The G.O.P. Strikes Back

[MonstaThrilla]

G.O.P. to Run an Ad for Bush on Terror Issue

After months of sustained attacks against President Bush in Democratic primary debates and commercials, the Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement of the presidential race, portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping.

The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush's campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: "Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power," he says after the screen flashes the words, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists."

By indirectly invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, the commercial plays to what White House officials have long contended is Mr. Bush's biggest political advantage: his initial handling of the aftermath of the attacks.

Republican Party officials said that television stations in Iowa were to begin broadcasting the commercial on Sunday, the day before a televised Democratic debate there. The commercial is to continue running through Tuesday and will also probably be broadcast in New Hampshire about the time of the next debate, which is scheduled to take place there two weeks later. The party said it was spending roughly $100,000 for the initial broadcast of the advertisement, which seemed intended for voters in the states with the first contests, as well as for the journalists who cover the race.

The Bush campaign has sought to keep a low profile and put off overt electioneering for as long as possible. But some Republicans are worried about Mr. Bush's popularity, and, officials acknowledge, some Bush supporters have pressed for a response to the avalanche of Democratic critiques of his performance in office, which have been extensively covered on television.

Still, the White House has sought to keep distance from this first commercial. It is not a product of the president's campaign committee, but was paid for and produced by the Republican National Committee.

The party has acted as a proxy for Mr. Bush while he tries to maintain the appearance of being above the political fray.

I thought the candidate's party paying for campaign ads was banned under McCain-Feingold?

 

[miguel]

Why don't you post the whole article so we don't have to register for the NY times website?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

I thought the candidate's party paying for campaign ads was banned under McCain-Feingold?

I think the McCain-Feingold bill limits how the funds are raised, not how they are spent.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: miguel
Why don't you post the whole article so we don't have to register for the NY times website?

How do you know there's more to the article if you can't see it? I posted the news worthy section of the article, the rest I deemed insignificant. Poster's prerogative.

 

[SuperTool]

Surprise, surprise. Bush is trying to use 9/11 for reelection. I did not see that one coming a mile away.
Who is attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists? Bush is not attacking them hard enough, because he is obsessed with Iraq. Hello, Dubya, look at the map and check below Iraq. That's where the money for Al-Qaeda comes from. You can beat around the Bush all you want, but for every terrorist you kill, these Saudi sponsored Wahabbi madrasas will train ten more.
If Bush focused on the war on terror instead of diverting billions of dollars, hundreds of lives, fracturing the international community, bogging down the US armed forces on his nationbuilding adventure in Iraq, then he would have a leg to stand war.
Instead he is refighting a 1990's war to address a 21st century threat. I guess Saddam will be added to Osama on the list of people this administration doesn't want to talk about.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: miguel
Why don't you post the whole article so we don't have to register for the NY times website?

How do you know there's more to the article if you can't see it? I posted the news worthy section of the article, the rest I deemed insignificant. Poster's prerogative.

You are right. Poster's perogative. The article doesn't seem complete to me, that's all. If you deemed the rest insignificant, that's good and well, but I like to get to the source as much as possible. I suppose if I were really intrested in the rest of the article, I would sign up at NY Times.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

I thought the candidate's party paying for campaign ads was banned under McCain-Feingold?

I think the McCain-Feingold bill limits how the funds are raised, not how they are spent.

I was under the impression that the bill tried to put an end to "soft money" which was money raised by the respective parties and used explicitly for the Presidential campaign. This seems to fit that definition. I may be wrong in the definition of soft money though.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

And now the Deanites Strike Back.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

I was under the impression that the bill tried to put an end to "soft money" which was money raised by the respective parties and used explicitly for the Presidential campaign. This seems to fit that definition. I may be wrong in the definition of soft money though.

I think your definition is one step ahead of the actual definition:

Linky

What is soft money?

"Soft" money is money that is illegal under federal law. It flows through a loophole that has developed in recent years to provide candidates, contributors and political parties a means to evade federal contribution limits and source prohibitions.

Since 1907, federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing any money to federal campaigns. The prohibition on labor union funds dates to the 1940s. Federal law also limits an individual to contributing no more than $1,000 to a federal candidate per election, and no more than $20,000 to a political party per year. The parties then spend their money on activities that affect federal campaigns.

To evade these restrictions, soft money contributions are given by individuals, corporations, unions or others to designated "non-federal" accounts of the national political parties.

 

[Jhhnn]

9/11, 9/11, 9/11- the great Republican mantra for '04. Be afwaid, be vewwy, vewwy afwaid... It's the answer for everything.

Iraq? 9/11!

Jobs? 9/11!

Deficits? 9/11!

Environment? 9/11!

Valerie Plame? 9/11!

The list goes on, of course, they act like they invented 9/11. In a way, they actually did, turning a national tragedy into a vehicle for an uber-right agenda, one they wouldn't have dared to advance without an appropriate excuse...

 

[DealMonkey]

Only Bush could stoop so low as to politically capitalize on a national tragedy like 9/11. He's nothing without disaster as a backdrop.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Only Bush could stoop so low as to politically capitalize on a national tragedy like 9/11. He's nothing without disaster as a backdrop.

So saying "you aren't doing enough about 9/11" as a campaign premise is not politically capitalizing on a national tragedy like 9/11?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Only Bush could stoop so low as to politically capitalize on a national tragedy like 9/11. He's nothing without disaster as a backdrop.

Is there anything that Bush could do to change your image of him? If not, then why even bother posting? If he's so stupid, then why the constant criticism? Are you saying everyone else is too stupid to see that he is stupid?

 

[Witling]

My problem with the Reporter/Poster is, "Strikes Back." HeySus, I didn't even know they'd be struck.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Only Bush could stoop so low as to politically capitalize on a national tragedy like 9/11. He's nothing without disaster as a backdrop.

Is there anything that Bush could do to change your image of him? If not, then why even bother posting? If he's so stupid, then why the constant criticism? Are you saying everyone else is too stupid to see that he is stupid?

he could step down that would change my view of him.

DM is right.

I am surprised that bush also did not include :

the economy is in the crapper ... vote for me.
the patriot act is taking away our fredom .. vote for me.
lets do away with the fresh air ... vote for me.
NK is bad ... vote for me.
i almost choked on a pretzel... vote for me.
i can almost give a ok speech .. vote for me.
let do away with peace treaties... vote for me.