Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry
108
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 7:08am

Have a look at the two websites.  The first thing you see on the Bush site is a big picture of Kerry and the lead story about Kerry’s “makeover”, and links to lots of Kerry bashing.  I get the feeling that Bush wants to distract from his lack of ideas.


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 


Look at the Kerry website and there is not a word about Bush, only what Kerry plans to do for the country.


 


I may not like Kerry very much, and I may wish that the Dems had chosen a better candidate, but at least he's not directly engaging in smear tactics, and at least his website gives information on exactly what it is he aims to do.


 


 



http://www.georgewbush.com/


 


http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html


 


 


 


 


Elaine

Pages

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 8:38am
I will admit there's a lot about Kerry on Bush's website (I think they're running for the same job, are they not?), but it's not entirely true that Bush's name doesn't appear on Kerry's website:




"The Bush-Cheney campaign is running one of the most negative and misleading campaigns ever. They don't know how to attack the problems working people face, so they attack John Kerry and John Edwards."

visit the rapid response center

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also don't understand how you can say Bush doesn't talk about the issues & where he stands on them on his website. I'm also hearing Bush-bashing from other Democrat sources (<< at least he's not directly engaging in smear tactics >>). I seem to recall Carter doing "a bit" of that at the DNC as an example. How does either side get through a campaign without pointing out the reasons not to vote for the other guy? Even if Kerry himself is limiting negative comments on Bush, that's certainly not true of others in his Party. Untruths are being spoken about Bush. I guess time will tell (Nov. 2nd) which side was the most effective.

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 9:08am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040728.shtml

J'accuse! The Republicans want to win in '04

Jonah Goldberg


July 28, 2004


BOSTON - When Homer Simpson ran for the office of sanitation commissioner, he offered this stirring call to arms: "Animals are crapping in our houses and we're picking it up. Did we lose a war? That's not America!" The crowd went wild and Homer won the race.

After the first night of speeches here at the Democratic Convention, it's pretty clear the Democrats are borrowing from Homer's playbook. Here's the drill: State the obvious as if it is insightful. Then twist it to make it sound like the Republicans are fools or ogres for not seeing the wisdom in what you're saying.

"The Republicans in Washington believe that America should be run by the right people - their people," Bill Clinton declared to thunderous applause here Monday night.

What in the world is he talking about? This is an election, right? The Republicans think Republicans should run things. Democrats think Democrats should. Is there something I'm missing? Are Republicans somehow "cheating" because their campaign platform suggests that their own party is the right one to run America?

This was one of the many ironies, alas, lost on the Democrats.

So, too, was the rather rum spectacle of Jimmy Carter lecturing about the need to "restore the greatness of America" and gird American strength around the globe. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps on the morning of September 11, 2001, millions cried in anguish, "If only Jimmy Carter were president!"

Aside from his shockingly gratuitous and unpresidential cheap shots about Bush's military service - wasn't it Carter who pardoned all those honest-to-God draft-dodgers? - what stood out in Carter's oration was his tendency to attribute so many of the world's longest-running and most intractable problems to George W. Bush. "Violence has gripped the Holy Land," Carter intoned. Talk about walking into the movie half way through. Violence has gripped the Holy land for a very, very long time. In fact, bears have been using the woods as a bathroom since George Bush has been president, too. That's not exactly George W. Bush's fault. (Indeed, the worst flare-up of violence occurred after Bill Clinton failed to seal a peace deal in 2000 between Yassir Arafat and Ehud Barak.)

This is just a small sample of the convention's rhetorical drift so far. The Democrats have decided George Bush is guilty of every charge imaginable until proven innocent, and they are not interested in considering any evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, that's the nature of conventions, which are essentially giant choirs hungry to be preached to. Nevertheless, what varies from convention to convention and party to party is the credibility of those assumptions, and here the Democrats come up wanting.

The Boston Democrats take it as a fact that George W. Bush deliberately divides people, and for bad reasons. Time and again, Clinton insisted that Republicans "need a divided America." Jimmy Carter accused Bush of lying, or of "manipulating the truth" about the war in order to "generate public panic." The analysis behind such convictions goes something like this: George W. Bush enjoyed an astronomically high approval rating after 9/11 and the war with Afghanistan. But for political motives no one can explain, he chose "to divide" Americans and risk that popularity by "lying" about a war we didn't need to fight.

None of this is supposed to make sense on a rational level. These are expressions of faith. And for the Democratic Party, a Republican is by definition "divisive" whenever he does things Democrats don't like. It's similar to the way Democrats bang their high chairs about "wedge issues" - which is to say, issues that work better for Republicans than Democrats.

Speaker after speaker insisted that President Bush was a dangerous unilateralist who broke the common bonds of the international community. Among the evidence cited by Bill Clinton was George Bush's refusal to participate in the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto treaty. Never mind that Clinton took pretty much the same position when he was president. Bush is a dangerous maverick! Similarly, speaker after speaker took John Kerry's word for it that he has the sort of charm necessary to persuade the "international community" to share the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan it now refuses.

In other words, as with Homer Simpson, the Democrats are in denial. Homer thinks that someone else needs to clean up the messes in our homes, that somehow it's unfair that we should do our own dirty work. The Democrats have convinced themselves that George Bush unfairly - "divisively" - interrupted the holiday from history that was the 1990s. This is all nonsense, of course. But that's beside the point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 10:56am
I don't always agree with John Kerry either. However, I'm sick of all the negativity. I'm happy that John Kerry has decided not to go that route. I think most of the American people are tired of the negative ads also.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 11:21am
You are correct! The Bush people don't have any new ideas. If Baby Bush has a great record, then he would be running on his record. The Shrub's (Baby Bush) doesn't have a good record on jobs, the economy, the war or health care. As a result, all they can do is smear Kerry/Edwards.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 11:26am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 11:36am
Remember the old saying, violence begets violence? If all you can show is negativity, then that is how people are going to view you as: a negative person and that is all you are able to be is negative. I tell you what, there is so much negative in the world, I just do not want to hear it anymore. When you smile, the whole world smiles with you.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 11:38am
I find Bush's ads to be almost always about Kerry, whilst Kerry's ads are almost always about... Kerry.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 1:25pm
Up until now all we've heard from Democrats is CONSTANT Bush bashing, and that Kerry was in Vietnam! That's about all they've had to say over the last few months.

But now they have realized that they need to do more than attack Bush if they want Kerry to win.

At the DNC (the "Kerry Reinvention Convention") they are trying to change course and make themselves more appealing, mostly with lies and false fronts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 3:32pm

"we've heard from Democrats is CONSTANT Bush bashing,"


In Connecticut I have not

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Thu, 07-29-2004 - 3:42pm
Yes, he was in Vietnam...OK, besides that....

Pages