[zachs]

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) � President Bush will unleash his first negative ads against John Kerry on Thursday, accusing the Democrat of seeking to raise taxes by $900 billion and wanting to "delay defending America," the Associated Press has learned.


"John Kerry: Wrong on taxes. Wrong on defense," says a female announcer in a new 30-second ad that will begin airing in battleground states.


A second ad, also premiering Thursday, 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.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
From USA Today:

According to Kerry and his drooling media hounds, simply bring up Kerry's record as a Senator is considered "negative" and an "attack".

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
According to Kerry and his drooling media hounds, simply bring up Kerry's record as a Senator is considered "negative" and an "attack".

I guess it's much like "Bush Lies, 10,000 Dies". Just bringing out the truth.

[IceBreaker]

It is about time.

Kerry has been foaming at the mouth about negative attacks for months.....so lets see them.

Again.. it is about time.

The truth hurts... but of course the truth is always negative if you are Senator Botox.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
It is about time.

Kerry has been foaming at the mouth about negative attacks for months.....so lets see them.

Again.. it is about time.

The truth hurts... but of course the truth is always negative if you are Senator Botox.

I must have missed Kerry's announcement of a plan to raise taxes by almost $1 Trillion dollars. Care to illuminate?

[hyteckit]

Kerry isn't going to raise taxes, he doesn't have the authority. Why would he said he would raises taxes up to $900 mil. He wants to be the next president doesn't he?

Another one of Bush Campaign lies, um... I'm meant stretching the "truth".

[TheMosco]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...cs/8163281.htm
(wouldn't display in safari for me for some reason)

Kerry hasn't called for raising taxes by $900 billion over 10 years, but he does want to repeal the Bush tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year. The $900 billion is derived from the estimated cost of his health care plan. Bush campaign officials assumed that if the plan costs that much, Kerry would raise taxes that much to pay for it.

/snip/

In an e-mail to reporters, the Kerry campaign denounced the ads.

"John Kerry welcomes an honest straightforward debate on whether recent tax cuts for Americans making $200,000 should be rolled back so we can invest in health care and restore fiscal discipline," the campaign said. "John Kerry believes it is necessary to scale back several provisions in the Patriot Act and introduce a new law to assure our enhanced security does not come at the expense of our civil liberties, such as more oversight of sneak and peek searches."

And before anyone says that "oh, well kerry voted for the Patriot Act, " remember that alot of people voted for it that didn't understand what it truly did in both parties. 4 hours is not a long time to read 400+ page document written in legal terms. They had to go by what they were told.

[stupendousman]

Kerry and the Democrats have been going "negative" FOR MONTHS, if attacking the other guy's record is considered "going negative".

The thing is, Bush didn't whine like a little b!tch like Kerry. Apparently, revenge is a dish best served cold, and Bush has plenty of ammunition!

... what a freaking hypocrite.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Kerry and the Democrats have been going "negative" FOR MONTHS, if attacking the other guy's record is considered "going negative".

The thing is, Bush didn't whine like a little b!tch like Kerry. Apparently, revenge is a dish best served cold, and Bush has plenty of ammunition!

... what a freaking hypocrite.

[hyteckit]

Kerry hasn't called for raising taxes by $900 billion over 10 years, but he does want to repeal the Bush tax cuts for taxpayers earning more than $200,000 a year. The $900 billion is derived from the estimated cost of his health care plan. Bush campaign officials assumed that if the plan costs that much, Kerry would raise taxes that much to pay for it.

Haha... that's one way of stretching the truth.

The ad also faults Kerry for criticizing elements of the Patriot Act, which expanded police powers in cases involving suspected terrorists.

What's dumb about this is that they complain about the cost of Kerry's health care plan and right after mentions the Patriot Act. Hmm.. guess the Patriot Act doesn't cost a dime. Heh...

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Kerry and the Democrats have been going "negative" FOR MONTHS, if attacking the other guy's record is considered "going negative".

The thing is, Bush didn't whine like a little b!tch like Kerry. Apparently, revenge is a dish best served cold, and Bush has plenty of ammunition!

... what a freaking hypocrite.

Yes, but these are the first of President Bush's ads to go negative. Kerry isn't the only one who has been attacking the other guy's record in speechs; Bush has attacked Kerry's record plenty of times.

As for "whining like a little b!tch"...tell me, when did Kerry do that? Or do you mean when he responded to the latest ads? If that is what you mean, then I assume you are also saying that President Bush has never responded to Kerry, right?

Also, here's a new screenshot from the ad:

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
According to Kerry and his drooling media hounds, simply bring up Kerry's record as a Senator is considered "negative" and an "attack".

According to Bush and his drooling media hounds, simply bringing up Bush's record as President is considered "negative" and an "attack."

Get real, people. Both sides play the same games. Might as well get used to it.

[zachs]

Links to the ads (from USA Today):

"100 Days"

"We Face A Choice"

[Spliffdaddy]

Those ads rock!

[funkboy]

I think the script for these ads is weak. This sentence, highlighted in a Salon article:

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

Now, maybe it sounds better coming from the announcer... but from strictly a writing point of view, that sentence doesn't have any lasting impression.

Be like Marc Antony: consice, to the point, concrete examples. and... not weird, awkward language.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Kerry isn't going to raise taxes, he doesn't have the authority. Why would he said he would raises taxes up to $900 mil. He wants to be the next president doesn't he?

Another one of Bush Campaign lies, um... I'm meant stretching the "truth".

Your right but Bush's target audience of conservatives would never question his ads. That's like the pope second guessing Jesus.

[Millennium]

So Bush has at last stooped to Kerry's level. A shame to see it, but I suppose turnabout is fair play.

[gadster]

Ah ha. I finally get it.

US political opinion is faith-based. I thought - erroneously - it seems, that the US electorate actually looked at the issues. Whereas positions are taken, and held, regardless of political reality. That explains a lot.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
According to Bush and his drooling media hounds, simply bringing up Bush's record as President is considered "negative" and an "attack."

Get real, people. Both sides play the same games. Might as well get used to it.

No it's the "LIED DIED" idiots that usually get made fun of.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by gadster:
Ah ha. I finally get it.

US political opinion is faith-based. I thought - erroneously - it seems, that the US electorate actually looked at the issues. Whereas positions are taken, and held, regardless of political reality. That explains a lot.

No...liberals like to label and lessen their opponents by calling them religious zealots...nothing more, nothing less. Just childish name calling as they demonstrate their own personal hate, prejudice, and intolerence.

[zachs]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No...liberals like to label and lessen their opponents by calling them religious zealots...nothing more, nothing less. Just childish name calling as they demonstrate their own personal hate, prejudice, and intolerence.

Conservatives have demonstrated their own personal hate, prejudice, and intolerence on numerous occasions:

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."
- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

_"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."
- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton, as reported by journalist Steve Miner of KSUB radio who overheard his conversation, 11-01-98

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-0

"Quit looking at the symbols. Get out and get a job. Quit shooting each other. Quit having illegitimate babies."
- State Rep. John Graham Altman (R-SC), addressing African-American concerns about the 'symbol' of the Confederate Flag, New York Times, 01-24-97

What's your point?

[typoon]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
It is about time.

Kerry has been foaming at the mouth about negative attacks for months.....so lets see them.

Again.. it is about time.

The truth hurts... but of course the truth is always negative if you are Senator Botox.

I agree it's about time we are seeing these agains John Fing Kerry.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
According to Bush and his drooling media hounds, simply bringing up Bush's record as President is considered "negative" and an "attack."

Get real, people. Both sides play the same games. Might as well get used to it.

Of course both sides are going to point out the negatives of their opponent. I never claimed otherwise. The difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by gadster:
Ah ha. I finally get it.

US political opinion is faith-based. I thought - erroneously - it seems, that the US electorate actually looked at the issues. Whereas positions are taken, and held, regardless of political reality. That explains a lot.

During times of troop deployment, the US tends to polarize. Never as much as now though.

So people vote right down party lines.

Makes elections very easy to call, because they have from now until November to acually count the votes.

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of course both sides are going to point out the negatives of their opponent. I never claimed otherwise. The difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press.

OK, so he simply responded to distortions in the ads.
When John Kerry releases his ad, you can bet Bush will be responding.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
OK, so he simply responded to distortions in the ads.
When John Kerry releases his ad, you can bet Bush will be responding.

John Kerry has been on the attack for 6 months. How many press conferences have you seen Bush call in response to Kerry's attacks?

[gadster]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
John Kerry has been on the attack for 6 months. How many press conferences have you seen Bush call in response to Kerry's attacks?

Well, I've seen 4.

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
John Kerry has been on the attack for 6 months. How many press conferences have you seen Bush call in response to Kerry's attacks?

John Kerry has only been on the attack as the presumptive nominee for only a short time. Before that, it was all of the other Democratic candidates attacking him, too.

Like I said, when Kerry releases his own ad, I'm sure we'll see President Bush responding.

[Zimphire]

The White House has sat patiently while Kerry has bashed Bush for months now, and Kerry's voting record is part of his supposed qualifications as a presidential candidate is it not?

Yes. If stating Kerry facts = negativism.. then that says a lot about Kerry's history.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of course both sides are going to point out the negatives of their opponent. I never claimed otherwise. The difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press.

Of course Kerry is going to court the press as much as he can - he's running for President! Bush, meanwhile, is already President and hates press conferences because he doesn't want to have to answer questions about administration policy. So his surrogates - Ed Gillespie, Sean Hannity - do the complaining for him. If Kerry were the incumbent and Bush the challenger, it would be no different.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Of course both sides are going to point out the negatives of their opponent. I never claimed otherwise. The difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press.

In other words, no substantial difference at all. Okay.

[TheMosco]

I thought if we live in fear the terrorists have won? It seems pretty clear that GW is trying to make people scared that if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to start blowing everything up. It seems kinda weird.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zachs:
[B]Yes, but these are the first of President Bush's ads to go negative.

I've been seeing negative Bush ads for months. (yawn) I've seen little to no rebutal from Bush or the Rebublicans. I haven't seen Bush call any of those ads distorting his record liars.

I've seen negative attacks for months (yawn) Kerry's even gone as far as engaged in name-calling.

I've seen Bush and his campaign, thus far, being very restrained as far as the candidates go UNTIL NOW, when the campaign has started.

As for "whining like a little b!tch"...tell me, when did Kerry do that?

When hasn't he? Maybe when he sobbed like a little girl because Republicans where highlighting his anti-defense votes and whined that they were attacking his "patriotism" . Or maybe just lately when he called his critics liars and other assorted insults. THAT is whining like a little bitch. You don't see Bush or his people engaging in that sort of stuff even when the same sort of stuff is happening to them.

As someone else so clearly stated here, "the difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press." Trust me...it will get old with the American people. Folks don't like a whiny tattletale. It makes the guy look weak, not strong.

[gadster]

What I am suggesting, is that the debate here - and elsewhere- is futile. The US is so polarised - positions are already set. No US voter is going to be convinced by debate, ever. Add the numbers up now. The only unknown is how many of you are going to get out there and vote come polling day. Stop this parody of democratic debate, get out there and mobilise the voters. And leave us alone. Sheesh.

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
I've been seeing negative Bush ads for months. (yawn) I've seen little to no rebutal from Bush or the Rebublicans. I haven't seen Bush call any of those ads distorting his record liars.

I've seen negative attacks for months (yawn) Kerry's even gone as far as engaged in name-calling.

I've seen Bush and his campaign, thus far, being very restrained as far as the candidates go UNTIL NOW, when the campaign has started.

OK...it was Bush's choice to remain silent. If he didn't want to respond to Kerry's attacks, then that was his decision. But maybe it was because he couldn't respond to Kerry, because what Kerry said was true.

When hasn't he? Maybe when he sobbed like a little girl because Republicans where highlighting his anti-defense votes and whined that they were attacking his "patriotism" . Or maybe just lately when he called his critics liars and other assorted insults. THAT is whining like a little bitch. You don't see Bush or his people engaging in that sort of stuff even when the same sort of stuff is happening to them.

As someone else so clearly stated here, "the difference is that Bush doesn't call a press conference everytime Kerry "attacks" him, wheras the moment a Kerry negative is aired, we immediately see John Kerry holding court with the press." Trust me...it will get old with the American people. Folks don't like a whiny tattletale. It makes the guy look weak, not strong.

Responding to an untrue allegation in an ad is not sobbing like a little girl. Would you rather him sit and remain silent? (Well, I know you would. But that would be an incredibly poor way to run a campaign.) What's the point of that? Again, maybe Bush isn't responding because he has nothing to respond TO. Maybe...just maybe...what Kerry is saying is true.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by zachs:
OK...it was Bush's choice to remain silent. If he didn't want to respond to Kerry's attacks, then that was his decision. But maybe it was because he couldn't respond to Kerry, because what Kerry said was true.

Or more likely, since he IS responding now (and not just complaining about what Kerry says, and has been saying) he simply isn't a whiney bitch. He can dish it out, and can take it WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE. Kerry on the other hand.....

Responding to an untrue allegation in an ad is not sobbing like a little girl. Would you rather him sit and remain silent?

No. I'd like him to explain what ISN'T true, and stop the name calling and whining. The truth is the best defense against lies. Going "WAAAHHH..he said bad things about me" isn't. Kerry actually helps illustrate your own point. Instead of pointing out where Republicans where telling untruths about his dismal defense vote record, he cries and whines that people are attacking his patriotism. NO ONE did that. He can't defend against true attacks against his record, so he creates a straw man that he can cry to, hoping people won't notice.

Trust me...they do.

[zachs]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
Or more likely, since he IS responding now (and not just complaining about what Kerry says, and has been saying) he simply isn't a whiney bitch. He can dish it out, and can take it WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE. Kerry on the other hand.....

So if Bush responds, it's OK. But when Kerry responds, he's whining? Riiiiight.

No. I'd like him to explain what ISN'T true, and stop the name calling and whining. The truth is the best defense against lies. Going "WAAAHHH..he said bad things about me" isn't. Kerry actually helps illustrate your own point. Instead of pointing out where Republicans where telling untruths about his dismal defense vote record, he cries and whines that people are attacking his patriotism. NO ONE did that. He can't defend against true attacks against his record, so he creates a straw man that he can cry to, hoping people won't notice.

Trust me...they do.

He HAS explained what isn't true. Check here for the press release. But of course, that's just him whining and complaining, right? He hasn't gone "WAAAAHHH", he's responded with facts, and the truth. BUSH is the one who is complaining about Kerry "unfairly" attacking him. BUSH is the one who hasn't responded with facts. Kerry has.

[zigzag]

The idea that Bush didn't go negative until now because he's such a righteous dude is hopelessly naive. He didn't start in until now because (a) the Dems have been beating up on each other for him, (b) no one was quite sure who the Democratic nominee would be until recently, and (c) it's unusual for the Dems to unite this early in the game. Now that the Dems have made peace and rallied behind Kerry, Bush can step up and target Kerry, and his surrogates can complain about Kerry's ads (as we all know, Dubya doesn't like to hold press conferences).

As for Kerry complaining, what would you expect him to do, say "Gee, President Bush is right - his ads are correct and I think I would make a lousy President"? He's going to call as many press conferences as he can, and Bush would do the same thing if he were running against an incumbent. This is major league politics, not the school playground.

Both sides manipulate, spin, lie, exaggerate, etc., then complain that the other side is manipulating, spinning, lying, exaggerating, etc. That's how the game is played, always has been. Anyone who claims that their side is more virtuous than the other is naive. Does anyone really think that Karl Rove or George Bush sits around worrying whether he's being fair to John Kerry or John McCain or any other opponent? Or vice versa? Hell no - they only care about getting a reaction and then acting offended when the other side does the same thing. They put out a negative ad and then send Matalin or Carville out to complain about the other side and say "We just want to talk about the issues." It's as predictable as the sun rising in the east, and some of you are buying right into it.

The Bush campaign is already mapped out through November. They have a big timeline on the wall that shows when they'll put ads out and on which issues. Ditto Kerry once he gets organized. Bush is just having to go negative earlier than expected because his poll numbers are way down and the Dems are already united behind Kerry.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No...liberals like to label and lessen their opponents by calling them religious zealots...nothing more, nothing less. Just childish name calling as they demonstrate their own personal hate, prejudice, and intolerence.

You have done the exact same thing by generalizing "liberals." Saying "some liberals," or, better yet, "some people," would have made your argument a hundred times more valid in my eyes.

The original poster meant that politics in general is faith-based... and not faith as in, religion. The only way religion comes in it is this:

Political parties are the greatest religion in the United States.

That's my own quote, and it needs some polish, but I think it holds pretty true. People in the USA (and probably many other places) have to stop being so stuck to one idea or the other, looking at politics and saying, "Dammit, I'm a liberal, and I always will be a liberal!" or "I am a conservative, so whatever they support, I support, too."

Stop praying to the demigods that are political parties.

[itai195]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
During times of troop deployment, the US tends to polarize. Never as much as now though.

So people vote right down party lines.

Makes elections very easy to call, because they have from now until November to acually count the votes.

Not really. During times of war, the electorate tends to unify. That's precisely why President Bush is so eager to associate himself with the 'wartime president' label. The exceptions are wars that are largely seen as illegitimate by public opinion, such as Vietnam and, currently, Iraq.

Originally posted by stupendousman:
NO ONE did that. He can't defend against true attacks against his record, so he creates a straw man that he can cry to, hoping people won't notice.

Interesting, I wonder where I've seen that before. Surely nobody who posts regularly on this forum could be accused of that behavior.