GOP TV AD ACCORDING TO THE DEMS
The GOP has released their first tv ad of the campaign season and Democrats are in a panic. We’ve all been hearing constant criticism of the president for the past year by Democrats. They have no problem dishing it out but when it’s directed towards them, they can’t handle it, they panic. Now they are urgently trying to raise a half million dollars to discredit the GOP ad and try to save face. It was only six words in the ad that threw the Dems into a tizzy and now MoveOn.org is going nuts over these six words. Here is what they are telling their readers:
“Today the GOP crossed the line. In their first ad for the 2004 election, they implicitly accuse Democratic presidential candidates of "attacking the president for attacking terrorists." The ad doesn't question opponents' ideas, it questions their commitment to America. But there is nothing more un-American than attacking an adversary's patriotism for political gain. We need to fight back.”
The ad did not “implicitly accuse Democratic presidential candidates of attacking the president”. It said “some are now attacking the president…”, of course the Dems had no doubt who was guilty of that.
“Question opponents’ ideas, questions their commitment to America”? It doesn’t in fact question anything. It simply states exactly what we’ve all been hearing from the Democrats for the past year. Isn’t that just horrible? “…nothing more un-American than attacking an adversary’s patriotism for political gain”? Now how did they arrive at that conclusion? All the ad said was “…now some are attacking the president for attacking terrorists”, which is exactly what the Democrats have been doing. God knows the Dems have been attacking the president for political gain. I guess it's ok when the Dems do it but should be condemned if a Republican does it. Just another example of their double standard.
MoveOn.org goes on to say:
“Let's show the GOP and the Bush campaign that this kind of dirty politics can only backfire against them. We have to ensure that there are consequences for this kind of un-American attack: otherwise the Republicans just won't stop.”
LOL… Since when did the Democrats worry about using dirty politics? When just a tiny bit of the kind of politics they themselves have been practicing comes back on them, they panic. They don’t understand how the Republicans can be doing this to them. Why isn’t the GOP coddling and pampering us like they have been since Bush took office? How dare they do this to us spoiled children? Let’s make another mountain out of a mole hill, throw a tantrum and strike back at those filthy Republicans or this sort of thing will never stop. LOL. They aren’t allowed to use our own tactics on us. This is just a disgrace!
They didn’t stop there:
“Of course, we'll fight back our way, using the power of the facts and the strength of millions of us working together. When Republicans equate the war on Iraq with the war on terrorism, we'll remind the public of the truth. When Republicans raise money from wealthy donors and corporate CEOs to attack the Democrats, we'll raise it with hundreds of thousands of small contributions from people across America. We won't let the Bush campaign get away with these kinds of attacks. And in the end, we'll take our country back. “
Don’t they really mean they’ll fight back their own way using distorted facts and lies as usual?
They still don’t understand the connection between Iraq and the War on Terror but perhaps they will soon. How can people be in public office and running our government who don’t understand what the War on Terror is all about? I guess it’s just over their childish heads or too complex an issue for them to understand. And what’s all this aboutRepublicans raising money from wealthy donors and corporate CEOs ? Campaign reform laws limit campaign contributions to $2000 per person. If Democrats believe that there is something wrong with the GOP raising money for campaigns, what about the contributions to the Democrats by billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis, as mentioned in the next paragraph, which are in amounts far in excess of campaign laws? The Republicans are obeying the law, are the democrats?
“Today, we can show the GOP what they're up against. They're paying $100,000 to run their ad. Together, we can raise $500,000 today to run ads that get out the truth in key battleground states. Remember, every two dollars you give will be matched by a dollar from George Soros and Peter Lewis. “
Why won’t Soros and Lewis match contributions one to one instead of two to one? Are they afraid they might run out of money trying to defeat Bush?
The ad isn't just wrong, it's also hypocritical. In May of 2002, Vice President Cheney said, "What I want to say to my Democratic friends in the Congress is they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage [from the 9/11 or the War on Terror]... Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." Compare that to this paragraph from today's New York Times: "The Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism...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."
“The ad is wrong“? What part of “attacking the President” don’t they understand? Keep in mind that the ad does not specifically identify anyone or group as being the ones attacking the president, but obviously, it’s clear to the people at MoveOn.org who the reference is to. As you can easily see, the frist quote is not complete and comments have been inserted. Is that really what Dick Cheney said or has it been taken out of context and distorted to fit MoveOn.orgs agenda? If Cheney actually did say that, then I’m certain the part missing referred to giving comfort to the enemy rather than encouragement to the troops and the Iraqis. We have to give credit to the New York times for being honest in saying that Bush’s handling of the 911 aftermath gives him a political advantage. In other words, he’s done one hell of a good job and the people appreciate him for it. Why else would he gain political advantage from it?
“The GOP ad, which starts running Sunday in Iowa, shows Bush's State of the Union address. Then, clearly referring to the Democratic presidential candidates, it says, "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." It asks voters to "support the president's policy of preemptive self-defense." While the ad is run by the Republican Party, the New York Times writes that, "the party has acted as a proxy for Mr. Bush while he tries to maintain the appearance of being above the political fray."
Well, whatever. It’s the job of the party and campaign organizers to run ads, that’s not the president’s job. He has more important interests to worry about, like protecting the country from terrorists.
“The Democratic candidates are attacking Bush's Iraq policy precisely because it has nothing to do with the war on terror. It's now clear that Iraq posed little threat to the United States, and the situation there today is giving us good reason to question the policy of "pre-emptive self defense." But unless we can answer Bush's ads with ads that get out the truth, these messages may not get across to swing-state voters.”
Iraq “has nothing to do with the war on terror”? Do they still think it’s “all about oil”? Are they still ignoring all the intelligence information that led to this war? They still don’t get it. I think the president is going to have to sit them all down with some warm milk and cookies and explain it to them again. Regarding our policy of pre-emptive self defense; as Bush also stated in the ad, “terrorists don’t politely announce their intentions before they attack. Yes, pre-emptive is what’s needed to protect the country. Perhaps Iraq did not in itself pose an eminent threat to the continental US but the WMD they did have there very well could if passed on to persons who might enter our country. Iraq was certainly a threat to our interests abroad and to the entire region and in violation of UN resolutions to disarm. The threat would have become real if we had not eliminated it.
And their final comment:
“Of course, this news isn't all bad. Parties and campaigns hardly ever run ads this early in the election season. Given President Bush's dropping poll numbers and the clear repudiation of his policy in Iraq, this early ad is a sign that Republicans are getting nervous. They should be: after three years of misleading the country, the truth is coming out. Our work together is paying off. Now let's show the GOP what real patriotism looks like. “
LOL… pardon me but I just have to laugh. After a year of Democrats misleading the country with lies and distortions, it’s about time the GOP started to fight back. The presidents dropping poll numbers are on the way back up now. That was last months polls before the Democrats latest debate. If these Democrats knew anything about patriotism, they would be supporting our troops in Iraq and their commander in chief instead of suggesting to the Iraqis and the enemy that we should cut and run and abandon the war to avoid any more casualties. Is this constant slander, ridicule, criticism, and opposition to American policy their idea of patriotism? If so, then we’re all in serious trouble if any of them gets elected.
Oh, here’s a footnote:
“P.P.S. We've just received word of a HUGE victory in the Senate this morning -- courageous Senators of both parties have courageously stood up to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, rejecting their terrible energy bill with a resounding filibuster. This filibuster, following successful filibusters on judicial nominations, shows that there are real limits to what Bush & Cheney can get away with. Your gift today to help fund our ads will reinforce this point.”
They’ve rejected the energy bill and judicial nominations with a filibuster and this represents a huge victory? They can’t win the vote on the Senate floor so they use the unprecedented practice of filibuster to prevent the vote altogether. Is this the Democrats idea of democracy? If you can’t win the people, and you can’t win in congress, then use dirty tactics and judges in your pocket to get what you want. Maybe they all need to reread the constitution again and hopefully get it right this time.