GOP TV ads showcase Democrat obstruction

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Yes, this is a partisan source, but David Limbaugh says what a lot of us conservatives have been saying on this board - we don't question a lib's patriotism, but we do question their commitment to the overall security of this nation. No, we don't think any Democrats were happy about 9/11, but we also don't think their current statements and positions on national security (what few they have identified) are likely to prevent another 9/11 in the future. And spewing constant criticism of the President instead of offering viable alternatives is not being helpful.

Despite the Democrats' indignant protests about their patriotism, President Bush isn't making the charge that they are unpatriotic. But he is saying that their policies regarding the war on terror are reckless, foolish and contrary to our national security interests.

You see, when it comes to the War on Terror, Democrats want to have it both ways. They want to appear supportive of our troops and the cause, but they insist on criticizing and undermining President Bush every step of the way.

Link to Full Text

[Tiger Al 0]

They want to appear supportive of our troops and the cause, but they insist on criticizing and undermining President Bush every step of the way.

Without the Dems, Bush would've never gotten the $87 billion he requested for Iraq. If they would've been able to split up what went to the troops and what went for reconstruction they would've done that. Some wanted the $20 billion as a loan. I agree. But, at the end of the day, Bush got his money. Most Democrats will not walk lockstep with Bush because they believe he was wrong on Iraq.

By the way, Jenny, if you look at legislation itself on the Senate or House websites you'll see all kinds of Democratic ideas. If you look to Democratic sources, you'll see all kinds of ideas. Don't rely on Fox, National Review, Rush or Savage to spoon feed you OUR good ideas. Also, the idea of a department of homeland security was a Democratic one that Bush grudgingly went along with. Although the original idea didn't have it as a separate department with its' own cabinet position.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I am specifically talking about the Democratic candidates for President - I am well aware that the Democrats in Congress have been instrumental in successfully supporting some of Bush's programs and policies, including today's prescription bill - bipartisan support and opposition.

I have gone to several different sites that are definitely liberal partisan and although there are ideas scattered here and there, they are still hidden behind "WE HATE BUSH!" and that totally turns me off!! Case in point - I even went to Dean for Americaand this is the VERY FIRST THING on the page:

On Friday afternoon, Bush attacked -- and you responded. We put up the bat and asked you to raise $360,000 by Tuesday at midnight. In just 54 hours you surpassed that goal -- and because of you, yesterday we went on the air in Iowa to challenge Bush's attempts to question the patriotism of those who opposed the war in Iraq.

Since the Governor's speech at New York's Cooper Union earlier this month, the central mission of our campaign has been to defeat George Bush by matching the $200 million bundled for him by the special interests with our own $200 million -- raised by two million Americans each contributing $100.

Campaign Manager Joe Trippi sent the following email to more than 503,000 online supporters of Howard Dean today. This weekend, the Republican National Committee is launching its first television ads for George W. Bush. The ads show the fear-mongering that George Bush and Karl Rove are going to use, with their $200 million in special interest money, to try to distort what we are fighting for in this election.

There is only one way to stop them -- and that is by standing up and telling the truth about what this president has done to our country. To do that, we’ve put up the bat on our website. Our goal is to raise $360,000 by Tuesday at midnight -- $5,000 for every hour they are going to lie to the American people with their ad. We need to show that we’re not going to allow the administration to wage an air war on the American people:

I don't see "I should be President because I have better ideas and can do a better job" - instead I see "WE WANT TO BEAT BUSH." You have to click on two links on the side frame, or scroll halfway down the page to find his first policy statement - a Native American policy that makes NO sense:

Speaking today at the National Congress of American Indians, Governor Dean announced a variety of policy proposals aimed at ensuring that the government treats Native American nations as governments, not special interest groups. As president, Dean said he would support tribal sovereignty and government-to-government relations between the United States and federally recognized tribes.

The first policy issue on the page and he is talking about treating AMERICAN CITIZENS like they are their own GOVERNMENT??? What about the economy? What about national security? Keep scrolling and there is a blurb about a college education policy near the bottom of the page. FINALLY at the VERY VERY bottom of the page under recent links is a link to Dean's economic plan.

If I were a fence sitter, hoping to find a substantive candidate besides GWB to support, I am not too sure I would buy into this. It would seem to me that Dean is trying to win by tapping into a perceived hatred of Bush rather than stand on his own positions - what he doesn't get is that HE ALREADY HAS THE VOTE of the people like him who hate Bush - he is not doing anything to attract the mainstream Ameircan voter, who maybe disagree with some things Bush has done, but won't take their vote from him without an alternative that they think is better.

[rexbo 104]

It sure is much more fun to sit back and watch Jenny and TigerAl go at it. TigerAl brings out the best in her, I just get mad and frustrated. You go girl!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

Actually, you don't have to go to the bottom of the page to see his positions on various issues. On the left side of the page right under the link entitled "About Howard Dean":

>ON THE ISSUES

Agriculture

Campaign Financing

Civil Rights & Justice

Economy

Education

Environment

Health

Labor

Native Americans

Security/Foreign Policy

Women

Clicking on these links takes you to that particular page where you find a position paper. On the right side of the Agriculture page, for example, you find more links:

Agriculture and Rural Issues

Rural Development and Agriculture

Rural Development and Agriculture — Detailed PDF

The Dean Record

Agriculture

Environment

Governer Dean's Statements

Restoring Rural Communities and Preserving the Family Farm

So, to say that the info isn't there is disingenuous or lazy. Maybe you were complaining about the layout of the website because you have to do a couple of clicks to get to a specific issue. The front page is, or so it would seem, easily recognized as the latest news which may change from day to day.

As for comparisons/criticisms of Bush's record, the biggest advantage for an incumbent is his record. The biggest disadvantage for an incumbent is also his record. That's the way it works. I really couldn't see voting for someone if his platform was "I believe exactly the same as the incumbent believes, and would do things exactly the same way, but vote for me because I'm taller."

I remember during the 2000 election Bush slamming McCain and Gore on their records. There's nothing illegitimate about pointing out the incumbents shortcomings in his record any more than the incumbent pointing out his own successes. You just feel that anyone who criticises Bush is just so out of touch that they're ranting.

All of the candidates have the information available. Again, you may not agree with them (or like the layout of their sites!) but the information is there.

[Donutboy 0]

TigerAl says: As for comparisons/criticisms of Bush's record, the biggest advantage for an incumbent is his record. The biggest disadvantage for an incumbent is also his record. That's the way it works. I really couldn't see voting for someone if his platform was "I believe exactly the same as the incumbent believes, and would do things exactly the same way, but vote for me because I'm taller."

Isn't that the Joe Lieberman campaign strategy?

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, by most accounts, Lieberman IS sane!!!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You have to click on two links on the side frame, or scroll halfway down the page

I mentioned the side frames, so I guess that means I am neither disingenuous or lazy. But they are also not exactly highlighted or obvious either. Not every one is the Internet link clicking guru that you are - my mom, for example, who votes her own mind and is not partisan, would have had a hard time. My point is that first impressions are everything. If I were running for office, I would make sure that the VERY FIRST THING someone saw was not negativity and attack rhetoric but "I believe in X, Y and Z." The "central mission of my campaign" would be "to improve the economy" or "40 acres and a mule for everyone" or "a chicken in every pot" or "free college tuition for everyone" - but Dean's? BEAT BUSH. That is what so many people are complaining about with regards to the Dem candidates - mainly they are not attacking his record, but are attacking him as a person - liar, evil, racist, sneaky, etc. We have to beat HIM. We have to defeat HIM. Over and over, and it gets really old.

I shouldn't HAVE to click on a bunch of links to find out where he stands - I should be able to say "Howard Dean? Well, he believes in A, B and C. And that is why I am for/against him." I can assure you that I knew that about both Bush and Gore in 2000 - could tell you where each of them stood on basic issues. I can't do that with any of the Dem candidates right now. And waiting until just before the primaries might be too late to sway the votes of some people.

Not to mention the fact that if anyone but me had posted this, you would give the comments more credence.

[Donutboy 0]

Jenny AU 92 writes: If I were running for office, I would make sure that the VERY FIRST THING someone saw was not negativity and attack rhetoric but...

You mean, like the "Al Gore's a liar and can't be trusted" type negativity and attack rhetoric?

[Tiger Al 0]

I shouldn't HAVE to click on a bunch of links to find out where he stands - I should be able to say "Howard Dean? Well, he believes in A, B and C. And that is why I am for/against him."

Well, sadly that's the way it goes sometimes. But, you know what? It's the same thing on Bush's re-election site. You get snippets of info on the front page but you have to click on links to the left of the page to find "Pres. Bush's Agenda." You also have tabs across the top for the same thing. It seems to me that there is so much info that these candidates are trying to get out there that the front page is simply the "market place" for it all.

But, if you REALLY have that big of a problem with it, either pm me and I'll help you find what you need to know or e-mail the webmaster of each site and give them your complaint. They'll do everything they can to help you and anyone else who has a problem.

That is what so many people are complaining about with regards to the Dem candidates - mainly they are not attacking his record, but are attacking him as a person - liar, evil, racist, sneaky, etc. We have to beat HIM. We have to defeat HIM. Over and over, and it gets really old.

I will agree with you somewhat. But, I think if you're going to be fair in your condemnation you can't deny that the prior eight years were NEVER about attacking Clinton's record but about attacking his morals, ethics, character, etc. To say now that it's unfair to call Bush a liar when he is ( ''the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' among many others) sounds a little whiney to me. If all a candidates got is "Bush is a bad, bad man," then I don't have any time for him/her either.

The worst thing that you and the other Republicans can do is pretend to be exasperated when your boy gets called out for something he's said or done. It makes you look foolish.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

When a relative unknown like Dean, or Edwards, puts themselves out there, wanting my vote for them to be leader of the free world, I damn well better be able to do basic research and know where they stand. Anyone who reads or watches the news KNOWS what GWB's policy positions are - he is the incumbent, as you point out, which means that every day his policies and positions are out there, front and center, for all to see.

And we have been over the "Bush is a liar/uranium" thing ad nauseum, so I won't go there again - that is not the theme of this thread. But remember that Clinton DID lie - he got CAUGHT - and ADMITTED IT - and was punished for it. Dole-Kemp ran on more than just Clinton's character, but in that instance, character was a HUGE issue, and even you have to admit that it was a legitimate one at that point, because Clinton MADE it an issue. Bush has never been 100% PROVEN to be a liar, no matter what you and the rest of the hate Bush crowd want to believe. When he is PROVEN to be a liar in a court of law, then go for it. Make it a campaign issue all you want.

We get exasperated when Bush is called out for something his enemies CLAIM he said or did, without unquestionable proof to back them up. THAT pisses me off.

[Tiger Al 0]

Jenny, like I said, if you have a problem with the Dean, Kerry, Sharpton, etc. websites, take it up with them. TigerAl had no hand in the design, layout or content of any of them. I will say that when I visited Dean's site for the first time, I had no problem whatsoever finding the information I needed. Nor did my mom who is not a surfing guru by any stretch of the imagination. If she can do it, anyone can!

Maybe this is why Fox claimed that Al Franken's book could mislead conservatives.