President Bush’s re-election campaign has put out their first television ads of the campaign season. They’ve been getting quite a bit of play, and they’re really quite nice. The production values are excellent, and it’s a positive message.
Bush is going the positive "morning in America" route for this campaign season, which is the right tack. Kerry is already sending a very negative message of America, a message that plays to pessism and fear. With the economy rebounding and job growth kicking into gear, albeit tentatively, Bush’s message is going to play well, while Kerry’s will seem shrill and negative.
Kerry will be a challenge, but I have a feeling that there’s been a realignment in American politics, and that realignment will ensure that a candidate like Kerry that is profoundly unserious about national security doesn’t have a shot.
In fact, Dick Morris has made the very same observation – and I think he’s got it right on this. But moreover, Kerry won’t lose because he’s a liberal – he’ll lose because he’s a boring elitist with absolutely no vision – never a convincing combination for a Presidential candidate.
Well, the three first are so nice, I almost cried…and incredibly enough, president Bush approuves the messages of his own campaign!!
The last one (unrpincipled) is nicely made, and surely true. But as a comparison, I believe a short spot on Enron and Halliburton would change the 640 000 Kerry received in several billions for Bush,inc.
I think the President’s ads are very nicely done. They are postive, very uplifting, and optimistic about America and the American people. They absolutley blow away anything John Kerry has done. http://www.johnkerry.com/videos . Kerry has nothing to sell except doom and despair. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I don’t believe that appeals to people, especially people in the middle.
By the way, all candidates are now required, by law, to say in there ads that they approved them.
I saw the ad and am worried that Bush’s team do not know what they are doing.
Why open yourself to the (fair) charge that you’re exploiting the victims of 9/11 to promote your re-election and that your greatest achievement is that you happened to be President three years ago when a disaster struck?
Incumbents needs to define themselves in terms of what they’ve accomplished, not in terms of excuses for what they have not accomplished.
I disagree. I think they know exactly what they are doing.
“exploiting the victims of 9/11 to promote your re-election”
What? Do you mean September 11th can’t be mentioned? That’s ridicules.
It’s the worst attack ever on American soil. How could you not mention it?
The images are a subtle reminder of the very tough times the country has
been through the last three years.
“your greatest achievement is that you happened to be President three years ago
when a disaster struck”
“excuses for what they have not accomplished”
No, his greatest achievement and accomplishment is that he carried America through that disaster
and a recession, and the worst corporate scandals ever, and a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I’d say those accomplishments are very impressive.
Or, you can see it the other way around: this is all that happened since he was in charge!!
These (a disaster and a recession, and the worst corporate scandals ever, and a war in Afghanistan and Iraq) are Bush’s accomplishments.
More seriously, I don’t see the problem with Bush using images of 9/11. He really was in charge that day, and he really can take the glory – or the blame- for how he handled the situation.
I have more of a problem with this ” I approuve this message” that rsw said is mandatory now. I was discussing with a lawyer yesterday, and he had a very clever comment (on another issue than these ads) : “every single law is a proof of a failure in the social mechanism of the society”. It is true: If you have to make a law, it means that individuals are not trustworthy in the eye of the government, so much you have to deprive them from their liberty of choice. Adding to : “The more laws, the less Justice”, I guess one can wonder about the american society’ success, and especially this mandatory comment on ads…what is the point of all this? We assume a candidate agrees with his own campaign and messages!!
Moreover, in the “unprincipled” ad, you cannot hear this “I approuve-thing”, but you can still read that it has been financed by “Bush-Cheney’04”. How come they don’t have to approuve negative ads as well?
Enron and WorldCom were fudging their book in 1995, while al-Qaeda bombed the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the African Embassies in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000… last time I checked Bush wasn’t in office when all those things happened.
I agree – which is why I’ve been against McCain-Feingold from the beginning. Then again, if we accept that logic, what does that say about France’s headscarf ban?
So, if Enron’s been fudging the books since 1995, why isn’t Bush Contributor and former CEO Ken Lay joining the lovely Ms. Stuart for a stint in the slammer, especially since his exploits, you know, ruined thousands of lives?
First of all, it isn’t a matter of if. Enron had been fudging its books almost from the beginning, and the questionable accounting dates back from between 1998-2000 – before Bush came to office.
Secondly, it wouldn’t surprise me if Lay were indicted, but these kinds of investigations take years. In order to get an indictment, the government would have to offer signiifcant proof that Lay knew that Enron was engaging in fraudulent accounting schemes. If they can’t produce the evidence, they can’t get a grand jury.
With Fastow and Skilling on the hot seat, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lay does get indicted somewhere down the road. However, in this country someone is innocent until proven guilty, and until it’s proven that Lay knew about Enron’s crooked dealings, demanding jail time is premature.
Oh this is interesting perspective, thanks for letting me in on a “conservatives” view. It really tickles me that you are trying to do damage control before the issue has even arisen in the political arena over Lay. Looks like Cheney and Bush have you pretty concerned over potential littigation. Oh and how ’bout those war crimes!?