


Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, on Thursday called the ads disgraceful and said they should be pulled.


"We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders," Schaitberger said. He said his union is politically independent even though it endorsed Kerry and has donated money to Republicans.


Barbara Minervino, a Republican from Middletown, N.J., who lost her husband, Louis, in the attacks, questioned whether Bush was "capitalizing on the event."


David Potorti, an independent from Cary, N.C., whose brother Jim died in the north tower, called the campaign's use of the images audacious.


"It's an insult to use the place where my brother died in an ad," Potorti said. "I would be just as outraged if any politician did this."


Until Bush cooperates with the federal commission that is investigating the nation's preparedness before the attacks and its response "by testifying in public under oath ... he should not be using 9/11 as political propaganda," said Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, 39, died in the World Trade Center.


"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened."

- Jake

[DeeGeMe]

Watch this--it'll make you ask a few questions:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
As usual, we disagree. She will get the VP nomination, mark my words.

No way, and you'd better hope not. A lot of Democrats dislike her.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by darklinensuit

WASHINGTON - Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a firefighters union said Thursday they're angry that President Bush (news - web sites)'s new campaign ads include images of the destroyed World Trade Center and firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble.

Precisely what I was talking about. If only the Democrats would now use this tastefully to their advantage... very gingerly though.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
A lot of Democrats dislike her.

But they hate Bush even more. Even moderate Democrats despise him. If it came down to Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Clinton, Kerry/Clinton would win. I can't stand the woman myself and am of the mind that she's an opportunistic bitch with not an ounce of truthfulness to her, but that won't matter in November when the main goal is to rid America of Shrub.

[Merf]

Dissention, you and I agree on a lot of things but there's no way in hell that Kerry will ask Hillary to be his running mate.

I just DON'T forsee that happening. She's a Clinton. The Dems made it very clear after Monica-gate that they wanted nothing to do with the Clintons. Yes, she's a senator, but I'm talking about national government here.

I predict it will be John Edwards or Dick Gephardt.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Merf
Dissention, you and I agree on a lot of things but there's no way in hell that Kerry will ask Hillary to be his running mate.

I just DON'T forsee that happening. She's a Clinton. The Dems made it very clear after Monica-gate that they wanted nothing to do with the Clintons. Yes, she's a senator, but I'm talking about national government here.

I predict it will be John Edwards or Dick Gephardt.

:laugh: We'll just have to wait and see. ;)

I'd like him to pick Nancy Pelosi, but he never will. :(

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by DeeGeMe
Excuse me--but remember-on 9/11 Bush flew as far and as fast as he could in the OPPOSITE direction of the East Coast. That's real leadership alright. And it took him how many days to actually go visit Ground Zero following the attack? And does anyone remember the video of him sitting there after Andrew Card told him of the second attack-with that stupid look on his face (well, dumber than usual, anyway). Just sat there, didn't get up, didn't say, "Oops--need to go be presidential now." No, he sat there like the bump on the log that he is. And Afganistan--that was kind of a no-brainer, wasn't it? Did Bush really do anything differently than anyone else would have in the same position?

To add, he never gave the firefighters in NYC all of the money he promised them either.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

But the Democrats are probably going to lose this one. Already I see signs of incompetence. On Tuesday night, when Ralph Reed was accusing Kerry of voting for 236 tax increases (whatever the number was, it was very specific), all Donna Brazil and Rep. Ford could muster when prompted by Wolf Blitzer to respond was vague inarticulate nonsense. Ford said, well, Kerry has voted double or triple the amount of times as that to cut taxes.

You can't fight a very specific number, 236 (or whatever it was) with vague references of "double or triple." It makes you look like you're waffling, which is a huge issue with Kerry anyway. And by the way, I bet that 236 (or whatever it was) most likely was false and out of context. The Republicans are liars.

But the Democrats are idiots and wimpy so they won't get my vote either. [/B]

Carne, can you provide a link to the transcript? I'd like to read it.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by Merf
Dissention, you and I agree on a lot of things but there's no way in hell that Kerry will ask Hillary to be his running mate.

I just DON'T forsee that happening. She's a Clinton. The Dems made it very clear after Monica-gate that they wanted nothing to do with the Clintons. Yes, she's a senator, but I'm talking about national government here.

I predict it will be John Edwards or Dick Gephardt.

I agree that Edwards is a top contender, but not Gephardt.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/04/03/mai04062.html

-snip-

Subj: In case you missed this ....

Alan Fram of the Associated Press reports how the White House would appear to be preparing both for reelection -- and for a spate of staff departures.

"President Bush is making an unprecedented request to use up to $1 million budgeted for a possible presidential transition to train top officials who would join his administration if he should win a second term."

It's apparently "the first time a president has sought to use public transition funds to prepare officials to enter a re-elected administration," Fram writes. "Democrats and experts on presidential transitions say the funds should not be used when a sitting president is re-elected."

[gldstwmn]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usleak0305,0,2896503.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines

Air Force One phone records subpoenaed
Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was blown

[strandinthewind]

Bill O'Reilly had an interesting point on his show last night. What is the difference between Kerry using Vietnam in his ads and W using 9/11 in his ads. BO ( :laugh: ) pointed out that many more people died in Nam and some of the vets and widows of the vets might find it offensive to promote a political candidate in the same same as the 9/1 people currently find it offensive to use that event to promote a political candidate. BO has a somewhat valid point in that they both are using horrible events for political gain.

I think the difference is 9/11 is more recent and people are still hurting from it far more than people are still hurting from Nam, although Nam clearly fostered a lot of hurt, etc. It is sort of like the 9/11 people are special because of that event. For example, when lay people have expressed an opinion on the memorial at the WTC site, many 9/11 people have stated that because lay people were not directly affected, their opinion was less valid, etc.

In sum, I think W's use of 9/11 as a campaign issue is vailid because his actions, right or wrong, during that time period were part of if not the defining moment of his Presidency. I mean if people want to make it a non-campaign issue or think it is inappropriate to talk about it, then that sword cuts both ways and W should then not be open to attack for it. The D's will never agree to that because they think W's actions after 9/11 and in Iraq (which W directly relates to 9/11) are horrible and reproachable. My only beef with W's ads is these ads again are fostering that whole "if you speak out against W, you are non-patriotic and a traitor," which is not true. Yet, many people buy into that craziness.

[CarneVaca]

Jason, I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Before you start siding with a lying poop dispenser like Bill O'Reilly, you should call your therapist or your priest. :lol: This winner of phantom Peabody Awards has no credibility, and you know it.

To equate invoking 9/11 with bringing up Kerry's Vietnam record is beyond silly. To be sure, I think Kerry has way overplayed that Vietnam hand, but for different reasons. But what O'Reilly and you seem to be trying to do is to equate both men's actions. More fair would be to equate Bush's actions during Vietnam with Kerry's, if you want to go there. But to say that a president who squandered the good will of the world toward Americans in this time of crisis, got us into unnecessary conflicts and made some rather questionable, if not suspicious, moves in the aftermath of 9/11 is OK because Kerry is bringing up his Vietnam record is positively nonsensical.

Refer back to my earlier post on this. There are so many questions surrounding Bush's response to 9/11 and his failure to heed the warnings of the intelligence community before the disaster that one has to wonder just what kind of reality he and his minions are living in. I mean, how stupid is it to invoke 9/11 when you know within hours the families of the victims are going to be reacting in the press? When you know that the families are extremely disillusioned with the way the administration has handled the investigation and its callous disregard for the truth surrounding the tragedy?

I still want to know why the bin Laden family was allowed to fly out of the US when American citizens caught away from home when 9/11 happened were prevented from flying home to their families at a time when being with your family was about the only comfort for many of us. Don't you?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Bill O'Reilly had an interesting point on his show last night. What is the difference between Kerry using Vietnam in his ads and W using 9/11 in his ads. BO ( :laugh: ) pointed out that many more people died in Nam and some of the vets and widows of the vets might find it offensive to promote a political candidate in the same same as the 9/1 people currently find it offensive to use that event to promote a political candidate. BO has a somewhat valid point in that they both are using horrible events for political gain.

Because the images of Vietnam that Kerry uses are only of himself, he doesn't use any other images. Also, one of the biggest draws to Kerry is his stance on Vietnam, his Congressional testimony, and his service. Using 9/11 serves no purpose other than to make Bush look like a hero when he's far from it.

[strandinthewind]

EEK - I agree that the ads W is running are in bad taste because he is showing an actual body being wheeled out of the war torn ETC site with, I believe, an American flag draped over it. that is just too tacky for words in my book.

I am just saying that I agree that 9/11 is a valid campaign issue.


Carne - Although I like to watch BO, I rarely if ever agree with him and do not really agree with him here because of the traitor aspect of the ads I mentioned earlier, which is the clear intent of the ads IMO. I just thought it was an interesting point, etc., for discusion :cool:

Of course, I rarely agree with anyone and, you know, I LOVE to argue :laugh: Again, I became a lawyer because I thought I would get paid by the word!! - if they did, my verbose self would be very, very rich indeed :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Using 9/11 serves no purpose other than to make Bush look like a hero when he's far from it.

I think Rove thinks - "Hey - it worked in the interim elections," etc. I think Rove is wrong here. I think Rove knows something is different than two years age. I think that is why these ads are being tested now. In other words, if they do not work, history shows the majority of people have very short memories for these types of things. Rove is banking on that. I also think Rove will haul out the flight suit pics next. :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Jason, I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Before you start siding with a lying poop dispenser like Bill O'Reilly, you should call your therapist or your priest. :lol: This winner of phantom Peabody Awards has no credibility, and you know it.

To equate invoking 9/11 with bringing up Kerry's Vietnam record is beyond silly. To be sure, I think Kerry has way overplayed that Vietnam hand, but for different reasons. But what O'Reilly and you seem to be trying to do is to equate both men's actions. More fair would be to equate Bush's actions during Vietnam with Kerry's, if you want to go there. But to say that a president who squandered the good will of the world toward Americans in this time of crisis, got us into unnecessary conflicts and made some rather questionable, if not suspicious, moves in the aftermath of 9/11 is OK because Kerry is bringing up his Vietnam record is positively nonsensical.

Refer back to my earlier post on this. There are so many questions surrounding Bush's response to 9/11 and his failure to heed the warnings of the intelligence community before the disaster that one has to wonder just what kind of reality he and his minions are living in. I mean, how stupid is it to invoke 9/11 when you know within hours the families of the victims are going to be reacting in the press? When you know that the families are extremely disillusioned with the way the administration has handled the investigation and its callous disregard for the truth surrounding the tragedy?

I still want to know why the bin Laden family was allowed to fly out of the US when American citizens caught away from home when 9/11 happened were prevented from flying home to their families at a time when being with your family was about the only comfort for many of us. Don't you?

You just saved me a whole lot of typing. Thanks!:wavey: BTW Bush is pulling the 9/11 ads. The survivors and their families were outraged by them, as they should be.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
. . . The survivors and their families were outraged by them, as they should be.

So, Kerry and anyone else should never mention 9/11 as well :shrug: Or, is it only okay to bash W for 9/11 and allow W no response :shrug: Actually, that's not a bad idea :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I also think Rove will haul out the flight suit pics next. :rolleyes:

I hope he does because it will give us a victory in November. :D

[gldstwmn]

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=1268

Ted K: CIA had power to KO war

WASHINGTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy [related, bio] yesterday charged the Bush administration with misleading the country into the Iraqi war and, while stopping just short of calling for impeachment, urged voters to oust the president.

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kennedy said the war ``was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of the intelligence'' by Bush and his administration.

Asked by an audience member whether Bush's actions qualify for impeachment, Kennedy said, ``I'll leave that for another day,'' before quickly adding, ``We have the opportunity to change this in November, and that's where this ought to be changed.''

The Bay State senator, who is campaigning regularly with presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio], also tore into CIA chief George Tenet, who will testify before Congress on Tuesday.

``Why wasn't CIA director Tenet correcting the president and the vice president and the secretary of defense a year ago, when it could have made a difference, when it could have prevented a needless war, when it could have saved so many lives?'' he asked.

Kennedy quoted Bush before the war warning that the final proof of Iraq's threat ``could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

Kennedy added, ``It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda justified immediate war.''

White House spokesman Scott McClellan fired back, denying Kennedy's claims and implying the speech was intended to help Kerry.

``I don't think this is the first time we've heard Sen. Kennedy make such unsubstantiated and baseless charges,'' McClellan said. ``And I imagine, given that it's an election year, it won't be the last time.''

[strandinthewind]

So, Ted doesn't think SH had WMD in hindsight or he doesn't think the 11 years of consistent U.S. and UN policy supported that notion. I mean he is right that the Bush Admin manipulated the evidence and ought to be impeached for it. But I cannot believe he is unwilling to admit that the evidence clearly supported SH had WMD, SH was in violation of the UN for 11 years, and SH was unwilling to prevent this. That, for me was enough to oust him. But, that does not excuse W.'s inane lying to do so.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/national/06GAS.html?th

Motorists Chafing Under a Steady Rise in Gas Prices
By NICK MADIGAN

By NICK MADIGAN

Published: March 6, 2004


OS ANGELES, March 5 — "This is killing me," Bob Sherwood, an electrician who spends a lot of time on the road, said on Friday at a Santa Monica gas station after paying $30 to pump 13 gallons of gasoline into his '71 GMC truck.

"I'm working two hours a day just to pay for the gas to get me to and from home," said Mr. Sherwood, who lives in Castaic, 38 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

Motorists around the country appear similarly distraught at pump prices, which in many places have soared to record or near-record highs. The national average for regular unleaded gas on Friday was a fraction over $1.71, just below the record of $1.73 set on Aug. 30 last year and up 9.4 cents from a month ago. Some drivers and oil industry analysts see a potential for gas prices this summer to rise to $3 .

"It'll probably drop off in late March or in April, but come summer we may see something else altogether," said Jeffrey Spring, a spokesman for the Automobile Club of Southern California.

In California as a whole, the average price of regular gas on Friday was almost $2.18, up marginally from the previous day, Mr. Spring said. California now has the highest gasoline prices in the nation.

Reasons for the increases include prices for crude oil, which sold for a high of $37.45 a barrel on Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Worldwide supply of crude appears to be tight, partly because O.P.E.C., the world's largest oil cartel, plans to cut production next month and because of political and industrial turbulence in Venezuela, a major provider of oil for the United States.

In addition, many refineries in the United States are changing over to production of so-called summer fuels, an expensive process in itself, and refinery operators say they are also having to pass on some of the increased costs of producing gasoline with newly mandated levels of oxygenates, primarily ethanol.

On Thursday, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told reporters that the Bush administration was "extremely concerned" about the rising gasoline prices, but did not specify what could be done about them.

Even in Georgia, where gas prices are normally among the lowest in the country, the increases are hitting home. Orval Donoho, 73, who sometimes works part time transporting cars, said the gas prices were cutting into his and his wife's leisure plans.

"We don't go out as much," he said as he pumped gas at a British Petroleum station in Kennesaw, Ga.

Mr. Donoho said he and his wife will drop plans to attend one of two family reunions in Illinois in June and August. And he will have to think twice, he said, about visiting his sister in Florida. Prices are "too high and too much," he said.

In downtown Detroit, Keith Bibbins, 46, complained that prices were "way too high, too damn high." He was filling up his Chrysler minivan at a B.P. station where a gallon of regular cost $1.69. A week ago, the price was $1.61.

"Every day I have to drop the kids off at day care and commute to work," said Mr. Bibbins, whose daily drive from Clinton Township to Detroit and back is about 60 miles, requiring fill-ups, about $30 a tank, twice a week.

Keith Adolph, a 55-year-old Detroit resident, pulled his tractor-trailer into the Speedway gas station at Jefferson Avenue and Chrysler Drive, said he was frustrated by the prices.

"I think it's a big racket," he said. "It seemed to me that every summer they found a reason to raise prices. Now it seems every weekend."

The increases are especially hard on independent truckers, for whom fuel costs are a large part of doing business.

"It's been devastating," Larry Daniel, president of America's Independent Truckers Association, said from his office in Clinton, Miss. "If they're lucky, and if they're going downhill with a tail wind, some of these trucks get nine miles to the gallon."

Gas stations in Southern New Jersey were charging from $1.53 to $1.67 per gallon for regular gas on Friday. And while those numbers have jumped an average of six cents in the last week, according to several gas station attendants, they were still among the lowest in the region, motivating some Pennsylvania drivers to cross the Delaware River to save 10 or 15 cents a gallon.

In Southern Connecticut, where regular unleaded was selling for about $1.69, Mary Shuda, a truck driver from Rice Lake, Wis., stopped at the Pilot Travel Center in Milford. She said she expects gas prices to get worse over the summer.

"It's a sad thing, because people still want their toilet paper and their toothpaste and their Twinkies at the same price that they've always paid, but it costs more to ship out now," she said as she pumped diesel at $1.79 a gallon. "Eventually it's going to come back to the customer."

[jwd]

Some background on the Peaceful Tomorrows.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/6/121052.shtml



Joe

[gldstwmn]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4511553

Kerry on Bush: 'Houston, We've Got a Problem'

Top News
Iraqis Consult Clerics, Try to Salvage Constitution
Bush Defends Campaign Focus on Sept. 11 Attacks
Libya Gives Up Remaining Nuclear-Related Equipment


MORE

By Patricia Wilson
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House candidate John Kerry blasted President Bush's economic stewardship on Saturday and declared in the Texan's own backyard, "Houston, we've got a problem."

During a Southern swing through four states -- Texas, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana -- that hold primary contests next week, Kerry said Bush had produced a "barrel of broken promises" on jobs, health care and the federal budget.

He called the president "a walking contradiction" who had also failed to make good on vows to change the tone in Washington.

"It's the worst it's ever been. This is the biggest 'my way or the highway' group of people I've ever met in my life," Kerry said.

The Massachusetts senator was on his first campaign trip since clinching the nomination this week with nine out of a possible 10 victories on Super Tuesday.

Bush, who will square off against Kerry on Nov. 2 for a second term in the White House, was at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, about 200 miles from Houston, where he held talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox.

"Didn't he (Bush) promise 4 million jobs would be created with those tax cuts?" a raspy-voiced Kerry asked during a town hall meeting at Houston Community College.

"We lost 3 million ... 2.8 million Americans have lost their health care, he promised he was going to reduce the debt of our country by $1 trillion and he's added $1 trillion to the debt of our country," Kerry said.

"As the phrase goes, Houston, we've got a problem." He was referring to the now-legendary report of trouble aboard the U.S. Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970.

ROLL BACK

Kerry has promised to roll back Bush's tax cuts for Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, but supports targeted middle-class tax cuts for college, child care and health care.
He said he would cut the federal budget deficit in half in four years. He has also proposed $50 billion for states to create jobs, tax credits for manufacturing, closing tax loopholes and cracking down on trade violations.
Kerry used the Democrats' weekly radio address to criticize Bush for misplacing priorities in Iraq by spending billions of dollars on contracts to Halliburton Co., which Vice President Dick Cheney once headed, but not providing U.S. troops enough armor and other protective equipment.

"Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor," Kerry said. He said he would introduce legislation later this month, called the Military Family Bill of Rights, "to prevent anything like this from ever happening again."

Bush and his allies have portrayed Kerry as an elitist Massachusetts liberal and a chronic waffler. Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel cited the radio address as another example of "his astonishing ability to say one thing and do another."

Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla of Texas said Kerry's fiscal policies would damage the state's economic momentum and pointed to "inconsistent stances" as evidence that the four-term senator lacked "the decisiveness to lead in difficult times."

<snip>

[gldstwmn]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4467791

2004 Campaign: A 'Shocking' Stumble

March 15 issue - The controversy over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring fake firefighters and fleeting images of the 9/11 attacks threw campaign officials on the defensive—and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to effectively spend its massive $150 million war chest, some GOP insiders say. The president's ad team, led by Austin, Texas-based media maven Mark McKinnon, had carefully road-tested the spots in focus groups, and Bush himself signed off. But the rollout of the ads, which argue that Bush has made the country "safer, stronger," was quickly marred by charges from some 9/11 families that the Bush team was seeking to exploit the attacks for political gain. One scene shows footage of a flag-draped coffin of a terror victim; another has an American flag waving in front of World Trade Center wreckage. Publicly, Bush aides were dismissive and insisted the flap had only strengthened their plan to make 9/11 "a central topic of the campaign." "There's no way you can talk about George W. Bush without talking about September 11," said one campaign adviser. "It's like talking about Franklin Roosevelt without mentioning World War II." But privately, some GOP strategists were disturbed by the backlash and suggested the ad team had misjudged how the imagery would play. "It's quite shocking to a number of Republicans to watch them stumble out of the block like this," said one veteran GOP consultant, who added that the big question in GOP circles is "Do they [the Bush-Cheney campaign] know how to spend" their huge budget?

Another less-publicized aspect of the ad flap: the use of paid actors—including two playing firefighters with fire hats and uniforms in what looks like a fire station. "Where the hell did they get those guys?" cracked Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed John Kerry, when he first saw the ads. (A union spokesman said the shots prompted jokes that the fire hats looked like the plastic hats "from a birthday party.") "There's many reasons not to use real firemen," retorted one Bush media adviser. "Mainly, its cheaper and quicker."

The flap is likely to put renewed attention on the White House's continuing wrangle with the 9/11 Commission. Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of a 9/11 family group, charged it was "hypocritical" of the Bush team to use September 11 when the president has refused to turn over sensitive intelligence documents to the full commission and, more recently, insisted that Bush himself will meet with the panel's chair and co-chair for only one hour. Even some GOP panel members are miffed at the White House stand—and blame it on administration lawyers. In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won't walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.