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: 06-29-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 6:21pm
Please explain what you feel is them "favoring"??? Would you care to give me some examples because I have yet to see it. Just because cl-whren differs in her POV then you and has a lot of intelligent and to the point information that many liberals don't like to hear doesn't make her or anyone "favoring"...it's called debating and she does it very well. BTW have you visited the In the News board> Talk about favoring...and rudeness and unfairness...did I mention rudeness? But I bet you don't complain ar even notice it over there. How convenient.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 6:35pm

<<MIffy even warmly welcomes everyone especially if they have been gone for awhile and then return...she does it to those who she even disagress with.>>


She is great about that. Can I get off the hook by saying I don't welcome anyone, even when they agree with me?

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-09-2003
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 7:50pm
I rarely post on this, or any other board because I really don't feel like being attacked or flamed for merely stating my own opinion. I am always very tactful when I post, because I don't want to cause a big commotion. I would like to say though that I've noticed a lot of sarcasm and rudeness around here. It's really sad, considering the people that post here are supposed to be adults. (at least I think so!) A little respect for ones opinion, whether or not you agree, goes a long way. Sure, it's a debate board and people are going to disagree... the key is to treat others as you would like to be treated. Just my thoughts. :-)

P.S.- this is just a general note, not to you, cl-wrhen, in particular... :-)

"Without music, life is a journey through the desert"...

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:20pm
I have visited the other board in question and found the cls on that board to at least be civil to the posters.

I haven't seen one example of Miffy or whren not being civil to anyone. I think some folks just get very irritated when they aren't agreed with.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:44pm
Actually, while the defense budget in dollar amount remained somewhat constant, that in actuality represents large cuts in spending because of not keeping pace with inflation and being a shrinking percentage of the GDP. For example, while the Bush administration has actually increased the budget for many social programs, it is widely reported that he is planning on "cutting" their funding, because the percentage increase is not as large as anticipated. In other words, little or no budget increases over the course of Clinton's presidency is equivalent to substantial budget cuts.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/feb98o.html

Last week, President Bill Clinton presented his budget for fiscal year 1999, which begins on October 1, 1998. He pointed with great pride to the projection of a balanced budget next year, the first since 1969.

However, higher federal taxes account for half of the decline in the deficit.

* In fiscal year 1992, federal revenues consumed 17.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

* In 1999, federal taxes are expected to eat up 20.1 percent of GDP, an increase of 2.3 percent.

* With GDP estimated to be $8.8 trillion next year, Americans will be paying an additional $200 billion more in federal taxes than they would if taxes remained at their pre-Clinton percentage of GDP.

Clinton has also reduced spending significantly. Federal outlays in 1999 will have fallen from 22.5 percent of GDP in 1992 to 20 percent. However, three-quarters of this decline is due to solely lower defense spending, which will have fallen from 4.9 percent of GDP in 1992 to 3.1 percent next year (see figure).

In short, the budget has been balanced almost entirely on the backs of taxpayers and at the expense of our national security.

Source: Bruce Bartlett (senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis), February 9, 1998.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4892&sequence=0

Clinton defense targets provide about $104 billion less funding for defense during the 1995-1999 period than the Bush Administration would have provided.1 But the BUR analysis suggests a number of forces could be cut while still maintaining the capability to fight two regional wars. The analysis also recommended canceling or scaling back a number of programs. As a result of these reductions, the $1.2 trillion the Administration expects to spend on defense during the 1995-1999 period should be roughly sufficient to meet requirements.

The Clinton plan cuts operating funding less than it cuts forces. Operating funding would decline by 27 percent from 1990 levels, while major types of forces would be cut from about one-third (Army divisions and Navy ships) to almost one-half (Air Force wings). Thus, the planned operating funding should be sufficient to support the programmed forces. Procurement should also be roughly sufficient, although the Administration expects to buy considerably fewer ships, planes, and tanks than were bought in 1990. CBO's estimates suggest that Department of Defense (DoD) stocks of most major weapons should suffice at least through the 1990s.

edited for lots of typos


Edited 7/7/2004 8:53 pm ET ET by liveanew

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:45pm
Well as I told rayellen. I will agree to disagree on this point. I guess my idea of mean/hateful sounding posts is different than others here. Maybe it is not possible to debate here without going for the jugular. What I have found interesting is how some find a way around the "attack the post" not the poster. Go back and read past posts to people that are on the "other" side and think about how you would feel if they were written to you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:49pm

Is anyone interested?>

I actually come here because I enjoy debating the issues with people who feel differently than I do, so I probably wouldn't use that thread much. What I would really like to see (ok maybe being a bit tongue in cheek) is a "personal issues with someone" thread, where if two folks get into a drawn out "I know you are but what am I" kind of discussion, they can have at each other (within TOS rules of course :) without the rest of us having to plow through all their smarmy one liners (and trust me, I am not excluding myself from this group, by any means.)

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:51pm


What do you mean by favoritism? The fact that the CLs agree with posters who share their beliefs? What are they supposed to do, lie to make the other people feel good?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:54pm

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 07-07-2004 - 8:56pm


Perhaps if you could point out one such example I could consider it-but I have yet to notice anything posted by either CL that is anything but stating their opinion, sorry.

Pages