Bush Campaign Ads

[burnedout]

You can watch the new Bush campaign ads online.

Enjoy!

 

[Napalm]

The first two are quite well done - especially the first. Very positive and presidential. The third ad is a bit weak - I'd like to see something about what he has accomplished as opposed to "excuses" for why times have been so tough for his presidency...

N

 

[MonstaThrilla]

That's some damn good production. Overall, I'm not sure how they convince or reassure swing voters who may be leaning towards the other guy. Its great the HE knows where HE wants to take this country, but why doesn't he actually describe his plans to the American people? WHY tax cuts weighed disproportionately towards the wealthy will help the middle-class entrepenuers he talks about. WHY a full scale land invasion of Iraq makes us safer from the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

This is the same exact criticism used against the Democrats railing against him in their ads - not enough substance behind the words.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: burnedout
You can watch the new Bush campaign ads online.

Enjoy!

Very nice

I don't see why people got their panties in a bunch in the other thread over the supposed 9-11 stuff. There were two very small tidbits in those 3 ads.

CkG

 

[nutxo]

hmm, I think they need some pictures of Kerry eating a baby and maybe a few quotes from one of his books:beer:

Seriously, I think they are okay, a little sentimental but not bad.

 

[alphatarget1]

bush is a freaking liar. what happened to the promise of not using 9/11 for his campaign?i thought he was supposed to be honest. looks like he's not a man who can keep his words. a president with no creditability. I don't trust bush at all and EVEN THOUGH we captured saddam huessin, we still haven't found WMD, something bush clearly exaggerated/lied on.

screwing an intern is better than screwing the country. i honestly don't see why people still like bush despite his lies and deception of the american people. people who vote for bush are just blind. i don't hate republicans, i can name so many republicans that i trust and respect but i just don't like bush/cheney.

 

[fitzhue]

The ads are obviously very well done. But are these ads going to make people who are undecided vote for him? Or get people to change their minds? It sure doesn't make me change my mind.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
bush is a freaking liar. what happened to the promise of not using 9/11 for his campaign?i thought he was supposed to be honest. looks like he's not a man who can keep his words. a president with no creditability. I don't trust bush at all and EVEN THOUGH we captured saddam huessin, we still haven't found WMD, something bush clearly exaggerated/lied on.

screwing an intern is better than screwing the country. i honestly don't see why people still like bush despite his lies and deception of the american people. people who vote for bush are just blind. i don't hate republicans, i can name so many republicans that i trust and respect but i just don't like bush/cheney.

Proof via Link that Bush said 9/11 would never be used?

 

[DrNoobie]

I think that this only goes to show how far down the crapper American politics is going. This is the second election in a row where neither candidates will be good choices.

 

[arsbanned]

Second in a row for you anyway.

 

[DealMonkey]

If you pop open the browser window that contains one of the videos, did you notice there's one in there titled "February 12, 2004: Unprincipled, Chapter 1?" Didn't take long for them to produce an attack ad against John Kerry. Watch the video, it basically bashes him for ties to special interests. I sorta thought Rove's strategy would be to come out positive, at least initially, and then turn negative once things got rolling and the dem candidate was known.

The undercurrent of the other ads suggests that it's a scary world out there, yet Bush knows how to handle it. Of course, since most of the "scary stuff" happened on his watch, I tend to attribute the various F ups to Bush, not the corrective actions taken after the fact. As a non-partisan voter, these initial ads do nothing to sway me either way.

 

[alchemize]

The unprincipled one was my favorite

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If you pop open the browser window that contains one of the videos, did you notice there's one in there titled "February 12, 2004: Unprincipled, Chapter 1?" Didn't take long for them to produce an attack ad against John Kerry. Watch the video, it basically bashes him for ties to special interests. I sorta thought Rove's strategy would be to come out positive, at least initially, and then turn negative once things got rolling and the dem candidate was known.

The undercurrent of the other ads suggests that it's a scary world out there, yet Bush knows how to handle it. Of course, since most of the "scary stuff" happened on his watch, I tend to attribute the various F ups to Bush, not the corrective actions taken after the fact. As a non-partisan voter, these initial ads do nothing to sway me either way.

It is just the beginning...only 8 months to go!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
The unprincipled one was my favorite

Figured it would, however answer me this: Isn't Bush just as unprincipaled based on the logic of this ad? Bush takes plenty of money from special interests, probably even more than Kerry does.

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The unprincipled one was my favorite

Figured it would, however answer me this: Isn't Bush just as unprincipaled based on the logic of this ad? Bush takes plenty of money from special interests, probably even more than Kerry does.

Bush accepted more special interest money in one year than Kerry did his entire life.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The unprincipled one was my favorite

Figured it would, however answer me this: Isn't Bush just as unprincipaled based on the logic of this ad? Bush takes plenty of money from special interests, probably even more than Kerry does.

Bush accepted more special interest money in one year than Kerry did his entire life.

are you not including the soviet funding in the 70's?

 

[fitzhue]

?? I'm just quoting what I've heard on the news a couple weeks back when this was being debated.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The unprincipled one was my favorite

Figured it would, however answer me this: Isn't Bush just as unprincipaled based on the logic of this ad? Bush takes plenty of money from special interests, probably even more than Kerry does.

Bush accepted more special interest money in one year than Kerry did his entire life.

Ah the old ~! and ~but excuse of "well your guy is worstester"
I do believe it was kerry who was bleating about being "anti-special interest" I think it's perfectly acceptable to call him very hypicritical.

But that's OK - the ~!s and ~buts don't care about who thier guy is or where he stands on things - they just hate Bush. Whatever trips their trigger I guess...

CkG

 

[xcalibir]

I like the first one
the lats 2 arent as good cuz he doesnt mention anything basically all his ads are saying the same things
i like the attack ad he put out though

 

[DealMonkey]

Yes, I'm confounded by Kerry's stance that he's "anti-special interests" too, yet it's Bush's ad that portrays his acceptance of contributions as "unprincipled." Isn't that hypocritical on Bush's part? Certainly Bush's war chest consists of a great many corporate contributions, you could even argue quid pro quo in many cases (energy policy, environmental policy, etc.) -- how is Bush any less unprincipled based on the logic of his own ad?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'm confounded by Kerry's stance that he's "anti-special interests" too, yet it's Bush's ad that portrays his acceptance of contributions as "unprincipled." Isn't that hypocritical on Bush's part? Certainly Bush's war chest consists of a great many corporate contributions, you could even argue quid pro quo in many cases (energy policy, environmental policy, etc.) -- how is Bush any less unprincipled based on the logic of his own ad?

Again - it was to point out that kerry isn't who he says he is - not to blast the fact that he gets special interest $ perse. Most everyone I know understands that politicians recieve money from lobbists and such but for a person who has taken and taken and taken to suddenly run on an "anti" platform is a tad rediculous. I'd be just as harsh on Bush if he went around saying that he was suddenly an "anti-special interest" candidate inspite of him getting special interest monies. kerry can't have his cake and eat it too....well the Unions are letting him - but that's a different issue.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'm confounded by Kerry's stance that he's "anti-special interests" too, yet it's Bush's ad that portrays his acceptance of contributions as "unprincipled." Isn't that hypocritical on Bush's part? Certainly Bush's war chest consists of a great many corporate contributions, you could even argue quid pro quo in many cases (energy policy, environmental policy, etc.) -- how is Bush any less unprincipled based on the logic of his own ad?

Again - it was to point out that kerry isn't who he says he is - not to blast the fact that he gets special interest $ perse. Most everyone I know understands that politicians recieve money from lobbists and such but for a person who has taken and taken and taken to suddenly run on an "anti" platform is a tad rediculous. I'd be just as harsh on Bush if he went around saying that he was suddenly an "anti-special interest" candidate inspite of him getting special interest monies. kerry can't have his cake and eat it too....well the Unions are letting him - but that's a different issue.

CkG

"kerry can't have his cake and eat it too"

Neither can Bush

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
The unprincipled one was my favorite

Figured it would, however answer me this: Isn't Bush just as unprincipaled based on the logic of this ad? Bush takes plenty of money from special interests, probably even more than Kerry does.

Bush accepted more special interest money in one year than Kerry did his entire life.

Ah the old ~! and ~but excuse of "well your guy is worstester"
I do believe it was kerry who was bleating about being "anti-special interest" I think it's perfectly acceptable to call him very hypicritical.

But that's OK - the ~!s and ~buts don't care about who thier guy is or where he stands on things - they just hate Bush. Whatever trips their trigger I guess...

CkG

Well all I was saying is the fact that Bush did take more special interest money than Kerry. I know Kerry has accepted a LOT of special interest money as well. In the end though I really don't care as it is just not important to me. Kerry was not my first choice but I do agree with most of his policies which is why I will vote for him. Believe it or not I do have respect for Bush. I respect the fact that he has taken a firm stance on certain issues and is assertive. But I don't agree with his stance(s).

Way to make an objective response.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, I'm confounded by Kerry's stance that he's "anti-special interests" too, yet it's Bush's ad that portrays his acceptance of contributions as "unprincipled." Isn't that hypocritical on Bush's part? Certainly Bush's war chest consists of a great many corporate contributions, you could even argue quid pro quo in many cases (energy policy, environmental policy, etc.) -- how is Bush any less unprincipled based on the logic of his own ad?

Again - it was to point out that kerry isn't who he says he is - not to blast the fact that he gets special interest $ perse. Most everyone I know understands that politicians recieve money from lobbists and such but for a person who has taken and taken and taken to suddenly run on an "anti" platform is a tad rediculous. I'd be just as harsh on Bush if he went around saying that he was suddenly an "anti-special interest" candidate inspite of him getting special interest monies. kerry can't have his cake and eat it too....well the Unions are letting him - but that's a different issue.

CkG

See the thing is Cad, it's one thing for Bush to shine a light on Kerry's claim that he's not in the pocket of special interests, but quite another when the subtext of the ad is that Bush would never stoop so low as to peddle influence. Bush is somehow principled while Kerry is not. Yet, Bush's own allegience to his particular special interests is so obvious, he could never claim that it doesn't exist.

And yes, there's the matter of degrees. I can make distinctions between how much Kerry has taken from special interests vs Bush. There's also distinctions in my mind between who those special interests are. For example, I'd much rather see a candidate taking campaign contributions from environmental groups than industry groups.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure we'll have a nice long 8-month+ run of mud-slinging and distortions of the truth from both sides.