: US Campaign Watch


macello
Mar 4th, 2004, 03:28 PM
The free roaming ehMacian eye on the world is wider than that of any single member. smile.gif

Now that the race has begun, I submit the first Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1ZEG0GF2AJX30CRBAELCF EY?type=topNews&storyID=4500244&section=news) article on the first Republican shot (http://www.plgrove.org/america/9-11.jpg) across the Democratic bow by the Bush campaign.

Excerpts:

Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on Thursday at President Bush's first ads of his re-election campaign that use images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader for tumultuous times. ....

"It's entirely wrong. He's had 3,500 deaths on his watch, including Iraq," said Doyle, whose 25-year-old son Joseph died at the trade center, .......

Ron Willett of Walnut Shade, Missouri, said he was disgusted when he saw the ads. Willett, who lost his 29-year-old son, John Charles, when planes hit the trade center, said he is now so upset, "I would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush." ...... "I think it is an atrocity," his wife, Lucy, added. "He should not be allowed to use those images at all." ....

"There is really a hypocrisy here. The Bush administration will not cooperate fully with the 9/11 commission and at the same time they are trying to invoke and own 9/11 and use it for his re-election," said Stephen Push from the Washington office of "Families September 11th." His wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon that day.

The International Association of Fire Fighters, which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, also denounced the campaign spots as "hypocrisy at its worst."

Brainstrained
Mar 4th, 2004, 05:17 PM
No doubt the race will soon get down and dirty as right wing columnist Dick Morris explained today how Bush could destory Kerry fast (http://www.hillnews.com/morris/030404.aspx).

macello
Mar 4th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Brainstrained, .... but is 'Dick" up to (http://www.therant.info/images/Ann%20Coulter.jpg) Ann Coulter (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/073931081X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg) ?

gordguide
Mar 4th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Having been through quite a few of these already, I don't even pay attention until at least September.

Although everybody has already crowned Kerry as the candidate, they haven't even had the convention yet, so he's not even officially running for President. Relax, anything can happen, and will.

Brainstrained
Mar 4th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Macello, no one, is up to Ann Coulter.

Except maybe Macnutt and he's on her side.

macello
Mar 5th, 2004, 10:38 AM
More seriously, back at the US Federal Election Commission:

Reining In Anti-Bush Groups
But Key FEC Member May Oppose Immediate Changes in Rules

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31690-2004Mar4.html

The Federal Election Commission yesterday set in motion regulatory proceedings that could severely restrict new pro-Democratic groups seeking to defeat President Bush.

But advocates of the tough regulations suffered a setback when a Democratic commissioner in a position to cast the key swing vote said she is likely to oppose any changes in the rules that would take effect before the November elections.

used to be jwoodget
Mar 5th, 2004, 11:49 AM
Brainstrained,

Several problems with Dick Morris's suggestions:

1. On troop withdrawal: "President Johnson kept the troops in Vietnam and lost. President Nixon was withdrawing them, and he won." Yep, let's draw parallels between GWB and Dickie! Troop withdrawal from Iraq for political purposes could well exacerbate an already dangerous powder-keg.

2. "Kerry has also made a big mistake in backing the criminal-justice approach to terrorism, seeking to transform the war on terror into a series of DEA-style busts. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains." Say what? Neo-con talk. Americans are not looking for the next Iraq boyo.

3. "But if Bush uses the next eight months to educate voters on Kerry’s opposition to the death penalty, his vote against the 1991 Iraq war, his poor attendance record in the past year and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, he could put this election away by defining Kerry right now." These are backwards looking and the attendance is not somewhere Bush wants to go seeing as he has taken more vacation days than any other POTUS. Would be fairly easy for the Kerry campaign to paint George as yesterdays Presidente.

4. The biggest problem though is that he didn't restrict the piece to mono-sylaballic words and there ain't no pictures. Won't reach its intended audience.

macello
Mar 5th, 2004, 12:07 PM
She's kinda fetching in a leggy way, but for cripesake she has no idea of how to "hold the gun" (http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/images/gun.jpg) ;) never mind the cohiba! (http://www.dochemp.com/images/cigarcohiba.jpg) graemlins/scream.gif

macello
Mar 5th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Bush's only hope is to pit Americans against each other. Already the bunker mentality has set in with the reactivation of Bush's svengaliesque and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, who approved using 9/11 as a jingle.

The Bush "gay" card is at the ready but there are complications (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1162713,00.html).

The White House yesterday faced widespread defiance of its plan to win over the religious right by banning same-sex marriage, with gay and lesbian weddings taking place in Oregon and New York State, and signs of division in Republican ranks.

The conjunction of events marks a widening of the challenge posed by San Francisco's mayor, who last month authorised wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The mayors of Chicago, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh were contemplating following suit. Officials in Washington DC, meanwhile, are reviewing regulations to ensure same-sex couples receive the same benefits as married people.

"It's anarchy" said Rick Forcier of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey."

Brainstrained
Mar 5th, 2004, 09:03 PM
Good points jwoodget.

Morris's strategy has more holes than a fishing net.

macello
Mar 8th, 2004, 12:27 PM
A setback for Bush's Gay Card?

Is the US supreme court too "activist" for Bush's core folk?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Connecticut on Monday to remove the Boy Scouts from a list of charities that receive contributions from state workers because the group excludes gays.

Without comment, the high court rejected an appeal by the Boy Scouts arguing the removal violated its constitutional right to freedom of association and was discrimination based on its viewpoint.http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4520032

http://www.felbers.net/photos/scout.jpg

MacNutt
Mar 9th, 2004, 03:02 AM
Just heard a poll on MSNBC that claimed Bush and Kerry are currently in a dead heat. 44% each.

It will be interesting to see who Kerry chooses for a running mate. This could make quite a bit of difference to the public perception of a stale old Washinton insider like himself.

The right Vice Pres on the ticket (like John Edwards) could turn Kerry into an electible Presidential Candidate.

Otherwise, I think he's sunk.

macello
Mar 9th, 2004, 09:58 AM
A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey. Bush's standing hit new lows in crucial areas such as the economy (39 percent support him), Iraq (46 percent) and the budget deficit (30 percent). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41184-2004Mar8.html

MacNutt
Mar 13th, 2004, 02:55 AM
It's still wayyy early to predict the results of the upcoming US Presidential elections.

But I am ready to weigh in with my predictions. ;)

Bush by a small margin. Better than he did against Gore.

Kerry will falter in the dying days of the race.

All bets are off if Kerry chooses John Edwards as his Vice Pres running mate.

In that case, Kerry could take the win. Just barely.

But I still think we will see a second Bush term.

macello
Mar 13th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Three mysterious witnesses to the "Passion of the Bush pilot" graemlins/scream.gif

"Bush and I were together during those months on a mission so secret it's taken years of therapy for me to remember. We were on board an alien vessel during the time in question, emissaries of the Pentagon on a successful mission to obtain 'mental weaponry' far in advance of anything the Soviets had. Our memories were then wiped clean, except for the deepest recesses of the unconscious. I weep for the president's struggle with this trauma, and am coming forward to share my pain in interviews, book contracts, and the like. God bless America." -- Matthew Wills, New York, NY

"I can't verify Bush's presence in Alabama, but as a dental professional I am intrigued with his dental records. Generally, an individual with a large bank account doesn't have any missing permanent molars without receiving a fixed bridge (#3 is missing, yet no bridge is placed between #2-4, #2 has a crown, but #4 only has a three surface restoration). The American public needs to see his posterior bitewings from 1973 and a current series of bitewings to better judge the authenticity of the information provided." -- Barbara Vanderveen, Galt, CA

"I am an employee of the Nigerian government Toastmaster's Club. I am in hiding while rebels loot my country. In 1972 I was a colonel in the Alabama Air National Guard and flew many aircrafts. I was Bush's wingman. I was with him for his dental exams. I warned him against medical physical exams. You must keep this in strictest confidence. If you wish to pursue this business venture, then I shall need your fax and banking preferences." -- Dr. Abdula E. Fraudena, Lagos, NIGERIA

MacDoc
Mar 23rd, 2004, 09:01 PM
Bread and Circuses here we come

graemlins/lmao.gif graemlins/lmao.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

Presidential Politics, it's "FANtastic!"

Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former Minnesota governor and pro wrestler has all but thrown his hat in the ring for the 2008 presidential election. Ventura said yesterday, "It's time to put a wrestler in the White House."

Ventura also announced that his intended running mate is former NBA superstar Charles Barkley. Barkley has expressed interest in holding elected office previously, including rumors he might run for governor of Alabama.

Do they stand a shot in 2008? Did anyone think Ventura could be elected governor before he won, or that action star Arnold Schwarzenegger could become governor of California? What could this ticket do to the race?


anyone else follow this site??

http://www.watchblog.com/

MacDoc
Mar 24th, 2004, 10:14 PM
I just saw a US Army recruiting as that I thought was an ad for a video game :rolleyes:
Unbelievable. They "striped" the video to make it look like an arcade game.

Course then

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0403/p14s01-stct.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3507531.stm

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,53663,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

The ironic thing is that while some elected officials decry game violence, the federal government is actually funding a first-person shooter that is given away free to anyone who can fire up a modem or stroll into a recruiting station.

You cannot make this stuff up.

America's Army: Special Forces
U.S. Army. PC. Free. Rating: T (13 and older).

The game in question is called America's Army, and it is a professional-quality, first-person shooter initially released by the U.S. Army on - when else? - July Fourth, 2002.

An updated version called Special Forces was released late in 2003 and incorporates training and combat as experienced by the Army's elite units. According to the game's Web site, more than two million players have enlisted for online warfare. Aside from training missions, there is no single-player component.

Although America's Army is not as compelling as high-profile shooters such as Call of Duty and Rainbow Six 3, it has a nice look, and is based on the robust Unreal software engine. The military simulation offers ultra-realistic weapons and equipment, and demands good tactics.

Did I mention that it was free?

Players assume the role of a U.S. Army soldier in all matches. The game interface always makes the opponent, known in military parlance as the OpFor, look like the enemy.

When you are dead, you must sit out until the next round. There is no re-spawning, which adds a touch of urgency to learning good tactics.

It is not bloody, so America's Army earns a "T" rating, which judges it suitable for players 13 and older.

The game has become so popular with U.S. troops and Pentagon brass, says Lt. Colonel Wardynski, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis and the man who initially conceived it, that there's even talk of shipping computers to Afghanistan, so soldiers can play it from there.

••••••

Also Bush ads - all about military spending and he has the gall to blame Kerry for not providing enhanced medical care to.........the military tongue.gif

and off course sex sells so the spash screen on the Army recruiting website is of course
http://www.goarmy.com/index08.htm tongue.gif

Just WHAT are we living next to :eek: :mad:

MacNutt
Mar 25th, 2004, 01:29 AM
Unlike the Kennedy-Johnson (1960's Democrat) era, the modern US Army is an all volunteer force. No more draft.

And, since most recruits are in their late teens or early twenties, it only makes sense to appeal to them using a methodology that they are familiar with. Video games and the rapid-fire MTV style editing of splashy visual imagery is what gets the attention of today's youth. This is a no-brainer.

I suppose that the US Miltary could go the opposite route and create recruiting commercials that were cast in the boring CBC documentary style...they could even organise public marches on city hall, complete with rabble rousers carrying bullhorns and a stage full of unkempt people playing guitars while leading the crowd in mindless chanting in order to hypnotically drive their point home. Especially with some of the more slow-witted amongst us.

A few noteable and trusted "gurus" could speak before the enraptured crowd, and twist the facts just enough...and scramble the reality just enough...in order to turn the whole bunch of them into comitted zombies for "the cause". tongue.gif

The next day, the Army recruitment offices would be overrun with ill-informed but eager young people....and a whole bunch of middle-aged whackos who never grew out of their silly adolescent idealism! tongue.gif graemlins/lmao.gif


Trouble is...I don't think they'd be any more effective as an army than they are as a weapon for societal change.

Nobody'd ever take them seriously. tongue.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

Probably best that the USA sticks with their current advertising campaign in order to replenish the ranks. Don't you think?

MACSPECTRUM
Mar 25th, 2004, 02:05 AM
maybe the u.s. should put a little more effort into social programs to keep their population alive, rather than figuring out how to kill young people
40 million with NO health insurance....
you can bet that all those "reservists" that are coming home wounded and not being allowed medical care and being kept in iraq while their home jobs go to someone else, and they can't pay the bills cause their "part time" army job is now a full time job and they can't support their families

MacNutt
Mar 25th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Considering the fact that every country with "advanced social programs" is currently struggling with massive debt loads and is busily making huge cuts just to keep from going under....it makes no sense for the USA to adopt any of these failed policies at this moment in time.

Or need I remind you that a quarter of a billion people in the States don't have to wait for even one single week to get treatment for their medical problems. And it is all paid for by their insurance plans.

In Canada...just as in most of the more socialist modern societies...we wait for months, or even years, for treatment.

Yep..that's a LOT better. Wonder why the US hasn't adopted our system yet? tongue.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

MacNutt
Mar 25th, 2004, 02:24 AM
Oh yeah...and their military people are quite well paid, compared to ours here in Canada.

They're also pretty well-equipped to actually DO their job in the field, when their country decides to send them into harm's way.

Unlike here in Canada. :rolleyes:

Plus...American military personell actually learn tech skills that they can use once they return to civilian life. Our Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, learn to keep fifty year old gear alive and kicking for one more day at a time. Just barely.

That might come in handy if Canada were Cuba. tongue.gif graemlins/lmao.gif

So far...Canadian socialism hasn't quite caused our whole society to de-evolve into a past age the way that it has on that Caribbean "worker's paradise".

At least not just yet.

blue sky
Mar 25th, 2004, 07:43 AM
A few noteable and trusted "gurus" could speak before the enraptured crowd, and twist the facts just enough...and scramble the reality just enough...in order to turn the whole bunch of them into comitted zombies for "the cause".
The next day, the Army recruitment offices would be overrun with ill-informed but eager young people....and a whole bunch of middle-aged whackos who never grew out of their silly adolescent idealism Hmmmm.....sounds suspiciously like what happened shortly after 9/11. :confused:

As for the US army being better paid, I seem to recall a few articles (print & television) showing the plight of enlisted soldiers' families relying on food stamps and charity to survive. And, some about how the Bush administration was holding back pay raises for the soldiers.

Now, they are definitely a better equipped army. No doubt about that. After all, those companies that equip the armed forces in the US need to be repaid in some way for their contributions to the president's campaign.

Of course, those soldiers who risk their lives do not make large political donations. :rolleyes:

MacDoc
Mar 25th, 2004, 08:10 AM
"Devolve" ..... You hold up the "third world" status of many inner cities in the US as an example of "national prosperity" what clap trap.

Our societal structure is not perfect but it's a damn sight fairer AND more sustainable than the circus down south that claims to be land of the free. :rolleyes:

used to be jwoodget
Mar 25th, 2004, 10:15 AM
American society has become a me first, selfish society. More than 70 million people have no health insurance. Another 70 million are one serious illness away from destitution. The administration seems to consider its ground troops as expendable. Bush has never once attended a funeral of a soldier killed due to his bumbling mistake in invading Iraq.

Appeal to base instincts and get elected. The Republican way.

Brainstrained
Mar 25th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Considering that the U.S. spends more on its military than just about the rest of the world combined I'd expect them to be better paid, better treated, better trained, and better equiped.

But only better paid and better equiped stand up to scrutiny. Better trained is arguable if you talk to Cdn servicemen who have been on exercises with them. And the furor in the States over medical treatment for Iraq vets speaks for itself.

Check out The Center for American Progress (http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/bushtroops.htm) for how well U.S. servicemen are treated.

MacDoc
Mar 25th, 2004, 12:58 PM
Don't you find it ironic that after spending the USSR into the ground the US is eating it's own young. :rolleyes:

Trade and aid. When will they learn. :cool:

macello
Mar 26th, 2004, 12:14 PM
It looks like Richard Clarke was one of very few who prevailed during the chaos of 9/11.
..... and the below is what makes Condi, Dick, Rummy and Duhbya now look like idiots trying to spin a tragedy into an excuse for advancing the "Project for a New American Century". (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

What we now know:

Part 1

ON the evening of September 12, I left the White House video conferencing centre and there, wandering alone around the situation room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do.

He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all ... but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr President, al-Qa'ida did this."

"I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

"Absolutely, we will look ... again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al-Qa'ida and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty [one of the White House counter-terrorism team] stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Paul Kurtz [another of the team] walked in, passing the President on the way out. Seeing our expressions, he asked: "Geez, what just happened here?"

"Wolfowitz got to him," Lisa said, shaking her head, referring to Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary.

"No," I said. "Look, he's the President. He has not spent years on terrorism. He has every right to ask us to look again and we will, Paul."

Paul was the most open-minded person on the staff, so I asked him to lead the special project to get the departments and agencies to once again look for a bin Laden link to Saddam Hussein.

He chaired a meeting the next day to develop an official position on the relationship between Iraq and al Qa'ida. All agencies and departments agreed there was no co-operation between the two. A memorandum to that effect was sent up to the President, but there was never any indication that it reached him.Part 2

THE IRAQ PUSH

[Later at Clarke's house in Arlington], I wondered again how many al-Qa'ida sleeper cells there were in the US. Were there still cells planning more attacks? Thousands had died; we in the west wing had almost been among them. Now we had the full attention of the bureaucracies and the full support of the President. I had to get back to the White House and begin planning to prevent follow-on attacks.

I expected to go back to a round of meetings [on the 12th] examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al-Qa'ida. Then I realised with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.

Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.

On the morning of the 12th, [the Department of Defence] focus was already beginning to shift from al-Qa'ida. The CIA was explicit now that al-Qa'ida was guilty of the attacks, but Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy, was not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, he said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself without a state sponsor - Iraq must have been helping them.

I had a flashback to Wolfowitz saying the very same thing in April when the administration had finally held its first deputy secretary-level meeting on terrorism. When I had urged action on al-Qa'ida then, Wolfowitz had harked back to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, saying al-Qa'ida could not have done that alone and must have had help from Iraq.

The focus on al-Qa'ida was wrong, he had said in April, we must go after Iraqi-sponsored terrorism. He had rejected my assertion and the CIA's that there had been no Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the US since 1993. Now this line of thinking was coming back.

By the afternoon on Wednesday, Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq."

Secretary [of State Colin] Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al-Qa'ida. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Powell and his deputy, Armitage.

"I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al-Qa'ida, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the Government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

Joint Chiefs chairman Hugh Shelton's reaction to the idea of changing the Iraqi government was guarded. He noted that could only be done with an invasion by a large force, one that would take months to assemble. On the 12th and 13th the discussions wandered: what was our objective, who was the enemy, was our reaction to be a war on terrorism in general or al-Qa'ida in specific? If it was all terrorism we would fight, did we have to attack the anti-government forces in Colombia's jungles too?

Gradually, the obvious prevailed: we would go to war with al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. The compromise consensus, however, was that the struggle against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban would be the first stage in a broader war on terrorism. It was also clear that there would be a second stage. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9086701%5E28737,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html

This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ......:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2003/dancart1716.jpg

macello
Mar 26th, 2004, 01:52 PM
Condoleezza Rice's bad week

By Martin Sieff
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/25/condi/index.html

March 25, 2004 On Sept. 9, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told senators on Capitol Hill that the president was prepared, with his approval, to veto their efforts to shift $600 million from his precious anti-ballistic missile development to counterterrorism security precautions. http://www.internetweekly.org/images/condi_impeachment.jpg