posted on June 1, 2004 11:44:15 PM new
Bush Campaign Goes Negative
New Kerry TV Ad Shows U.S. as 'Optimists'
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP
WASHINGTON (June 1) - John Kerry is embarking on a new round of campaign ads that deliver the upbeat message that the United States is ''a country of optimists'' - a contrast to President Bush's commercials criticizing his Democratic rival.
At this stage in the presidential race - five months before Election Day - the incumbent typically highlights his own accomplishments while the challenger tries to undercut the White House occupant. That's not the case this year in a campaign that political analysts say could be the most negative yet.
''Bush is going full blast against Kerry,'' said John Geer, a Vanderbilt University professor who has studied 40 years of presidential campaign ads. ''It's somewhat surprising, but it's not unlike what we've seen from previous incumbents who've been in trouble.''
Recent polls show Bush's approval ratings at the lowest point of his presidency, with some in the low 40s. Two of the most negative presidential advertising campaigns were in 1992 and 1980, years in which two incumbents - George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter - lost re-election.
The Bush campaign mostly has run ads that try to portray Kerry as a flip-flopping liberal who would raise taxes and remains weak on national security. The few commercials that have accentuated the Republican's attributes have aired fewer times.
Mary Matalin, a senior adviser to Bush's re-election campaign, defended the campaign's approach during an interview on NBC's ''Today'' show and said Bush's ads aren't negative. ''We're not making up anything. These ads are Kerry's own words or Kerry's own records,'' Matalin said.
Kerry's campaign has used Bush's negative ads - and misleading statements in some - to claim Bush isn't fit for the White House.
''We believe voters want to hear how to make America stronger not to tear it down,'' said Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager. ''John Kerry is running a positive ad campaign based on his record, and that's something George Bush simply cannot do.''
But Kerry hasn't always stayed positive this year. He ran more than a dozen ads in Iowa and New Hampshire assailing Bush during the Democratic primary, and five such ads in March and April after securing the nomination.
Still, Kerry's commercials have been wholly positive since early May when he launched his biographical spots. His latest commercial, unveiled Tuesday and set to begin airing Wednesday in 19 states, focuses on his domestic and foreign agenda.
''We're a country of the future. We're a country of optimists. We're the can-do people,'' Kerry says in the ad, part of an $18 million buy for June. It doesn't mention Bush but is meant to subtly contrast Kerry's proposals with Bush's record.
Political analysts say there's no reason for Kerry to draw sharper contrasts now, given the bad news coming from Iraq and the fact that Kerry's allies among independent groups are running anti-Bush ads.
"Bush is going full blast against Kerry. It's somewhat surprising, but it's not unlike what we've seen from previous incumbents who've been in trouble."
-John Geer
Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief strategist, said the Bush campaign could run spots about the president this fall, but said there was no need for such ads now because the GOP base solidly supports the president. Some of Kerry's support, Dowd argued, is soft and could be swayed.
Dowd said he didn't think Kerry's upbeat ads have helped the Democrat or that Bush's critical ads have hurt him, largely because the heavy news period has blunted the effectiveness of all ads.
But Kerry's strategists believe that taking the high road has improved Kerry's image, while Bush has been hurt by taking the low road. Kerry strategists cited independent polls, including last week's National Annenberg Election Survey from the University of Pennsylvania that showed that 44 percent of people in battleground states where ads are running the heaviest view Kerry favorably, up from early May when 39 percent had a favorable impression.
The survey also showed Bush's image deteriorating in the same states, with 44 percent of people surveyed viewing the president favorably, a drop from 48 percent in early May.
Mark Mellman, Kerry's pollster, said: ''The president's ad campaign is backfiring against him.''
But Adam Clymer, the survey's political director, said there's no evidence to indicate that, particularly because Bush's slippage has occurred throughout the nation - not just where his negative ads are running.
''It's the news that's affecting him,'' Clymer said.
Regardless, Geer predicted an end to positive ads in the coming months, saying: ''Rest assured that Kerry will go after Bush before the end of this election.''
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 2, 2004 03:39:34 AM new
What else can Bush do commercials on? Ha! He now has to resort to mud slinging. IMO, the American people don't want to play the "he did this and he did that" game anymore. I noticed this trend a while ago. While Kerry is doing commercials about what he plans to do as president, Bush is slinging you-know-what onto American TV screens. He's pathetic.
posted on June 2, 2004 05:14:46 AM new
Lets not forget Cheney. He worked for Bush 1. If Bush 1 finished the job we would not be in this mess today. Bush 1, Bush 2 and Cheney are all failed leaders.
posted on June 2, 2004 06:09:28 AM new "Bush is going full blast against Kerry. It's somewhat surprising, but it's not unlike what we've seen from previous incumbents who've been in trouble."
Bush is going full blast into oblivion and will be remembered here and all over the world as the most incompetent and dangerous president in the history of the United States.
posted on June 2, 2004 10:18:40 AM new
Optimists - Yes....even though posters here would have us believe otherwise Americans are pretty satisfied with their lives.....and see the Glass as 1/2 full....rather than 1/2 empty.
It makes me laugh to think some here believe kerry's been running a positive campaign.....becuase nothing could be further from the truth. He has blasted everything President Bush has done.....and offers no solutions...just general vague 'solutions'.
--------------------
Maybe this poll, mentioned in The Washington Times this morning is where kerry goe his 'optimistist American' statement from.
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Americans are optimistic, "very satisfied with life" and have confidence in their public institutions, especially the U.S. armed forces and law-enforcement agencies, two new polls show.
Fifty-six percent of Americans say their personal situation has improved over the last five years, up seven points since last year, and 68 percent expect their personal situation to improve over the next five years, up five points from 2003, a Harris poll released yesterday found.
"These changes since last year almost certainly reflect improvements in the economy and are probably good news for President Bush," the poll stated. "The better people feel about their personal situation, the more likely they are to vote for an incumbent."
The number of people who feel their lives have worsened in the last five years declined to 16 percent, five percentage points lower than last year.
Meanwhile, the nation's confidence in its public institutions is on the rise, according to a Gallup poll released yesterday.
Americans trust their military the most, with 75 percent saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the armed forces. The figure is more or less on par with previous years, despite the Iraqi prisoner-abuse problem.
Last year, the confidence level in the military was 82 percent. In 2002, it was 79 percent.
American law enforcement has also won the public's trust, with 64 percent saying they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the police. It is the highest rating for law enforcement in more than a decade, and up from 61 percent last year and 59 percent in 2002.
According to the Harris poll of 979 adults taken between April 8 and 15, men are slightly happier than women.
Overall, 60 percent of American males report being "very satisfied with life." Fifty-nine percent of women agree.
Another 55 percent of men say their lives have improved in the last five years and 71 percent expect them to improve in the future.
Among women, those figures were 57 percent and 65 percent, respectively.
Along racial and ethnic lines, 61 percent of blacks say they are "very satisfied" with their lives. The figure was 60 percent among whites and 46 percent among Hispanics.
Whites were the least optimistic about the future, with 62 percent saying their lives would improve in five years. The figure was 86 percent for both blacks and Hispanics.
The happiest Americans? It is a tie between the 25- to 29-year-old crowd and those over 65 ? in both groups, 69 percent reported they were "very satisfied." Still, 89 percent of those from 25 to 29 said their lives would improve over the next five years; only 23 percent of those over 65 agreed.
According to the Gallup poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 21 to 23, 53 percent said they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in both organized religion and the banking system.
Another 52 percent felt the same about the presidency.
Confidence levels varied elsewhere, with 46 percent citing their confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, 44 percent in the medical system, 41 percent in public schools and 34 percent in the criminal justice system.
At the very bottom of the list were health maintenance organizations at 18 percent, "big business" at 24 percent; newspapers, TV news and the U.S. Congress all at 30 percent, and organized labor at 31 percent.
-------------------
posted on June 2, 2004 11:35:10 AM newBush Campaign Goes Negative
As opposed to the Kerry campaign that has been negative from the start.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on June 2, 2004 01:21:16 PM new
George Bush is a Post Turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher (whose
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle), the doctor and the old
man struck up a conversation about George W. Bush being in the White
House. The old Texan said, "Well, ya know, Bush is a 'post turtle'." Not
being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle'
was. The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road an
you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a
post turtle." The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he
doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there,
and you just want to help the dumb thing get down!"
posted on June 2, 2004 01:28:39 PM new
Figures dave and helen would slam the Washington Times for reporting results taken from THE GALLUP POLL AND THE HARRIS POLL - two very well respected pollsters - but because it's the WT that prints the results of the poll.....they can't be believed.
Just can't believe the truth if it isn't reported on anything other than the Moscow Times or the NYT.
posted on June 2, 2004 01:39:46 PM new
Linda: He has blasted everything President Bush has done.
Please explain all the good things Bush has done during his presidency.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 2, 2004 03:02:02 PM new
logansdad - I'm going to tell you the same thing I told helen....and her tag-along. I'm not going to waste my breath listing ALL the reasons I support this President.
I think anybody that has read my posts for any length of time can figure out *exactly why* I support President Bush's re-election. It's that I support most of his policies....and the positions the Republican party have taken. Are there things I disagree with him on? SURE....but not enough to make me side with kerry.
But even more than that....it the fact that the democrat party has, this time, chosen as their candidate the most ultra-liberal, weak man in the Senate. He is way too far left for my comfort zone. And kerry is such a poor example of a man to lead this country....nothing like other democratic presidents we've had in the past. kerry's a joke and the only reason he has much of the support that he does is because the dems don't have any other choice than him. It's not because they support HIM...or HIS RECORD - for sure. After all these years in the Senate he has accomplished almost nothing. Check his record out yourself.
posted on June 2, 2004 03:13:05 PM new
Read the whole article..........
Bush leads in negative ads, but Kerry has help
Independent groups close gap by running own spots that attack the president
by Mark Memmott | May 18 '04
The Bush-Cheney campaign has produced more negative TV ads than the campaign of Sen. John Kerry and is devoting more of its budget to airing them than Kerry is committing to his negative ads, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
But spending by independent, anti-Bush organizations has made up the difference. The $30 million those groups devoted to negative, anti-Bush ads has meant the amount of money spent on attacks aimed at each candidates is about the same.
Looking at ads produced by the two presidential campaigns and at information collected by an independent, ad-monitoring service and released by the campaigns, USA TODAY found that at least $45 million, nearly two-thirds of the $70.5 million spent so far by the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been to air its seven negative ads.
Kerry's spending on his five negative ads can't be traced as thoroughly because three have aired almost solely on cable channels, where spending isn't tracked. But it is known that Kerry has spent $25 million, 56% of the $44.5 million he has spent so far, to air two positive, biographical ads about himself. So as a percentage of ad spending, the amount he has devoted to negative ads is smaller than the Bush campaign's.
If polls continue to show the Bush-Kerry race even, the trends set so far in the two campaigns' ad efforts will probably continue, political scientists and admakers predict. That means, they say, the Bush-Cheney campaign's ad effort will remain on average more negative than Kerry's.
"I would expect Bush's 'positive' percentage (of ads) to go up some and Kerry's 'negative' percentage to rise a bit," says William Benoit, a University of Missouri-Columbia communications professor who studies political ads. "But Kerry's only likely to go really negative if he gets well behind in the polls."
USA TODAY reviewed the major ads released by the campaigns since March 1, after Kerry clinched the Democratic presidential nomination and the general campaign began. The review covered 13 Bush-Cheney ads and 10 Kerry ads. It did not include ads that have aired in only a few states, including a Spanish-language ad released by the Bush-Cheney campaign last week. Independent research on ad spending and the ads' contents were also studied.
Negative ads were defined as ads that are "as much or more about your opponent than you."
Among USA TODAY's findings:
* Kerry is referred to by name or indirectly 40 times in Bush's ads. "That's no accident, and they're not saying nice things" about Kerry as the Bush-Cheney campaign tries to define him in voters' minds, says Linda Kaplan Thaler, CEO of the Kaplan Thaler Group. Her admaking company's clients include the AFLAC insurance company. Bush is referred to 14 times in Kerry's ads.
Bush's aides have said repeatedly that their campaign's ads are not "negative" but instead "comparative." Kerry's aides have said repeatedly that the Democrat's ads are designed more to tell voters about Kerry than to strike at Bush.
* According to data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group and obtained by USA TODAY, the Bush-Cheney campaign has spent about $56.7 million so far to air ads on TV stations in 100 markets. Nearly all those stations are in states that both campaigns believe they have a chance to win.
Of that $56.7 million, TMI/CMAG's research shows 63% -- $36 million -- has been spent to air the seven negative ads.
Last week, the campaign said it would continue running an ad called "Doublespeak," which charges that Kerry has "waffled" on major issues, for another two weeks. The Associated Press reported that the extended "ad buy," or purchase of advertising time, would cost $9 million. That brought the campaign's spending on negative ads to $45 million.
Data gathered by TMI/CMAG show Kerry has spent at least $9 million -- 20% of his ad buys so far -- to air two of his five negative ads. Spending on the other three is not available because they have aired on cable networks that TMI/CMAG does not track.
* Nearly half the statements in Bush's TV campaign ads are attacks aimed at Kerry, University of Missouri-Columbia researchers say. That compares with the 19% of statements in Kerry's ads that are attacks aimed at Bush, they say.
Kerry's ads haven't been as negative as Bush's in part because the senator needs to introduce himself to many voters, communications and political-science researchers say. "When you're defining yourself, not the other person, you're going to be spending more time on positive things than you are on negatives," says Christine Williams, political science professor at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass.
Also, anti-Bush organizations such as The Media Fund and MoveOn.org Voter Fund have been running the most aggressive ads of the campaign so far, giving Kerry less of a need to go on the offensive. The Missouri researchers estimate 84% of the statements in those groups' ads have been attacks aimed at Bush. Those organizations have spent at least $30 million so far this year on TV ads. Together with Kerry's negative ads, then, more than $40 million has certainly been spent on anti-Bush ads so far -- close to Bush's total spending on negative ads.
posted on June 2, 2004 03:27:26 PM new From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity Scholars Say Campaign Is Making HistoryWith Often-Misleading Attacks
Washington Post
By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01
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.
Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.
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.
The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates -- all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and "flip-flopped" on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.
"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 terms of the magnitude of the distortions, those who study political discourse say Bush's are no worse than those that have been done since, as Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar put it, "the beginning of time."
Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.
But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."
Attacks Get Early Start
The attacks have started unusually early -- even considering the accelerated primary calendar -- in part because Bush was responding to a slew of attacks on his record during the Democratic primaries, in which the rivals criticized him more than one another. And because the Bush campaign has spent an unprecedented sum on advertising at this early stage of the campaign, "the average voter is getting a much more negative impression," said Ken Goldstein, who tracks political advertising at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions.
Sometimes the charges ring true. Last week, Kerry told NBC: "I'm for the Patriot Act, but I'm not for the Patriot Act the way they abuse the Constitution." That brought to mind Kerry's much-mocked contention in March on Iraq spending: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
But often they distort Kerry's record and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce negative perceptions of him.
One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.
In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.
The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.
On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.
Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.
Stretching the Truth
Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.
Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.
"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.
The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."
But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.
On Tuesday, the Bush campaign held a conference call to discuss its new ad, which charged that Kerry was "pressured by fellow liberals" to oppose wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillance in the USA Patriot Act. "Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists," the ad said.
Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them. In the conference call, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was prodded to offer evidence that Kerry was pressured by liberals or that Kerry opposed wiretaps. He offered no direct evidence, saying only that Kerry objected to the Patriot Act after liberals did, and that "a common-sense reading indicates he intends to repeal those important tools."
Meanwhile, Kerry was greeted in Oregon and Washington state with television ads paid for by the Bush campaign that underscore what ad analysts call the negativity and misleading nature of many of the Bush TV spots. One titled "Doublespeak" pulls quotes from several major newspapers to argue that Kerry has waffled on major issues and has often said one thing and done another. The quotes, however, are often from editorials, sometimes from opinion pages hostile toward Kerry, such as that of the Wall Street Journal.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, as Kerry talked about rising gasoline prices, the Bush campaign recycled its charge that Kerry supports raising the gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon. This was done in a memo to reporters and through Bush surrogates such as Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.). The Bush-Cheney Web site also features a "Kerry Gas Tax Calculator," allowing users to learn "How much more would he cost you?"
In Thursday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Tracey Schmitt, regional spokeswoman for Bush-Cheney '04, echoed the point: "John Kerry helped block the bill in the Senate and is now inserting himself into the debate in a blatant display of political opportunism. Senator Kerry supported higher gas taxes at least 11 times, including a 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax," Schmitt said.
On Thursday, after Kerry delivered a major foreign policy address, the Bush campaign dispatched Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to make this statement to the Green Bay Press-Gazette in his home state: "John Kerry has a history of making proposals and casting votes that would decrease America's safety." Kerry was campaigning in Green Bay on Thursday and Friday.
It is true Kerry has voted numerous times to eliminate weapons systems and opposed the 1991 Iraq war. But Cheney voted against many of those same weapons systems, and Kerry has voted for several defense increases, especially in recent years.
At Bush campaign headquarters on Thursday, Mehlman held a conference call with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and George Allen (R-Va.) to level similar charges. "For John Kerry, the war in Iraq and the overall war on terror are a political game of Twister," Mehlman said.
Mehlman also drew reporters' attention to a new feature on the Bush Web site, allowing visitors to "Track Kerry's Shifting Positions on Iraq." That feature joined a Web log that points out negative coverage of Kerry, a feature called "John Kerry: The Raw Deal," "The Kerry Line," "Kerry Flip Flop of the Day," and "Journeys with John," a Kerry itinerary allowing people to see why "John Kerry is wrong for your state."
On Wednesday, a Bush memo charged that Kerry "led the fight against creating the Department of Homeland Security." While Kerry did vote against the Bush version multiple times, it is not true that he led the fight, but rather was one of several Democrats who held out for different labor agreements as part of its creation. Left unsaid is that, in the final vote, Kerry supported the department -- which Bush initially opposed.
Staff writer Howard Kurtz contributed to this report.
posted on June 2, 2004 03:46:30 PM new
This is how our election process works, they sling a little mud at us and then we sling a little back at them. It'll all be washed out in the end when Bush is re-elected and it all won't have mattered a bit. Dontcha just love it.
posted on June 2, 2004 05:46:57 PM new
"Liberals' tortured argument that they can hate the President, hate the troops and hate American foreign policy, while not actively hurting our country's foreign policy goals is becoming less convincing by the day."
--Joe Scarborough
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on June 2, 2004 08:05:49 PM new
Here we go again Bear1949 is posting more lies. I believe Bear hates almost everything including himself. I am a liberal and I don't hate Bush/Cheney but I do believe they are FAILURES. This liberal stands behind our Proud and Brave American Troops 100%. Bush/Cheney are big time failed leaders of our Brave Troops. We non-hating people are going to remove these failed leaders this time around.
posted on June 3, 2004 08:06:55 AM new
logansdad - I'm going to tell you the same thing I told helen....and her tag-along. I'm not going to waste my breath listing ALL the reasons I support this President.
Linda, in other words you can not think of anything good that Bush has done during his presidency. I wasn't asking you why you support Bush. I was asking for a list of the good things you felt Bush during his term in office because I frankly can't think of one positive thing other than the so called tax refund he gave out.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 3, 2004 08:29:08 AM new
No, logansdad - AGAIN you would be wrong.
It's a matter of not being interested in the fruitless act of providing a 'list' to argue about with you lefties. In the many political threads here where we discuss the different issues.....anyone can read my responses on the issues where I support this President and his administration and figure it out.
posted on June 3, 2004 10:06:14 AM new"Linda, in other words you can not think of anything good that Bush has done during his presidency. I wasn't asking you why you support Bush. I was asking for a list of the good things you felt Bush during his term in office because I frankly can't think of one positive thing other than the so called tax refund he gave out."
As usual you are right, logansdad. Most people would be proud to list the accomplishments of a president that they would like to see reelected. But not Linda... she's "not interested" because as she admits, it's "fruitless".
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 3, 2004 10:09 AM ]
posted on June 3, 2004 10:43:24 AM new
Linda: In the many political threads here where we discuss the different issues.....anyone can read my responses on the issues where I support this President and his administration and figure it out.
Linda, you can support Bush because he has the same values and beliefs as you. I am not here to argue that point.
You stated Kerry has blasted everything Bush has done. I wanted to see what Bush done that was so great. Perhaps I am only seeing the negative things that Kerry is seeing. There is a difference stating the positive things that happened during the Bush presidency and why you support him, imo.
If I could find any positive things that Bush did during the past 4 years I would state them. It still wouldn't mean I would vote for him in November.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 3, 2004 10:50:32 AM new
I've asked Linda variations of that question for months now and she continues to dodge it by saying she's already answered. I've been following the political discussions here for over a year and I've never seen her answer.
Since conditions have changed so drastically in this past year I am truly interested how she can still believe totally in President Bush like she did before and what positive things he is doing for the country.
I do know she agrees with President Bush as far as him pushing his religious stance on government. She agrees with him about gay marriages not being allowed. She agrees with him pushing states to only teach sexual abstinence in schools and not other forms of birth control.
I know how much she agrees with him declaring war on any country he chooses to, jumping head first without thinking of consequences. I know that she thinks the troops that have lost their lives is a very low number and isn't something to dwell on. I know she totally disregards other countries and cultures, so much so that others have called her a bigot.
Linda has admitted that she sees no problem about the economy because she doesn't personally know anyone who has suffered a job loss. So I would say her choices for voting for Bush are mostly religious and war mongering with a touch of denial as to what the real world is like.
But the issues I've mentioned above may seem like positive moves to Linda and she has every right to believe in them and her leader.
posted on June 3, 2004 12:57:32 PM newShe does not speak for me...nor my positions and has falsely stated my positions, views and opinions on the issues.
Isn't that the same thing you've done for me, Linda? For months now you've falsely tagged me as being a socialist, anti-American and not supporting the troops and you've been relentless about it even though I've said otherwise.
I will correct what I said.
Linda does not agree with President Bush as far as him pushing his religious stance on government. She does not agree with him about gay marriages not being allowed. She does not agree with him pushing states to only teach sexual abstinence in schools and not other forms of birth control.
She does not agree with him declaring war on any country he chooses to, jumping head first without thinking of consequences. She shows tolerance towards all other countries and cultures.
posted on June 3, 2004 02:06:21 PM new
Linda: Disclaimer to kiara's false statements of my positions, views and opinions:
She does not speak for me...nor my positions and has falsely stated my positions, views and opinions on the issues.
Linda, then why don't you state your views and those great things that Bush has done during his term in office if the above is true. Are you afraid what you state will be used against you?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 3, 2004 02:24:21 PM new
I don't see anything wrong with Kiara's statements. You have said those things, Linda. Maybe not directly, but following what you post it would appear Kiara is right.
posted on June 3, 2004 04:37:46 PM new
Linda has stated those opinions that I said the first time and she's done so more than once. But now she hasn't refuted my second post so I take this to mean that she's changed her mind on a few issues such as gay marriage and the war.
That's okay if you're feeling confused, Linda. A lot has happened recently.
