America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by dbguru. 17 replies replies.
CAREFUL! READING SKILLS REQUIRED
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
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 when he was challenged 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.

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.
JonR Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Buffalo Bob: (The Howdy Doody Show),"Hey kids what time is it?".

The Peanut Gallery: "Its Copy and Paste time Buffalo BoB!".

JonR
CWFoster Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
OK, the gist of what I'm getting here is that while Bush has been running more negative ads than Kerry, the Dems got a jump-start from all the candidates slinging mud at him early in the primaries. The writer cites a presumably neutral group that claims to be keepin score. They also cite the use of press releases and emails on the part of the Bush campaign. Do they, I wonder, cite the statements made by the Chairman of the DNC? As if he wasn't coordinating with their front-running candidate? As to how accurate the charges are, well they SAY that Kerry is misinterpreted, but check his voting record! As you said Rick, reading skills (and some research) are required! I challenge you to do what the liberals who decry the use of cut and paste, (as they do it themselves)recommend. Check it out for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Personally, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
penzt8 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
I heard that Kerry once kicked a dog
BeatDragon Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-28-2003
Posts: 4,754
I wesch I wuznt elletter8 so I cud red wat wuz wrtted
MACS Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,908
What car?
dbguru Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Tough when facts get in the way of an opinion. So many of you outspoken right wingers have made up your mind and closed it off to the rest of the world. I've said it before... even if we had indisputable truth that Bush was the Anti-Christ, you'd still doubt the facts and vote for him.... OH well, guess what... you aren't the target here.

All in all I thought this was a pretty factual thoughtful and neutral post meant to help undecideds sitting on the fence. A bit long and I'd like to know the source but interesting.
dbguru Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Rick you didn't write this yourself did you??
MACS Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,908
My "what car" was a short note that actually meant, I chose not to read the book disguised as a post.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
dbguru

me? no, i'm more a copy and paste man.

you should be able to recognize my style of writing by now, long, complex sentences, with a bit of humor, and at the minimum, three commas, and a hint of little w bashing.

(like that)
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
MACS(SW)

but then you wouldn't be able to add the "what car" line.
bloody spaniard Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I'll get back to you next week.
I'm only on page 9.
bassdude Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
db 'So many of you outspoken right wingers have made up your mind and closed it off to the rest of the world.'

pot calling the kettle black?
dbguru Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Remeber Bassdude.. I used to vote Republican... even as recently as 2000 I voted for a Republican senator.
However the extreme radical polarizing tactics of the neo-cons really demand some exposure. Its a shame the Republican party has succumbed to them.

I'm a lot more open minded about these things than you perceive
bloody spaniard Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
db, as you probably know by now, I USED to ALWAYS vote/support the straight Republican ticket myself.

I apologize that I haven't lingered on many of the political threads because they just go on and on... so I don't know all of your views.

How do you feel about abortion, NAFTA, feminists, and the greenies (environmental movement), import tariffs, & outsourcing?

I was curious to see how much we had in common politically.

blood
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
bloody spaniard

abortion--- none of the govt's business

NAFTA--- this is what happens when the govt gets involved. SNAFU

feminists---nothing wrong with movements designed to help people that feel they are not getting full benifit of their rights.

greenies (environmental movement)--- right or wrong on specific issues, necessary to keep things in check.

import tariffs---don't work

outsourcing---while i don't blame the corporations for trying to make a profit, i can't help but notice that the stock holders don't reap the same benifits as the ceo et al.


bloody spaniard Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
Hey, I wasn' talking to you. LOL!

MY RESPONSES TO YOU RICK:
abortion--- none of the govt's business
GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT THE INNOCENT AND DEFENSELESS UNBORN FROM HORRIBLY/PAINFUL DEATHS.

NAFTA--- this is what happens when the govt gets involved. SNAFU
PEROT WAS RIGHT ABOUT THIS ONE--THE GIANT SUCKING SOUND OF INDUSTRIES/JOBS.

feminists---nothing wrong with movements designed to help people that feel they are not getting full benifit of their rights.
I BELIEVE IN LIVE & LET LIVE. AS LONG AS THEY DON'T PUSH THEIR IDEOLOGY DOWN MY THROAT. HOMOSEXUALS AS A WHOLE EARN 20-30% MORE THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS.

greenies (environmental movement)--- right or wrong on specific issues, necessary to keep things in check.
AGED HIPPIES/SOCIALISTS WITH NOWHERE TO GO...

import tariffs---don't work
AGREE, BUT THEY FEEL GOOOOOOD...WHAT- SMOOT HAWLEY DIDN'T WORK!? LOL WHAT WAS THE GREAT DEPRESSION LIKE, RICK?

outsourcing---while i don't blame the corporations for trying to make a profit, i can't help but notice that the stock holders don't reap the same benifits as the ceo et al.
CORPORATIONS HAVE NO SOULS & NO LOYALTY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES OR COUNTRY.

DID YOU EVER GET THE BOX???

BLOOD
dbguru Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
B Spaniard
How do I feel about abortion, NAFTA, feminists, and the greenies (environmental movement), import tariffs, & outsourcing?

Abortion - An issue that gets a bit grey when we are talking past 4-5 months. Up until that point I basically believe in a women's right to choose. I respect the rights of religious groups to be anti-abortion in the context of their religious beliefs but not as an article of law. I have personal issues with late term abortions. Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs about abortion but no one has the right under the US constitution to impose their religion on another.

NAFTA - Not as studied up on this as I should be. In general I believe Free trade works better in theory than in practice. Wish ISOMs cigars were in the free trade zone (he he he).

Feminists - I don't like the Rush term feminazi but I am a fan of Tom Leykus if that says something. Women have a agenda at odds with men and in general need to assume different roles. I've only met one woman in my life that I think could do my job at the same level of competency. Men need to understand the general female agenda and deal with the consequences. I have always been a fan of most literature that differentiates women and men in their strengths and weaknesses. I would support feminists on only one item, and that is equal pay for equal work.

Import tarriffs - Trade issues are a hot one for you... Not so much for me. Again free trade isn't always as good in practice as it is in theory and is often not as free. The question becomes whether an industry is strategically necessary to protect. In general I think basic comodoties should be traded freely whereas trade on strategically sensitive resources and manufactured goods need to be scrutinzed much more closely. Jobs for top notch computer developers, encryption software are a couple of examples. I also believe in the level playing field. Should we trade for cheaper goods built with sweatshop labor??

Outsourcing - An issue that concerns me greatly since as an IT worker I am especially vulnerable. I think the outsourcing of jobs is too often a short term solution for short term profits. I think many of the companies who have done a lot of outsourcing in recent years have found hidden costs in doing so. In the case of outsourcing IT workers, I believe there is strategic security risks in addition to the economic risks.

Outsourceing takes American customers out of the economy. Theres a chance that you gain Indian and Chinese customers in return but what is more likely is that those outsourced workers are buying more stuff in their own countries not ours. American companies should have no tax incentive to outsource.

Finally on the greenies - I don't support environmental extremism, but I do support the Kyoto accords, energy independence, smaller cars, the Endangered Species Act and basic environmental awareness. I do celebrate Earth day every year. Bush's record on the environment is apalling.
Users browsing this topic
Guest