PDA

View Full Version : Bush Attack Ad Is Questioned




IJ Reilly
Oct 12, 2004, 11:16 AM
I was impressed by the completely over-the-top character of this most recent Bush attack on Kerry. I mean, it really is despicable. But since Bush has made misrepresenting Kerry's views a cornerstone of his campaign, I wonder how this deliberate distortion will "backfire," as some suggest it might. If Bush's credibility hasn't been damaged by phony-baloney claims up this point, how is this one any different?

Democrats say Kerry's comment was taken out of context. Some analysts warn that the president's credibility could be damaged.

WASHINGTON — With a new advertisement that accuses Sen. John F. Kerry of viewing terrorism as a "nuisance," President Bush is continuing his push to depict his Democratic opponent in a harshly negative light.

But some analysts warned Monday that his campaign was playing loose with the facts — and that the attack could backfire.

The new ad, which began appearing late Sunday on national cable stations, has drawn protests from the Kerry campaign and other critics, who say the Bush camp took a line out of context from a recent newspaper interview with the Massachusetts senator.

...

"The Bush campaign did an effective job creating questions about Sen. Kerry's credibility that led them to a double-digit lead" in several national polls in early September, Fabrizio said. "But it would be a shame if that knife were turned on them because they pushed the envelope too far with ads like they released" Sunday.

Marshall Wittman, a former aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who is a registered independent and recently joined the Democratic Leadership Council, said of the new ad: "They want to demonize the opposition by any means necessary, and if that means distorting one sentence in an 11,000-word article, then so be it."

The Bush campaign staunchly defended the ad Monday as accurate. Titled "World View," it draws on Kerry's comments, published in the New York Times Sunday magazine, that his goal as president in waging war on terrorism would be to "get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

In the interview, Kerry drew parallels between his vision for the war and the way law enforcement battles intractable problems.

"As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution," Kerry was quoted as saying. "We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day."

In the Bush ad, a narrator says: "Now Kerry says we have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution. We're never going to end them."

"Terrorism a nuisance?" the narrator asks. "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"

The Kerry camp complained that the ad inaccurately indicated that he viewed terrorism in the present as a mere nuisance and unfairly suggested that he didn't take the threat seriously.

Kerry aides also noted that Bush himself had suggested that the fight against terrorism might have no fixed end. In a television interview in August, he said, "I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

On the campaign trail Monday, Bush appeared to backtrack a bit from the new ad. He continued to criticize Kerry's choice of the word "nuisance," but noted that the Democrat had used it in the context of trying to diminish terrorism.

"Now just this weekend, Sen. Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to — quote — 'nuisance' — end quote — and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling," Bush told a rally in Hobbs, N.M.

"See, I couldn't disagree more," the president said. "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-campaign12oct12,1,5360306.story



katchow
Oct 12, 2004, 01:59 PM
i'm trying to remember what the dems reaction to bush saying "we can't win the war on terror" was...if memory serves they kind of jumped all over it didn't they? did kerry come out and say he could win the war? i could be completely wrong (someone will let me know, right?) my memory is getting blurred with all this mud flyin' round.

Taft
Oct 12, 2004, 02:11 PM
i'm trying to remember what the dems reaction to bush saying "we can't win the war on terror" was...if memory serves they kind of jumped all over it didn't they? did kerry come out and say he could win the war? i could be completely wrong (someone will let me know, right?) my memory is getting blurred with all this mud flyin' round.

That could be. Dems will be politicians, after all, no different than the Reps.

But if you are asking if *I* jumped all over him, then no, I didn't. I also wouldn't have supported the Dems getting all over him. To me, the idea that the war on terror is not winnable is just realism. We will NOT stomp out terror in the next two decades. Won't happen.

But we should be able to, a) reduce the affect of terrorism on the average citizen and b) ensure that we aren't churning out more terrorists while we do it.

Taft

IJ Reilly
Oct 12, 2004, 02:44 PM
The curious thing about this particular distortion is that Kerry's statement was that terrorism should be reduced to the point where we don't have to live in fear. This idea is a lot more positive than Bush's concept, which in effect is that we need to live in fear for as long as the war on terror continues (which, because he's already said it can't be won, is forever). Bush's effort to spin the Kerry position only points up the differences.

Which world would we rather live in? What a tough choice...

katchow
Oct 12, 2004, 02:46 PM
i agree. sorry, i didn't mean to imply anyone around here (after all i'm a dem too)...i was referring to the campaign people. it's kinda sad the way the terrorism issue is manipulated by both sides...it seems when someone makes a realistic statement about fighting terrorism it usually gets spun into somehow having a 'weak' position...

i for one like the idea of getting back to living our lives...and bush's constant air of fear can't be good for the economy.

pseudobrit
Oct 12, 2004, 05:46 PM
i agree. sorry, i didn't mean to imply anyone around here (after all i'm a dem too)...i was referring to the campaign people. it's kinda sad the way the terrorism issue is manipulated by both sides...it seems when someone makes a realistic statement about fighting terrorism it usually gets spun into somehow having a 'weak' position...

i for one like the idea of getting back to living our lives...and bush's constant air of fear can't be good for the economy.

I think the newsworthy part of Bush's statement was that it was a gloomy portrait painted in contrast to his usual mantra: that everything's swell.

Bush was not taken out of context on that one, IMHO. He just took himself off script.

diamond geezer
Oct 12, 2004, 06:24 PM
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, under fire for ordering its 62 networks to broadcast a film sharply critical of John Kerry’s opposition to the Vietnam War, is a major investor in a company recently awarded a military contract by the Bush Administration, RAW STORY has learned.


Jadoo Power Systems, Inc., a producer of portable power systems, announced Sept. 28 that it had been awarded a contract to supply its products, which are used for covert surveillance operations, to US Special Operations Command. According to the SOCOM website, SOCOM “plans, directs, and executes special operations in the conduct of the War on Terrorism.”


Jadoo, whose name in Hindi means “magic,” is owned by Sinclair Ventures, Inc. and Contango Capital Management. Sinclair Ventures is “a wholly owned subsidiary of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. as well as other individuals.”

To few companies with to many connections to other companies. With so many connections like this, how can you trust anything you see/read/hear?

solvs
Oct 13, 2004, 01:48 AM
how can you trust anything you see/read/hear?
You can't. You shouldn't.

There was a recent ad in this state run by one candidate taking another out of context to make it look like she was pro-Bin Laden. It was disgusting, and I immediately made it a point to find out as much as I could about the woman who had been misquoted. I will be voting for her. I may not agree with everything she says, but I hope she gets elected because I do not want her opponent to win.

That kind of dirty politics should not be tolerated, and I would be shocked if anyone falls for it.

mischief
Oct 13, 2004, 09:58 AM
To few companies with to many connections to other companies. With so many connections like this, how can you trust anything you see/read/hear?

That's only 3 orders of seperation too... Too few to call a coincidence. Particularly since the investment arm is owned by the broadcaster and not the other way 'round.

SiliconAddict
Oct 13, 2004, 02:17 PM
That kind of dirty politics should not be tolerated, and I would be shocked if anyone falls for it.

There's aprox 45% of American voters that are voting for Bush....there's your answer. :rolleyes:

Sad really. Does anyone really look at a person's character anymore? I mean Bush's outburst at the last debate should give people serious pause for thought.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2004, 03:16 PM
The curious thing about this particular distortion is that Kerry's statement was that terrorism should be reduced to the point where we don't have to live in fear. This idea is a lot more positive than Bush's concept, which in effect is that we need to live in fear for as long as the war on terror continues (which, because he's already said it can't be won, is forever). Bush's effort to spin the Kerry position only points up the differences.

Which world would we rather live in? What a tough choice...

And to live in fear for the rest of lives.

I would love to hear how the war on terrorism can be won.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2004, 03:21 PM
To few companies with to many connections to other companies. With so many connections like this, how can you trust anything you see/read/hear?

Not too mention that the "public airwaves" are no longer public; but open to the highest bidder.

We need a non-partisan media. But to fatten our portfolios we as a public are willing to look the other way. In the end we are all to blame for the decline in public debate.

mischief
Oct 13, 2004, 03:22 PM
And to live in fear for the rest of lives.

I would love to hear how the war on terrorism can be won.

By getting all the terrorists in one place (Fallujah) and killing them... Duh. :rolleyes:

;) :p :D

I can't believe how many people are buying that load of horse-****.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2004, 03:31 PM
You can't. You shouldn't.

There was a recent ad in this state run by one candidate taking another out of context to make it look like she was pro-Bin Laden. It was disgusting, and I immediately made it a point to find out as much as I could about the woman who had been misquoted. I will be voting for her. I may not agree with everything she says, but I hope she gets elected because I do not want her opponent to win.

That kind of dirty politics should not be tolerated, and I would be shocked if anyone falls for it.

Same thing in Maryland for a Senate race. Wish I could vote over there. Same tactics as Bush (little wonder) of misrepresenting actual votes.

The shame is that the DNC and RNC are big businesses. We would have a different political climate if we were to limit individuals, groups, and businesses to $2K a year to a Party and candidate. No more PAC's. No more 527's. Put the NRA, ACLU, and others on teh same playing field as the rest of us.

Why do we not have that now? Because there is money that keeps the DNC and RNC in the first class cabin, that keeps them in the suits that would pay our rent, and allows them both to reward companies with contracts and perks that the rest of us can only dream of.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 13, 2004, 03:36 PM
There's aprox 45% of American voters that are voting for Bush....there's your answer. :rolleyes:

Sad really. Does anyone really look at a person's character anymore? I mean Bush's outburst at the last debate should give people serious pause for thought.

I wish there were a way to make voters to look at http://www.factcheck.org to get to the real truth behind both candidates.

There may be many reasons that people listen to sound bites to make up their minds. May be we need a test to allow people to vote.

.

Thomas Veil
Oct 13, 2004, 05:15 PM
The curious thing about this particular distortion is that Kerry's statement was that terrorism should be reduced to the point where we don't have to live in fear. This idea is a lot more positive than Bush's concept, which in effect is that we need to live in fear for as long as the war on terror continues (which, because he's already said it can't be won, is forever).I agree completely.


Not too mention that the "public airwaves" are no longer public; but open to the highest bidder. The person I blame most of all is Ronald Reagan. It was his FCC that decided that the Fairness Doctrine -- allowing equal time to opposing sides -- was somehow antiquated. It was the beginning of a long decline for the FCC which certainly does not assure that the airwaves are operated in the public interest.

As far as that Bush comment goes, I believe that the Dems jumped all over him because he'd been saying all along that you have to win the war on terrorism, then he said, "I don't think you can win it."

Ironically, Bush's second position (flip flop?) is pretty much identical to what Kerry is saying now.

More hypocrisy on display, folks.