Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry
Find a Conversation
Bush campaign obsessed with Kerry
| 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 “makeoverâ€, 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.johnkerry.com/index.html

Elaine
Pages
When did the UN ever vote on enforcing a resolution?
When did the UN ever come down on a country or coallition for acting on UN resolutions?
--
Ok, I'll bite: If you're referring to enforcing UNSC 1441, they would have voted on it, but that was one of Bush's better FLIP FLOPS: After promising a vote (We'll see their cards on the table) he folded his hand and didn't do it? Why? Who knows.
And the UNSC has voted time and time again to force Israel comply with Resolutions, but the US has vetoed more than 2 dozen of them.
As for the UN coming down on a country for acting on them? That makes about ZERO sense. If you're in any way trying to say that George Bush's war in Iraq has anything to do with UN resolutions, you'd be quite wrong: Bush deemed the UN irreleveant.
Well, until they made the so-called handover in Iraq possible, where Bush could not.
Not one weapon inspector before or after the war has said they were. Only your man and his crap for brains intelligence from a guy named curveball that couldn't have been more wrong said so.
Then, maybe we can get to discussing why you even call it INTELLIGENCE when you don't have ONE SINGLE HUMAN BEING investigating WMD for over 5 years before the war.
In Iowa Fight, Kerry Waves Corn, Bush Eats It Raw
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=696&e=6&u=/nm/20040804/ts_nm/campaign_corn_dcDAVENPORT, Iowa
(Reuters) - Competing for votes in corn-growing Iowa, John Kerry (news - web sites) waved to crowds with one ear in each hand. Not to be outdone by his Democratic rival, President Bush (news - web sites) ate one raw.
Cultivating the corn vote is serious business in the battleground Midwestern state, where the rival presidential candidates converged on Wednesday.
Bush lost the state to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000 by just 4,144 votes, or roughly two votes for every precinct. Polls show the 2004 race is another dead heat.
Iowa is the No. 1 corn-producing state in the nation, and Bush and Kerry are campaigning here with promises to help the state's farmers.
Kerry declared his enthusiasm for corn by sticking his head out the window of his campaign bus. He waved both hands with corn.
After their simultaneous rallies in Davenport in eastern Iowa, Bush stopped at a farmer's market in nearby Bettendorf and bought some ears of sweet corn.
The president took a bite of one on the spot. "Oh yeah. You don't even have to cook it. It's really good," Bush declared.
Raw corn is typically fed to livestock, but Irvin Anderson, a professor of corn physiology and biochemistry at Iowa State University, said some people liked it raw.
"Most people will boil it and put butter on it. But you can eat it off the cob raw. It has a sweet taste to it," he said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_ADS?SITE=PAPHQ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bush Ads Shift Focus to His Achievements
By LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush-Cheney campaign will spend this month presenting President Bush's vision for a second term in least $18 million worth of commercials, including some praising the Republican for "moving America forward."
The campaign is changing course after airing five months of ads that labeled Democrat John Kerry a flip-flopping liberal.
Bush's strategists believe they successfully defined Kerry that way. Now they want to devote most of their commercials to outlining what Bush would try to accomplish in a second term. They believe that while incumbents can soften their opponents with negative ads, a president with a positive, forward-looking plan seals the deal.
Still, the strategists said they still may air a little negative advertising before the White House race enters the homestretch this fall.
Two new Bush-Cheney TV ads started running Tuesday in local media markets in 19 battleground states, where they are scheduled to be shown for two to three weeks.
The re-election campaign on Tuesday poured more money into six states for August - Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Mexico. And the campaign also bought airtime to run radio ads in battleground states.
The TV ads also will run on national cable networks during the month. And, in a first for either presidential campaign this year, some ads will air on local cable channels in specific media markets in at least two states - New Mexico and Nevada. That will allow the campaign to target viewers both by where they live and by what programs they watch.
Bush is advertising over a period that will include the heavily watched Olympic Games.
His new TV ads are similar to the first wave of commercials he ran briefly in the spring, heralding his "steady leadership" in changing times. His campaign quickly abandoned that approach, choosing instead to air spots criticizing Kerry.
Now, Bush's new commercials are solely about the mood of the country and Bush's re-election agenda, even as they lack details about those proposals.
However, the ads do work to set the stage for the Republican nominating convention later this month in New York City. They subtly argue that the United States should keep Bush in office as the nation recovers from wartime and economic woes.
"What gives us optimism and hope? Freedom, faith, families and sacrifice," says one commercial. Another says, "In today's changing world the answers aren't easy. We need a sense of purpose, a vision for the future, the conviction to do what's right."
Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton questioned the claim that Bush is "moving America forward."
"We've got sky-high health insurance costs, record-high deficits, record job losses, record-high gas prices and no plan to win the peace in Iraq. And the president thinks he's 'moving America forward?' No wonder this White House has lost credibility," Clanton said.
Bush's ads come as Kerry has stopped advertising until September to save money. But independent Democratic groups are filling the void even though they're not allowed to coordinate with Kerry under the campaign finance law.
Combined, the outside groups are helping Democrats outspend Bush in some key media markets in battleground states - at least this week.
The Democratic National Committee is spending $6 million in 20 competitive states and on national cable networks to broadcast an ad in which Kerry argues he can lead a nation at war. Separately, the Media Fund, a liberal interest group, is running five TV ads in five swing states - Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico - costing $2.5 million over a week.
---
Bring us the debates, bring us the debates!
Are you sure about this statement? What I read is that Iraq was in violation of 17 resolutions.
http://www.usembassy.lv/EN/Iraq/defiance
Then I tried to find out exactly how many resolutions there were against Iraq here.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
But there seem to be more than 17 resolutions shown. I am just a bit confused. Now if there were no WMD, doesn't that mean that Iraq did disarm which covers many of the resolutions? Didn't the Iraqis let the inspectors in, found nothing, and the U.S. didn't want to wait anymore? Didn't the U.N. and other countries asked for more time for the inspectors? Didn't the inspectors themselves ask for more time?
Just like some people, LIKE ME, are so ANTI IRAQ WAR, you'd be wasting your breath.
I'll just remember what soon-to-be President Kerry said:
"I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent."
There's a reason the world was completely behind us post 9/11 going into afghanistan and against us because of Iraq, but I'm too stubborn to know it.
As for more time: We couldn't wait anymore. The Intelligence (Which consisted of NOT ONE HUMAN BEING ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ INVESTIGATING FROM THE CIA) showed us all that if we waited, thousands would die. We didn't wait, and thousands have died.
Also, IF Hussein disposed of his chemical and biological weapons, did he do so under the watchful eye of the UN Inspectors? No. That is a violation.
Second, Hussein failed to produce any documentation to support that these agents had been destroyed, as required in the resolutions. That is a violation.
Hussein had scud missiles with a greater range than those allowed under the resolution. That is a violation.
I think you get the point.
Pages