Bush's first campaign ads invoke 9/11
 

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.

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.:)

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.

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.

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:

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:

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/essay...umi_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."

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Bush Campaign Defends Ads With 9/11 Images

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...olitical_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:

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.