Edwards, Not Bad, but Not First

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Edwards, Not Bad, but Not First
182
Tue, 07-06-2004 - 3:29pm
Bush Ad Paints Edwards As Second Choice http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4282080,00.html
Tuesday July 6, 2004 4:16 PM AP Photo WX101 By LIZ SIDOTI Associate Press Writer

PITTSBURGH (AP) - President Bush's re-election campaign will launch a television ad featuring former Republican rival John McCain and titled ``First Choice,'' an effort to paint Democrat John Kerry's running mate as his second choice.

McCain, the Arizona senator, rejected Kerry's overtures to be No. 2 on the Democratic ticket. On Tuesday, he selected Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to be his running mate.

``He has not wavered, he has not flinched from the hard choices, he was determined and remains determined to make this world a better, safer, freer place. He deserves not only our support but our admiration,'' McCain says of Bush in the ad.

The 60-second commercial - titled ``First Choice'' - shows McCain speaking when he campaigned with Bush in Reno, Nev., last month, praising Bush's efforts in the war on terror. The ad is to run soon on national cable networks and in selected local media markets in battleground states.

``America is under attack by depraved enemies who oppose our every interest and hate every value we hold dear,'' McCain is shown saying. Referring to Bush, the senator says: ``It is the great test of our generation and he has led with great moral clarity and firm resolve.''

In May, Kerry ran a biographical ad that showed a picture of himself with a hand on McCain's shoulder, as the two walked away from the camera. The ad said: ``He joined with John McCain to find the truth about POWs and MIAs in Vietnam.''

The Bush campaign has not run ads for more than two weeks in local media markets in 20 battleground states where it had been on the air. It has been off the air on national cable channels for more than a week. The campaign spent $83 million on advertising over three months. As of Friday, it had not yet bought airtime for July.

Last month, McCain - Bush's rival for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000 - rejected the notion of a bipartisan ticket with Kerry, and shortly thereafter appeared with Bush.

Kerry and McCain, fellow senators and Vietnam veterans, became close when they worked together to help President Clinton normalize relations with Vietnam. On the other hand, McCain has had a cool relationship with Bush, and the 2000 campaign was so bitter that it left wounds some believe may never heal.

Since Kerry secured the nomination in early March, McCain has praised him as ``a good and decent man.'' McCain also defended Kerry when the White House accused the Democrat of being weak on defense.

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 1:46pm
oh, that is such a relief to know you received it.

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 3:36pm
Alas, like most Bush ads, FALSE.

Kerry says no such offer was made. McCain says no such offer was made.

So, who do you believe Two politicians with decades of public service, or some partisan pundits?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 3:38pm
For a CL, your predilection for the irrelevant and untrue is weird. What part of Kerry didn't offer the job of VP to McCain don't you get?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 5:40pm

Kerry didn't offer the job, but he danced all around it to see if McCain would accept if the offer was made. Candidates never like to offer the job w/o knowing if it will be accepted. That way they don't have to admit the guy or gal joined to their hip for the upcoming months or years wasn't their first choice.


When Kerry is so afraid of being a liberal that he has to pretend to be folksy & conservative, & moves his campaign more to the right weekly & thinks his best shot to win is with a REPUBLICAN VP, the Democrats are in pretty lousy shape.




Edited 7/9/2004 6:15 pm ET ET by cl-wrhen

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 6:02pm
Well said! I agree.

Renee,

You never cease to amaze me.

Keep "calling it like it is".

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2003
Fri, 07-09-2004 - 9:48pm
The country has never been this divided. The world has never had such a negative opinion of us. Please tell me how Bush united anything or anybody?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
Sat, 07-10-2004 - 3:14am
really? Hmmm does the civil war ring any bells? That was far more divided. When did I ever say he united us? Anyways Democrats and Republicans are a division in itself...this is only a rare situation under extreme circumstances.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 9:46pm
“The country has never been this divided.”

Thoroughly untrue. Take a look at the Sedition Acts, Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, debates over the Louisiana Purchase, there’s quite an impressive list of people too; right down to J. Carter, R. Reagan, and B. Clinton that come to mind in recent years.

“The world has never had such a negative opinion of us.”

I for one couldn’t care less. When the rest of the world agrees we are dealing with a rouge nation such as Iraq and collectively turns a blind eye and do nothing… No, scratch that thought. How about: When the rest of the world agrees we are dealing with a rouge nation such as Iraq and collectively uses their political, monetary, and military leverage to oppose us instead of them then I’m happy to say I’m in a group clearly separate from them.

"Please tell me how Bush united anything or anybody?"

Bush was not the catalyst, SH was. If he had any intentions for peace, he would have followed the UN resolutions or the US cease fire agreement he signed over 12 years ago at some point in time. Instead SH turned a blind eye (at a minimum) to Salmon Pak, attempted to assassinate one of our presidents, repeatedly stole from the UN oil for food program, routinely smuggled oil out of country, had missiles and other ordinance banned by UN resolution and US agreements, most likely bribed British, French, Russian, and UN dignitaries to oppose the US, and placed bounties on US government officials. Yet somehow Bush is the bad guy. Sheez! (Oh boy. Either the rest of the world has turned upside down or I really need to switch to decaf. Taking deep breaths, trying to find my happy place.)





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-15-2004 - 1:12pm
Thanks for the input. It sounds simple the way you explain it. Perhaps it should be.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2004
Sat, 07-17-2004 - 8:48am
--

When Kerry is so afraid of being a liberal that he has to pretend to be folksy & conservative, & moves his campaign more to the right weekly & thinks his best shot to win is with a REPUBLICAN VP, the Democrats are in pretty lousy shape.

--

How long have you followed politics? Are you saying talk of a bi-paritisan ticket has never occured among Repubs/Dems in past elections? No, because if you're actually followed politics for any length of time, you know this is pretty common.

The truth is, the truth: Conservatives started this talk about Kerry offering him a job, when both Kerry and McCain will say it's not true.

As for Kerry not admitting he's liberal? You're just picking and choosing parts of his speech that you want to hear.

I'm pretty new on this board, but It's clear as day you're a total partisan Bush lover. That's fine, but don't expect people to think your opinions of Kerry are going to be credible since you obviously don't really follow his campaign, you pick and choose things to talk about.

Why do I say that? Because Kerry readily admits to being Liberal.

You guys want to give Health Care to Iraqi's, you call it giving them Democracy. Kerry wants to give Health care to Americans, you call it Socialism.

Pages