Bush Attack Ad Is Questioned

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    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?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-campaign12oct12,1,5360306.story
     
  2. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    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
     
  4. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    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...
     
  5. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    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.
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    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.
     
  7. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #7
    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?
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    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.
     
  10. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    And to live in fear for the rest of lives.

    I would love to hear how the war on terrorism can be won.
     
  12. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #12
    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.
     
  13. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #13
    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-****.
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    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.

    .
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #16
    I agree completely.


    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.
     

Share This Page