Bush Camp Launches Anti-Kerry Ads

[Tigermike 3,427]

Bush Camp Launches Anti-Kerry Ads

Friday, March 12, 2004

WASHINGTON — John Kerry is "wrong on taxes" and "wrong on defense." That's the message being sent in the first batch of critical television ads launched by President Bush's re-election campaign.

The 30-second TV and radio ads began airing Friday and will hit 18 so-called swing states, further evidence that the Bush-Cheney campaign is adopting an early and aggressive strategy to keep the White House (search).

The toughest of the two new ads names Kerry and claims he would raise taxes by $900 billion and "delay defending America." The other makes a veiled reference to the Democratic senator from Massachusetts when Bush says: "We can go forward with confidence, resolve and hope. Or we can turn back to the dangerous illusions that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat."

Kerry's campaign called the $900 billion figure "completely made up." The only increase would happen for those people making more than $200,000, Kerry staffers said.

Even before the ads became public, Kerry slammed them for what he described as their negativity.

"There is a Republican attack squad that specializes in trying to destroy people and be negative," Kerry said Thursday. "I think the president needs to talk about the real priorities of our country."

On Capitol Hill (search), where he met with congressional Democrats, Kerry criticized Bush's ads for not focusing on health care, the economy, education, the environment or national security.

"They can't talk about those things because George Bush doesn't have a record to run on, he has a record to run away from, and that's what they're trying to do," Kerry said.

The Bush ads are the second installment in a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that attempts to shift voters' attention from his political weaknesses to his strengths — from talk of joblessness in an ailing economy to a debate over Democratic tax hikes; and on terrorism, from violence-torn Iraq to reminders of his leadership on Sept. 11, 2001.

For more on the campaign, click to view Foxnews.com's You Decide 2004 page.

Bush's campaign wants to open the general election campaign in control of the debate and with Kerry on the defensive after Democrats spent months exploiting Bush's vulnerabilities, both on the campaign trail and on the television airwaves during the early primaries. Over the past six months, Kerry alone has spent millions to run at least a dozen ads critical of Bush or his policies.

The Democrats' attacks likely contributed to a drop in Bush's approval ratings, which have fallen to the lowest levels of his presidency. The incumbent Republican now is in a rush to recover, and to define Kerry for voters.

The characterizations of Kerry as a tax-raising, soft-on-terrorism candidate prompted his advisers to say the campaign would run a response ad accusing Bush of distorting Kerry's record and highlighting Kerry's middle-class tax cut plans.

But they would not say how much money Kerry would spend to broadcast the ad or name the state where it would run, raising doubts about whether the ad would be a formidable response to Bush's blitz.

Kerry is not on the air anywhere as he works to rebuild his shrunken campaign coffers after an expensive Democratic primary contest. Until Bush's ads were unveiled Thursday, Kerry's campaign had no immediate plans to go on the air or dip into the $16 million in Democratic Party money available to him.

Kerry has raised $7 million on the Internet since locking up the Democratic presidential nomination March 2, but he would have to spend most of it to match the $6 million Bush has spent on broadcast ads alone in his first week on the air. That doesn't include the more than $4.5 million Bush is spending on national cable networks through May.

The Democrat's campaign condemned Bush's "attack ad" and negative politics just a day after Kerry called Republican critics "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen." That comment, captured by a live microphone without Kerry's knowledge, prompted Bush adviser Marc Racicot to call on Kerry to apologize "for this negative attack."

Kerry said Thursday that he had "no intention whatsoever of apologizing."

Arab Americans Critical of Bush Ads

Bush's first round of ads were positive, but their references to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks sparked criticism from Democrats and some victims' relatives who accused him of exploiting the tragedy.

One of his new ads now has drawn the ire of the Arab American Institute (search). James Zogby, the institute's president, suggested that Bush not run the commercial because it shows a picture of an olive-skinned man with bushy eyebrows above the phrase "Weaken Fight Against Terrorists."

"This is the very thing that the president warned against after 9-11. He was so wise to tell the country not to fall prey to the negative stereotypes that exploit fear," Zogby said. "Now the president seems to be doing what he warned against."

The ad, the most critical of the two, alludes to Kerry's desire to get United Nations approval before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and notes his opposition to the Patriot Act (search). It also makes the claim of a $900 billion tax hike, which Kerry has never explicitly called for.

Kerry has vowed to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, saving about $250 billion over 10 years by most estimates. He would keep - and perhaps enhance - middle-class tax cuts pushed by Bush.

The Bush campaign says there is no way Kerry can implement his health care plan and not increase the deficit without hiking taxes by $900 billion. Kerry campaign officials said they will flesh out his economic plans soon.

LINK

According to CNN, they are nothing butBush attack ads

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Factcheck.org, a non-partisan group examining ads and campaign claims analyses Kerry's proposal and the Bush ad:

Bush Says Kerry Will Raise Taxes $900 Billion; Kerry Says That's False

Attack ad revives question of whether Kerry's numbers add up.

March 11, 2004

Summary                                      

In its first attack ad to hit the airwaves, the Bush campaign accuses Kerry of proposing to raise taxes by $900 billion. Kerry denies that. And Bush's ad fails to mention that Kerry's "new government spending" would provide health insurance to more than 26 million who don't have it now.  

But Kerry's ambitious health-care plan that would indeed cost an estimated $895 billion over 10 years. And Kerry has also promised to cut the current $500-billion federal deficit in half. Can he pay for all that while raising taxes only for the wealthy? Those numbers don't quite add.

Analysis

Bush unveiled an ad March 11 that claims Kerry plans to pay for "new government spending" by raising taxes $900 billion. The Kerry campaign calls that number "completely false." Neither side is exactly right. We'll try to put this in context.  

Bush spin

Naturally enough, Bush's ad leaves out that the "new government spending" it mentions would benefit millions of Americans who lack health insurance. According to a study by Emory University professor Kenneth Thorpe, which the Bush campaign's own background material cites as a credible authority, Kerry's plan would provide coverage for 26.7 million who currently have no coverage.

The ad also goes too far when it says "Kerry's plan" is to raise taxes by at least $900 billion. Kerry has never endorsed such a figure, and his campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter issued a statement accusing the Bush campaign of using "weapons of deception and distortion" and saying "The $900 billion ad is completely false."

Well, maybe not completely.  

Kerry Spin

Kerry himself issued a statement (see below) in which he didn't address the $900 billion figure directly. Instead he said, "What's most interesting about this ad is what's not in it." But the same can be said of Kerry's tax proposals, which leave out many specifics.

The Bush campaign -- in backup material issued to reporters -- argued that Kerry's health-care plan and other promised spending proposals are so expensive that only a $900-billion tax increase over 10 years will pay for them while still allowing Kerry to cut the deficit by half, as he has also promised to do.

And in fact, several news organizations have said that Kerry is overpromising, most recently a Washington Post story Feb 29. The Post said Kerry is proposing to spend at least $165 billion more on new programs in the next four years than his tax plan would pay for. Kerry disputed that, saying the Post failed to account for his plan to save $139 billion by repealing Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit, and overestimated what Kerry planned to spend -- temporarily, he said -- to stimulate the economy.

But Kerry hasn't yet shown in detail how he would close the gap between his spending promises and his somewhat vague promise to repeal portions of Bush's tax cuts.

Kerry's health-care plan alone would cost $895 billion over 10 years, according to the Thorpe study, which Kerry has accepted. And it's not clear how that would be paid for.

Kerry would not repeal the entire Bush tax cut; he's said he would preserve increases in the per-child tax credit, tax breaks for married couples, and lowered rates at the bottom of the income scale. He also speaks generally about raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. But a look at some calculations made recently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center suggests strongly that raising taxes only on individuals in that category wouldn't produce nearly enough to pay for Kerry's health plan, let alone reducing the deficit.

For example, restoring the top two marginal tax rates to what they were before the Bush cuts would produce only $224 billion over the next 10 years. And even that would hit some people making less than $200,000. The top two rates currently affect those making $174,700 or more in taxable income for a married couple filing jointly, or $143,500 for a single taxpayer. Those income brackets would be somewhat higher in years to come, as they are adjusted each year for inflation.

Kerry might also recoup some additional billions by restoring the estate tax and reversing the new, lower rates on capital gains and dividends. But still, accepting the Kerry campaign's statement that there's no plan to raise taxes by $900 billion, voters are left to wonder where the money to pay for Kerry's health plan would come from.

Pressed on that point, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told FactCheck.org: "John's not the president yet. When he becomes the president he'll send up a whole budget." Meanwhile, Meehan said, "We're not going to get into the back and forth on that." He also said that the Thorpe analysis "doesn't take into account any savings," but Meehan would not be specific about what kind of savings he meant...

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=154#

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Okay Titan,

You win, you have power over this board, but you do not have power over my vote. Thank God you don't. Oh, and the $900 billion will, mostly, be coming from the richer folks. Are you rich there Titan? And, if you are, did it come off of the backs of labor or less fortunate individuals? Are did you inherit old money that was illegally gained from the stolen land of Native Americans, ilgotten gains of Robber Barons or profits from slavery? Or, after we taxpayers escorted you through college, and possibly more, did you actually do it on your own?

Like I had to.

BF - 2004

[War Eagle 96 10]

Sad, but true. Lying Dubya is the Napoleon of our time, George "Wapoleon" Bush, statesman, conqueror and idiot...blah, blah, blah...George W. Bush  The Little Snot, the Little Bully...more mindless ranting...

Wow, the commies are absolutely warped with desperation right now.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Hmmmm.... Bottomfeeder..... quite an appropriate name for a misguided, but "ignorant and proud of it" demoncrat

[Tigermike 3,427]

And, if you are, did it come off of the backs of labor or less fortunate individuals? Are did you inherit old money that was illegally gained from the stolen land of Native Americans, ilgotten gains of Robber Barons or profits from slavery?

You mean like John Kerry's wife? Or possibly like Ed Kennedy? Ahhhh the democrats always willing to point fingers and sling bitter, vile and contemptible labels around. But never willing to look in the mirror and look at themselves! :yawn:

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Sad, but true. Lying Dubya is the Napoleon of our time, George "Wapoleon" Bush, statesman, conqueror and idiot...blah, blah, blah...George W. Bush  The Little Snot, the Little Bully...more mindless ranting...

Thank you, Bottomfeeder. I have been waiting to use this emoticon!!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I have no intention or desire to have power over your vote, Bottomfeeder. And I also have no intention or desire to edit all your posts. But I'm not going to watch this board get overrun by the latest escapee from the mental ward, hijacking threads with endless posts that have little or nothing to do with the subject.

And point of fact...the $900 billion won't come from the rich. The studies have already shown that if Kerry raises taxes on the rich back to their Clinton levels, it only raises a little over $200 billion. And that's just the healthcare initiative. That doesn't count all the other domestic spending he's promising and the promise to pay off the deficit.

Face it, Long Face lives in a dream world and you're right there with him.

Now, if you'd like to continue addressing the subject at hand, feel free to do so without worry of any editing (normal board rules still apply).

[rexbo 104]

...but you do not have power over my vote.

Some people should require a note from their psychiatrist before they can vote...

[CCTAU 3,369]

And, if you are, did it come off of the backs of labor or less fortunate individuals? Are did you inherit old money that was illegally gained from the stolen land of Native Americans, ilgotten gains of Robber Barons or profits from slavery?

You just described some of the wealthiest DEMONCRATIC families in american history. Once again you prove what a rediculous person you are.

[DKW 86 7,727]

And, if you are, did it come off of the backs of labor or less fortunate individuals? Are did you inherit old money that was illegally gained from the stolen land of Native Americans, ilgotten gains of Robber Barons or profits from slavery?

You just described some of the wealthiest DEMONCRATIC families in american history. Once again you prove what a rediculous person you are.

Ditto.

Remember guys, it wasnt Republicans standing in the school house door, it was a Dem. A Dem the yellow dog Dems still worship.

[tigerlove 0]

I just want to say as my first time posting here. That this year I will be voting republican for the first time since I started voting!!! Thanks in part to my dad

Tigermike!!!! Thank you for the eye opener.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I just want to say as my first time posting here. That this year I will be voting republican for the first time since I started voting!!! Thanks in part to my dad

Tigermike!!!! Thank you for the eye opener.

Welcome aboard, Tigerlove!!

[ib4au 0]

"But I'm not going to watch this board get overrun by the latest escapee from the mental ward..."

You are a little late on this one TM, the keepers of the key have already let you out!

[ib4au 0]

...but you do not have power over my vote.

Some people should require a note from their psychiatrist before they can vote...

And some could not get that note!

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Okay Titan,

You win, you have power over this board, but you do not have power over my vote. Thank God you don't. Oh, and the $900 billion will, mostly, be coming from the richer folks. Are you rich there Titan? And, if you are, did it come off of the backs of labor or less fortunate individuals? Are did you inherit old money that was illegally gained from the stolen land of Native Americans, ilgotten gains of Robber Barons or profits from slavery? Or, after we taxpayers escorted you through college, and possibly more, did you actually do it on your own?

Like I had to.

BF - 2004

Just out of curiosity, When was the last time you were hired by one of the "less fortunate". The reason that you give the top wage earners a tax break is because they are the only ones willing to risk their income to create jobs for those less fortunate. ENTREPRENEURS CREATE JOBS, the GOVERNMENT IMPEDES GROWTH.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

By the way, Bottomfeeder, studies show that over 85% of millionaires now are "first generation"...meaning, they didn't inherit it.

I know this doesn't fit the Marxist paradigm, but not everyone who is rich stole it or did it "on the backs of others". This may shock you, but most of them were simply willing to work a little harder, a little longer, and a little smarter than others were. And some of them caught a break at the right time, yes. But that's life.

[DKW 86 7,727]

By the way, Bottomfeeder, studies show that over 85% of millionaires now are "first generation"...meaning, they didn't inherit it.

I know this doesn't fit the Marxist paradigm, but not everyone who is rich stole it or did it "on the backs of others". This may shock you, but most of them were simply willing to work a little harder, a little longer, and a little smarter than others were. And some of them caught a break at the right time, yes. But that's life.

Actually many sources put the figure at 90 percent or higher. Inherited wealth just does really happen. The US govt does a real good job of robbing our kids.