posted on April 22, 2003 09:17:56 PM new
Pretty sleazy, IMO...Any thing to steer the campaign away from the economy, I suppose, even though any fool knows it's Clinton's fault
copied whole to avoid their snoopy log-in:
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 21 President Bush (news - web sites)'s advisers have drafted
a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in
the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the
third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising
advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.
In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200
million twice the amount of his first campaign to finance television
advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads
up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record
amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr.
Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.
The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least
officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech
now set for Sept. 2.
The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the
Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose
the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third
anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon (news - web sites) attacks.
The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election
campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in
combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped
it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the
opening weeks of the general election campaign.
The strategy, described by Republicans close to the White House, is intended to
highlight what Mr. Bush's advisers want to be the main issue of his campaign,
national security, while intensifying his already formidable fund-raising
advantage in the general election campaign.
By scheduling the start of the convention for Aug. 30, a month after Democrats
choose their candidate, the White House has put off the imposition of spending
ceilings that take effect when the parties officially nominate their
candidates.
Under campaign spending laws, candidates who accept public financing will have
about $75 million to spend between the nominating conventions and Election Day.
Because the Democrats scheduled their convention for late July, the party's
candidate will have to stretch out the same allocation over a longer period.
The nominees of both parties are expected to accept public financing.
Even though Mr. Bush will not begin his formal campaign until after the
convention, his political team is preparing to begin broadcasting television
advertisements as early as next spring. By that point, the White House expects
the Democratic candidate to be settled, but battered and sapped of money from
the primaries, and thus unable to counter a Republican advertising assault.
The strategy of starting so late and building the campaign around the events in
New York is not without risks. Mr. Bush's advisers said they were wary of being
portrayed as exploiting the trauma of Sept. 11, a perception that might be
particularly difficult to rebut as Mr. Bush shuttles between political events
at Madison Square Garden and memorial services at ground zero.
Well, if that devious maneuver by the Bush administration is succcessful, we can blame the media, the congress and the senate, for the state of ignorance in which they left the American people - duped and abandoned.
posted on April 23, 2003 09:28:27 AM new
Republicans should not have to resort again to devious and sleezy tactics to achieve success. Based on past electoral events though, I wouldn't dismiss the article as a "crock of sh!t" yet.
I agree with your final statement that the Democrats need to develop their own strategy. Speaking out loud may be a good start.
This is an interesting post in which you mentioned Bush, Lincoln and FDR. So far, Bush still refuses to tell the truth about oil. Wonder why he just can't tell the truth?
"9-11 should be strongly "peddled" by any setting president."
"We were attacked, had thousands murdered, 4 planes destroyed, two world class buildings destroyed, as well as part of the Pentagon. The ongoing terrorist situation is also destroying our economy."
"It doesn't make any difference who is president when it comes to destroying enemies. The responsibility comes with the office, not the individual, or party in office."
"Bush can be defeated at the next election, but it will require a War Democrat."
"The majority of Americans overlooked the economy in the last election, and will overlook it again PROVIDED Bush is able to prosecute the war to some semblance of progress."
"Lincoln had a far worse record on civil rights, and the institution of the draft caused major riots, not to mention the thousands of war casualities, but he was re-elected via his firm and clear vision of victory, and delivering victories, even small ones."
"I can no longer buy into the fade that this war is "different" or more challenging than any other. The current war is always seen this way. What we are faced with is nothing compared to what Franklin Roosevelt faced- a 2 theatre war with our Pacific fleet sunk or crippled in Pearl Harbor, and the savage defeat of our first excursions into N Africa against the Germans."
"The Bush administration refuses to tell the truth about oil-- and I don't mean some silly a## conspiracy theory--- I mean that our country, as well as the industrialized world, is hoplessly dependent on foreign oil over which we have less and less control."
"I have no qualms about securing oil supplies, but not by boot licking countries such as Saudi Arabia, which pours millions into terrorist hands."
posted on April 23, 2003 03:23:56 PM new
You said, reamond, "The Bush administration refuses to tell the truth about oil."...from your quote above.
To wage a war to establish power over the oil rich region of Iraq and call it something else is deceptive and devious.
The American people were deceived when they were led to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Now, according to the article posted by Profe, they are planning to enhance their re-election by using the same ruse...9/11!!!
posted on April 23, 2003 04:12:28 PM new
Colin - They know there's a good possibility of that happening. That's what keeps them worried about each statement that's made about how he might handle his re-election campaign. LOL
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 05:00:25 PM new
Oh God Helen its not sleezy as you say. IT is politics, sorry, it is! It always has been.
YES the Dems need and have needed their own strategy, why don't they do something about their own party. What are the Dem canidates doing now... well so far, all I've heard so far is putting down the current Pres. and the war... the war that THEY supported... that makes sense (rolling eyes here)
WE need a good military. Dems have tried cutting back military for a long time. WE NEED A GOOD MILITARY, we always will... its just a fact of life, and the freedom we have and have had
And why was Lincoln a bad Pres again?
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 23, 2003 05:38:30 PM new
Bush is a slam dunk in 2004 which means four more years of unbearable pain for liberals. The question is who will win in 2008. I'd like to see Condi Rice run against Hillary Clinton in 2008. If Condi Rice wins and becomes president, you will see huge numbers of minority Americans join the republican party and the democrats will be doomed forever!
