Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Bush Ads Go Negative; Kerry Refutes Claim By RON FOURNIER and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) unleashed the first negative ads of the general election campaign Thursday, accusing Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) of seeking to raise taxes by $900 billion and wanting to "delay defending America." "John Kerry: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense," says an announcer in a new 30-second ad that will begin airing in battleground states. Kerry's campaign called the $900 billion figure "completely made up," and accused Bush of running away from his own record. A second Bush ad tells voters they face choices on the economy, health care and the war on terrorism. "We can go forward with confidence, resolve and hope. Or we can turn back to the dangerous illusions that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat," Bush says in the second ad, without mentioning Kerry by name. The Bush ads will begin airing in 18 states Friday along with radio ads that make the same high-taxes, soft-on-terorrism argument against Kerry. They are the second wave of a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that is designed, through focus groups and polls, to shift voters' attention from Bush's political weaknesses to strengths — from talk of joblessness in an ailing economy to a debate over Democratic tax hikes; and on terrorism, from violence-torn Iraq (news - web sites) to reminders of his leadership on Sept. 11, 2001. In response, Kerry's advisers said they began working on an ad titled, "Misleading America," to accuse Bush of distorting the Democrat's record. But they would not say how much money Kerry would spend to broadcast the ad nor the number of states it would run in, raising doubts about whether the ad would be a formidable response to Bush's blitz. The Massachusetts senator has raised $7 million on the Internet since cementing the nomination March 2, but he would have to spend most of that to match the $6 million Bush has spent on broadcast ads alone in his first week on the air. That doesn't include the more than $4.5 million Bush is spending on national cable networks through May. Meeting with congressional Democrats on Capitol Hill, Kerry dismissed the ads, saying they fail to focus on health care, jobs, education, the environment and a safe America. "They can't talk about those things because George Bush doesn't have a record to run on, he has a record to run away from, and that's what they're trying to do," Kerry said. The ads are certain to spark debate over negative campaign tactics, as well as Kerry's record on taxes and terrorism. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, urged Bush to withdraw one of the new ads because it illustrates the section on terrorism with a picture of an olive-skinned man with bushy eyebrows. "If they wanted to put Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) up there that's fine, but using just a face stereotypes," Zogby said. The Democratic campaign condemned Bush's "attack ad" and negative politics just a day after Kerry called Republican critics "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen." That comment, captured without Kerry's knowledge by a live microphone, prompted Bush adviser Marc Racicot to call on Kerry to apologize "for this negative attack." During the Democratic primary, Kerry ran at least a dozen ads criticizing Bush or his policies. The drumbeat of attacks from Kerry and other Democrats helped reduce Bush's poll ratings to their lowest levels of his presidency. Bush is now in a rush to recover, as well as to define Kerry for voters. The next several weeks gives the president a chance to go on the offensive while the nominee-in-waiting is low on money and enlisting the help of former rivals. Bush's first round of ads were positive, but their references to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks drew criticism from Democrats and some victims' relatives who accused Bush of exploiting the tragedy. Republicans said they looked forward to wrangling with Kerry over the size of any tax increases he would support. Kerry has never explicitly called for a $900 billion tax hike, but Republicans are basing their case on incomplete arithmetic in his own policies. Kerry's plan to reduce health care costs would cost nearly $900 billion over 10 years, according to a study by Emory University economic professor Kenneth Thorpe, who has been cited by Kerry's campaign and other Democrats as an authoritative source. The presumptive Democratic nominee has vowed to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, saving about $250 billion over 10 years by most estimates. He would keep — and perhaps enhance — middle-class tax cuts pushed by Bush. The Bush campaign argues that there is no way Kerry can implement his plan and hold the line on the federal deficit without hiking taxes by $900 billion. Kerry campaign officials have said they will flesh out his economic plans in the next several weeks. Economists are divided on whether Kerry's numbers add up, because details still are slim. Thorpe said Thursday he believes Kerry can pay for his policies provided the new programs are phased in. The National Taxpayers Union, on the other hand, calculates that Kerry's spending initiatives total $277 billion a year, far more than could be paid for by repealing some of the tax cuts. Bush's toughest ad, titled "100 days," alludes to Kerry's desire to get United Nations (news - web sites) approval before invading Iraq and notes his opposition to the Patriot Act. Bush says at the start of the ad that he approved the message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 John Kerry...Kerry...isn't that a GIRL'S name? *paid for by the committee to re-eelect the president. (From Conan ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 How is opposing the Patriot Act a bad thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 How is opposing the Patriot Act a bad thing? I believe the criticism is that Kerry originally supported the Patriot Act, but then flip-flopped on it, as he's done on about 3948 other issues in the past year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 12, 2004 How is opposing the Patriot Act a bad thing? I believe the criticism is that Kerry originally supported the Patriot Act, but then flip-flopped on it, as he's done on about 3948 other issues in the past year. 99 out of a 100 Senators voted for the fucking thing. The "caught up in the wave" thing is a lame ass excuse if you ask me. This is the United States Senate not the 6th inning of a fucking baseball game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Who was the lone Senator that obviously had the sense to see the dangers of this Act? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Who was the lone Senator that obviously had the sense to see the dangers of this Act? Russ Feingold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Wasn't there almost zero debate for the bill and very little time in which it passed considering the size of the document? I think a good deal of senators were misinformed at the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Wasn't there almost zero debate for the bill and very little time in which it passed considering the size of the document? I think a good deal of senators were misinformed at the time. I believe only that one senator spoke out against it at all.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted March 12, 2004 I remember reading about our Washington senators calling up the ACLU and asking them what they just voted for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 In the wave of Bush using post-9/11 unity to set the chain of events into motion, only one or two politicians were objecting to these things. I remember reading of one woman who was the only one to vote against going to war in Afghanistan (which was probably the only thing we've done right so far) but some other people also jumped in now and then. It's possible they just didn't want to rush in reaction, but pundits of both sides (aside from the hippie no-war-at-any-cost people, who have little media or political represenatation) saw no problem casting them as stragglers trying to break unity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Well if they're complaining about it now its ex post facto. That's just bad leadership, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 WAAAAAAAH! Bush goes negative. What a bunch of crybabies. Odd -- I don't remember being told that the ad saying when a Republican is elected a black church burns down was negative. Jesus Christ, where's my shotgun? Although I shouldn't be too harsh -- after all, calling someone a liberal is a negative attack... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth N Asia 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 To hear Kerry tell it Bush has been slamming him right from the start, when in truth Bush hasn't been that negitive yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 12, 2004 How is opposing the Patriot Act a bad thing? I believe the criticism is that Kerry originally supported the Patriot Act, but then flip-flopped on it, as he's done on about 3948 other issues in the past year. Well, I think just about everyone supported the Patriot Act... no one knew at the time that the administration would stoop to such levels, capitalizing on the paranoia and fear to push their agenda, just like they're doing now with the "terrorism terrorism terrorism" campaign tactic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Why is this such a big deal in the media?? Everyone is reporting this negative advertising as if they didnt expect it to go that way... I think all of this warrants a "DUH" from me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest OctoberBlood Report post Posted March 12, 2004 http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Wasn't there almost zero debate for the bill and very little time in which it passed considering the size of the document? I think a good deal of senators were misinformed at the time. Who's fault is that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! the wealthy got a wee bit more than that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Well if they're complaining about it now its ex post facto. That's just bad leadership, period. Thats true, Russ Feingold should be president.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! the wealthy got a wee bit more than that... More actual dollars? Yes. A significantly higher percentage? No. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! the wealthy got a wee bit more than that... More actual dollars? Yes. A significantly higher percentage? No. Did it hurt the economy...yes. Were on average the rich making the EXACT same amount of money they were making before the economy started failing...Yes. Was the idea that "If the rich have more money, it will lead to more jobs and such" the dumbest idea I have ever heard? ...No. Outsourcing of jobs helping our economy is, but this is a close second. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! Yeah, it was the TAX CUTS that drove the economy down. Not the recession. Not the total collapse of the dotcom bubble. Not the 9/11 attack. Not the near destruction of airline and tourism industry caused by the attack. Not the massive corporate accounting scandal. It was the TAX CUT that did it. Man, those tax cuts will kill you, if you give them a chance. Did it hurt the economy...yes. Care to explain HOW the tax cuts, in ANY WAY, hurt the economy? Were on average the rich making the EXACT same amount of money they were making before the economy started failing...Yes. Was the idea that "If the rich have more money, it will lead to more jobs and such" the dumbest idea I have ever heard? ...No. Outsourcing of jobs helping our economy is, but this is a close second. Yup, outsourcing jobs NEVER works. Ever. Heck, where would WE be, as a country, if agriculture wasn't still the backbone of our total economy? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 could the tax cuts have played some role in the loss of millions of American jobs?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 oh and I just remembered... the only thing that I see in the Bush ads, is that they are using misleading charges when they claim Kerry will raise taxes to that level because those figures are actually what they estimate it will cost for his healthcare plan... but instead of just saying that, they turn it into a raising taxes issue, which of course is a huge republican issue And yeah, it might take raising taxes to pay off Kerry's healthcare plan, but I just find it funny how they did a little smoke and mirrors tactic in the ad Kerry has stated he wants to eliminate ALL of Bush's tax cuts --- which, logically, would equal a tax hike. -=Mike Well they were all really stupid, ill timed and helped drive the economy down, but hey....we got 300 more dollars a year~! Yeah, it was the TAX CUTS that drove the economy down. Not the recession. Not the total collapse of the dotcom bubble. Not the 9/11 attack. Not the near destruction of airline and tourism industry caused by the attack. Not the massive corporate accounting scandal. It was the TAX CUT that did it. Man, those tax cuts will kill you, if you give them a chance. Did it hurt the economy...yes. Care to explain HOW the tax cuts, in ANY WAY, hurt the economy? Were on average the rich making the EXACT same amount of money they were making before the economy started failing...Yes. Was the idea that "If the rich have more money, it will lead to more jobs and such" the dumbest idea I have ever heard? ...No. Outsourcing of jobs helping our economy is, but this is a close second. Yup, outsourcing jobs NEVER works. Ever. Heck, where would WE be, as a country, if agriculture wasn't still the backbone of our total economy? -=Mike So we don't know what the word "HELPED" means anymore, hmm. Lets see...I will INCREASE spending, but I will DECREASE taxes. What will give out there. Now I'm not great at math or anything.... And once again, how the hell is outsourcing call center jobs, and manufacturing jobs helping when we have little to no job creation in one field(manufacturing) and no real reason to do it in another (call center, customer support). Yet oddly, the Pres has a problem with People getting their perscription drugs from Canada when they are cheaper. WONDER why that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Tax cuts hurting the economy is besides the point really though. The point is they haven't helped really all that much, and the "Kerry is going to raise YOUR taxes" argument is silly when all you have to do is really break down who "YOUR TAXES" pertains too. The tax cuts werent enacted to "not hurt" the economy, supposedly they were supposed to make everything all better, which they have failed to do on every account. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 12, 2004 Yet oddly, the Pres has a problem with People getting their perscription drugs from Canada when they are cheaper. WONDER why that is. Because they're "DANGEROUS" Didn't you get that memo? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
