Telling sign on the upcoming campaign

[jerseyhoya34]

www.georgewbush.com/news/Read.aspx?ID=2230

Go to the link for the text of the Bush campaign's first advertisement. Fortunately for the country's political discourse, the advertisement is not slated to air on television, as the President's voice does not come on in the advertisement saying that he approves the message. However, the Bush team has sent the ad to e-mail subscribers so that they can get a taste for what President Bush wants to bring to America.

Count me as disappointed. After all, the President can run on something. Maybe its not education, the environment, or healthcare, but surely they could open up the campaign by highlighting actual issues and maybe bringing out the President's contributions in Afghanistan and alleged contributions to national security vis-a-vis Iraq and Libya.

What they have chosen to do, instead, is to begin their media campaign with an attack ad, that takes a page out of Howard Dean's playbook. They are equating lobbyist donations with special interest money. Granted, lobbyist donations are a small part of the equation, but Senator Kerry refuses to take PAC money, which is a far bigger problem in politics today that $1000 private donations from lobbyists. Also, I question the campaign strategy of Bush's team especially considering what has gone on with the Medicare/prescription drug bills, not to mention Halliburton.

[thebin]

Oh No! You mean this is going to be an election like just about every other in history! Damn you Bush!

You must be joking Jersey. That ad is perfectly legit. Kerry is a multi-millionaire Swiss boarding school/St. Paul's/Yale blue blood who takes boatloads of money from so-called special interests (even for a Senator) and then feigns this asinine "man of the people" routine. Nothing wrong with calling him on it. That is one of the pitfalls of running as a long time Senator- you are almost certainly in the pocket of special interests with the money trail to prove it, and Kerry has a worse record here than most. I think its pretty silly that you equate attack politics with one party. The whole friggen Dem primary was run on who hates Bush more. that's why Lieberman did so poorly- he was the only one without a warchest of snide remarks about the president. You are also digging yourself a huge hole to be denouncing Bush for attacking Kerry- or will it be OK every time Kerry did it because in your mind, "Bush started it?" Give me a break. I really can't believe what I am reading. you have to have a thicker skin about electoral politics. This is nothing remotely new or remotely Republican. Its just politics. Bush has been attacked from the left- from all corners- visocusly, and your shocked that he is hitting back?

[Z]

i know that it wasnt really the central point of the last post, but bush has raised 28 times the PAC money that kerry has--fyi. the repub's are going to have to tread somewhat lightly on this "kerry has been captured by special interests" routine IMO.

[jerseyhoya34]

I see your point and it is probably a good one. I just question the level of discourse. I have followed Kerry's campaign rather closely, and I have not heard him delve into personal attacks. In fact, he has stayed above the fray on the AWOL issue. Rather, he attacks on the issues.

I also question whether Kerry takes boatloads of money from special interests, as you put it. Moreover, I question how much it has affected his political decisions. With Bush, there is a clear trail (Halliburton etc.), and I just do not see that with Kerry. Maybe its naive, but I do not see it. You have accused him of being in the pocket of special interests, so what can you offer to prove it (other than that Kerry receives several donations from individual lobbyists)?

Also, I do not equate attack politics with one party. McAuliffe was wrong to call Bush AWOL. The accusation was politically loaded and technically false. My assertion has merely been that Kerry has refrained from engaging in these personal attacks, but has focused his attacks on issues and the President's record in the White House. It is as wrong of McAuliffe to call Bush AWOL as it is Gillespie to draw a parallel between Hanoi Jane and John Kerry. These are personal, not even political, attacks that have no place in this, or any, election, even though it always seems like they do creep in.

I also dispute whether the whole Dem primary has been run on who hates Bush more. If that were the case, why has Howard Dean tanked? (I would also suggest that Lieberman's downfall was not because he didn't hate Bush, but rather because of his stance on several issues and continued championing of those causes (i.e. the Iraq War)) Sappy as it sounds, the fact of the matter is that perceived electability is the driving force in the primary. Edwards, who is running in second, has not engaged in attack politics. Instead, he has outlined a positive, optimistic (if not naive) vision for America's future. How would you explain that? He does not hate Bush outwardly. So, I am dubious about your claim of the centrality of the hate Bush aspect of the primary. Perhaps it was more believable when no one had voted and when Dean was the presumed frontrunner, but, now with the benefit of registered opinion, we can all but throw out the idea that the whole primary has been run on who hates Bush more.

Also, I did not denounce Bush for attacking Kerry, but rather his campaign. Bush himself did not affiliate himself directly with the advertisement. I think the question remains why they would come out with a negative advertisement to open up their media campaign. Could it be the poll numbers?

[thebin]

Not as long as Kerry has the gnads to stage a "man of the people" campaign. Kerry is the only politician, according to Kerry, that takes tons of money from special interest but gives nothing back in return.

[thebin]

www.abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/WorldNewsTonight/kerry_fundraising_040209-1.html

"according to survey of federal records by The Washington Post, he is the Senate's No. 1 recipient of individual campaign contributions from lobbyists."

And there is some story in that abc news piece about a telecom company that sure sounds as substantiated as anything I have heard about Haliburton.

Oh and this nugget from insomniac.com about the biggest pork project in the history of the republic in Boston's Big Dig, or Big Pig:


During the 1990s, Kerry and the state's senior senator, Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, helped win new federal funding for the project as its costs skyrocketed. In 1998, Kerry was credited with winning $100 million in new federal funding. But in 1999, the Transportation Department uncovered a financing scheme in which the project had overpaid $129.8 million to AIG for worker compensation and liability insurance that wasn't needed, then had allowed the insurer to keep the money in a trust and invest it in the market. The government alleged AIG kept about half of the profits it made from the investments.

Outraged, McCain submitted legislation that would have stripped $150 million from the Big Dig and banned the practice of allowing an insurer to invest and profit from excessive premiums paid with government money. But Kerry and Kennedy intervened, and McCain withdrew the legislation in 2000 in favor of the hearing. In September 2001, Kerry disclosed to the Senate ethics office that AIG had paid an estimated $540 in travel expenses for a speech Kerry gave in Burlington, Vt. A few months later in December 2001, several AIG executives gave maximum $1,000 donations to Kerry's Senate campaign on the same day. The donations totaled $9,700 and were followed by several thousand dollars more over the next two years.

The next spring, AIG donated $10,000 to a new tax-exempt group Kerry formed, the Citizen Soldier Fund, to lay groundwork for his presidential campaign. Later in 2002, AIG gave two more donations of $10,000 each to the same group, making it one of the group's largest corporate donors. Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Worcester, credited Kerry for getting McCain's legislation blocked in favor of a hearing, saying Massachusetts lawmakers "were on the side of good government here but also concerned the language might go too far and put more of a burden on a Massachusetts project."

[Deleted]

Wow - big deal. A long-time member of the Senate has taken money from lobbyists. Bush spent much of his 2000 campaign touting himself not being a "Washington insider", but I believe he's taken a few dollars from Washington "special interests since his election (and I bet he had a few "special interest" bucks in his gubernatorial campaign coffers over the years). As for Kerry calling himself a "man of the people": when was the last time a candidate said "F the people! I'm running for the special interests!"?

[Fan Of The Game]

Cam said:

...when was the last time a candidate said "F the people! I'm running for the special interests!"?

I believe that was the Gary Coleman campaign slogan.

[Z]

how anyone is criticizing kerry for a faux "man of the people" shtick, without acknowledging the more egregious routine of our truck-drivin', cowboy boot wearin' current prez is beyond me. someone remind me of the last time kerry gathered reporters to watch him chop wood, for pete's sake.

[thebin]

there is some validity to this point Z but limited IMO. I mean Bush truly seems to be a cowboy boot wearing truck guy- I am sure he would be if he never ran for office. I think this stems from his Texas Rangers days at latest. I mean, with some considerable monies (but not as rich as most people think the Bushes are) he does live on the hideous ranch in Crawford. Kennebunkport is more my style. Kerry lives in a Beacon Hill mansion. (Much more my style.)

[showcase]

I'd be interested to see if the Bushes continue to live at the Crawford ranch after his Presidency ends (whenever it does). I have a suspicion that they won't, but that's just me.

And, according to the Kerry campaign, Bush might want to rethink his latest attack add, since he's apparently taken in more 'special interest' money this YEAR than Kerry has his whole career.

Seriously, I thought it took a lot of chutzpa for a man with a $200Mil campaign fund to accuse a prospective challenger for the White House of being in the back pocket of donors - nevermind the 'peculiarities' surrounding the Cheney's energy summit and Halliburton's apparent inability to do anything wrong in the eyes of this Administration. Now, if Bush really wants to impress, he should attack Kerry for being a tax & spend liberal. That would show some real cujones..

[thebin]

Come on showcase- apples and oranges to compare the donations to a Senator and THE president, isn't it?

I very much doubt the Ranch act is a political set piece. Does he really strike you as northeasterner masquerading as a Texan? I think he, unilke his father, is genuinely comfortable in that Texan skin. I don't think it is affected. I think he is as legitmately comfortable in Crawford as CLinton was on Martha's Vinyard. And yes, Democrats show generally better taste in their vacation spots of choice IMO.

That quote....about the Dutch, who was that? Simpsons?

[jerseyhoya34]

Showcase,
I get the real feeling that the Bush folks don't quite know how to run against Kerry right now. Like you say, it will be hard for them to run on fiscal issues, thereby pinning Kerry as a tax and spender. Not to mention the special interest issue. Also, it is going to be hard for them to run on national security given Kerry's status as a decorated veteran, despite his accomplishments in Afghanistan and his alleged contributions to national security vis-a-vis Iraq. They have tried to paint Kerry as Hanoi John, but I think most voters can see through the attack, not to mention how some of the photos that attack dogs have been using are doctored.
Now, if we can just peruse Drudge's website, we can get a better sense for what kinds of newspapers and media outlets are running with this alleged intern story with Kerry. Not even the intern's father will go so far as to allege an affair.
None of this crap is sticking. All in all, I think this week was one of the best for Democrats during the Bush presidency. Things seem to be falling into place (and the Bush team is on the defensive), and I could not be happier right now because I think a change in Presidents would be good for the country.

[thebin]

I would temper that optimism with a reminder that it is perfectly normal for the opposition party to be peaking at this point in the electoral cycle. They just had months of free press- the kind not even $200 million can buy. Bush has had a bad month, starting with a lacklustre SOTU. But now is not the time to be panicking in the white house. At this point, Dole was tracking ahead of Clinton in 96. It will not be hard to attack Kerry on national security at all. I don't follow the logical consistency of a good combat record as a junior officer = a good commander in chief. His voting record on defense matters is a pretty fat (and valid) target for the Bush team to attack- wait and see. Kerry's wild inconsistency in foreign relations but particular the Gulf Wars will also be hit upon. It is quite valid to look at Kerry's long track record on national security as a legislator and see weakness that has always hurt the Dems (sometimes unfairly) among fencesitting males- and that was pre 9/11. Don't count those chickens yet. There is also the pretty general large hurdle of electibility that seems to have been lost only because he looks good v Dean ion terms of conventional political calculus. He can win, sure, but it won't be easy. Here is something the Kerry team won't be able to hide; he is a Massachusetts liberal. That is why he did so horrendusly bad in the begining of the primiaries- that is a signficant electoral hurdle. You may not think that is fair- but there it is. That fact has not changed and can't be hidden.

[jerseyhoya34]

I agree. This election is not a walk in the park for either party, and we have only seen how one group of people has responded to Kerry (the Dem primary-goers, with independents in a few states). The turnout has been excellent, which is good news, but we haven't seen and cannot evaluate more wide-ranging appeal.

That said, you make very good points about the alleged flip-flops and votes against defense budgets. I am often hesitant to buy into these attacks because, often times, they are based on straw man bills that opposition parties throw out as election fodder, when, in fact, they are not serious bills to begin with. So, it is hard to put everything in context, but I'll see what I can find on this Kerry/anti-defense line of thought.

So, I have gone to the RNC website and found their "fact" sheet on Kerry: www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?Id=3412

A couple defense-related items stick out (amidst the broader focus on social issues and fiscal responsibility):

1) Against Stopping Missile Defense Spending Cuts: Kerry voted against a motion to kill an amendment that proposed deeper cuts in SDI spending. (S. 3114, Roll Call Vote #182: Motion To Table Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, August 7, 1992)

If this is how Republicans want to contribute to national security, I say bring it on. Upon a more careful look at the cited bill, here is what I found:

"S.3114
Title: An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1993 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, to provide for defense conversion, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Nunn, Sam [GA] (introduced 7/31/1992) Cosponsors: (none)
Related Bills: H.R.4880, H.R.5006, S.3136, S.3137, S.3138, S.3139, S.3140, S.3141, S.3142, S.3143, S.3144,
S.3145
Latest Major Action: 9/19/1992 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote."

This piece of legislation was so uncontroversial that it passed the Senate by a voice vote. The Amendment S.AMDT.2918 was also agreed to by a voice vote in the Senate. It was a 57-43 Senate (in favor of the Dems), why not filibuster if the Amendment was so repugnant to the RNC folks? The bill itself was the defense budget, which Kerry most likely supported in the voice vote.

Enough with the political machinations, but can we at least agree that NMD/SDI is not as important as the RNC makes it out to be? At that time, the science involved and the technological wherewithal were even worse than they are today, so funding the thing was a money dump if I've ever seen one.

I have just come across another RNC attack page (www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=3865) and will give it more attention when I have time, but I would suggest that there is something behind the rhetoric. How significant is it to attack him on the basis of his lack of support for a system that never made it off the ground?

[showcase]

I agree, 'Bin, that it's waaay to early to be sizing up one's chicken population, but I would note this additional theory/variable.

Until now, I think the White House press corp has been pretty timid. I have long had the feeling that the press has, until recently, sort of given this Administration a RELATIVE bye on some of the big issues like Iraq/WMD, etc., by not pressing the Administration harder on some of its dumber public representations (e.g.: Powell @ the UN, Rummy's 'spin' every time something goes poorly for the Administration in Iraq, or on the WMD front, etc.). As noted by the 'outlet' I personally identify as a champion of common sense, the Daily Show, the press corp appears to have a new 'virility' (although its currently being misdirected as this dumb National Guard service issue).

Ultimately, I wonder whether: a) the press isn't tired of the Administration's arrogant "there's nothing to see here" (a la Rummy, et al.) approach to the major political issues, and b) whether (assuming this predicate is accurate) the effect of this is that the Administration will find a much more active/hostile press corp that's less willing to simply relay its party line and more interested in looking behind the party line to expose the Administration's blemishes.

And the "...the Dutch" sig line is from Goldmember; it's making the rounds on cable still, and the more I watch it, the more I love Caine's work in it.

"And look at you - you don't even have a nametag. You've got no chance. Why don't you just lie down?" ;D

[thebin]

I personally side with Biden on missile defense- it strikes me as a waste of resources. I fear greatly that a weapon of mass destruction will be used on an American city in my lifetime- and I am not talking about sarin gas killing 5 people. But like Biden, I think that weapon is very unlikely to come with a return address on it in the form of an ICBM. So personally, I am not a big fan of this system. I would rather the money was spent on replenishing tomahawk stocks.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

I personally side with Biden on missile defense- it strikes me as a waste of resources. I fear greatly that a weapon of mass destruction will be used on an American city in my lifetime- and I am not talking about sarin gas killing 5 people. But like Biden, I think that weapon is very unlikely to come with a return address on it in the form of an ICBM. So personally, I am not a big fan of this system. I would rather the money was spent on replenishing tomahawk stocks.

Agree 100%. Forget SDI/NMD and reallocate to anti-terror efforts and preventing proliferation of loose nukes and biochem stocks (which is far more important than ICBM activity in the war on terror IMHO).

[showcase]

Yeah. While SDI would be a nice fail-safe against accidental launches or N. Korea, you might as well go ahead and fund that new self-propelled artillery piece that Rummy killed a year ago. Exotic missle defense systems bring too little to the table for the money they'll cost to develop and acquire, and in any event would be mismatched against the current threats that face the nation.

Saw Biden on TV last month and came away very favorably impressed. Where's that quality of candidate during Presidential races?

[DallasHoya]

Why is it so hard for people in the northeast (and I was raised there) to believe some people like to do different things in life than they do? The fact that someone likes something different doesn't mean they're putting on an act for the great unwashed. Some of us actually like doing stuff that Bush does. I know I'd rather ride four-wheelers around on my friend's ranch (which isn't too far from Crawford) than attend some artsy fartsy event at the Kennedy Center or the Met.

And I also remember the DNC laughing at Bush 41 using a Houston Hotel as his home address when he was President, and definitively stating that he would never return to Texas when his presidency was over.