Right on time, the Bush campaign 2004 has released their first set of television ads. The ads are extremely positive and a wonderful alternative to the nasty attack ads the democrats have been running.
However, the democrats are having an absolute hissy fit that there are images of the World Trade Center in the Bush ads. They claim it is "insensitive" to use the terrorist attack as a political event. Once again, they fail to realize that Bush's leadership during this time of crisis is VERY important to the majority of Americans. What we have here is a case of jealousy. The democrats are going to implode by demonstrating their whining and anger again and again. And I am going to love having a front row seat.
It's Del.icio.us!
Furl It!
March 4, 2004 03:41 PM
Joel,
For the record, it is several families of World Trade Center victims that are complaining. You know, I'm acquainted with several Republicans, some family members, who complained that Clinton was exploiting the Oklahoma City bombing to aid his re-election.
As someone who regularly has hissy fits over homosexuals, I guess you would qualify to know a hissy fit when you see one, though.
Republicans also went into a hissy fit when Clinton was president over the economy, claiming that his policies would wreck the economy. Instead, 22 million jobs were created under Clinton.
I'm still waiting for you to figure out how many states Kerry will carry, as opposed to Bush.
March 4, 2004 04:12 PM
The New York Slimes went out of their way to find people who would complain about the use of the 9/11 imagery.
His policies DID wreck the economy. Bush inherited those problems. Clinton was fortunate enough to be in office during the technology boom. He created nothing but an atmosphere of disrespect for the office of the Presidency. A blind pig would have prospered as President during that era.
And he didn't do squat in the face of the OKC bombing. How many terrorist attacks did he turn a blind eye to? I believe the WTC was bombed under his watch. He didn't do squat except to send a message of wimpiness to the terrorists.
How many states will Kerry carry? Hopefully none. I'll give it some thought and report back.
And it's not a "hissy" fit when talking about gay marriage. It's a "sissy" fit. ;-)
March 4, 2004 04:29 PM
The economy performed far better under Clinton than Bush and that's a fact.
I'm just glad you aren't God, for if you were, I would certainly be condemned to hell. ;-) Grace just aint in your vocabulary.
March 4, 2004 04:57 PM
Yes, the economy did perform better. But I attribute it to the American people, not to the most embarrassing President of our lifetime. I was there for the Internet boom. My business boom had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton and his policies. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
As for my judging you, I think you are mistaken. I am no position to judge individuals. I pass judgment on ideas and beliefs as seen through the Word of God. As for me, I am merely a sinner saved by grace, nothing more. It is not my place to comdemn you when my own words and deeds nailed Christ to the cross.
Your relationship with God is between you and Him.
March 4, 2004 05:00 PM
Incidentally, I do not believe the associated press polls fairly. But even with the bias built in, the polls do not look good for Kerry. After the media's love-fest with the dems these past couple months, Kerry and Bush are polling even. Bush has just started campaigning. Unless the dems can drum up more votes than usual from dead people, Kerry is already toast. Wait until the American people find out who he really is, a liberal that stands to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy! LOL!
March 4, 2004 06:08 PM
Joel,
I don't doubt that Bush will be difficult to defeat.
"The New York Slimes." That's judging people, not actions. You just come across to me as acting more the Pharisee than the disciple. But I'm not judging your soul, either.
My prediction is that Kerry will win 16 states plus the District of Columbia: New York, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Iowa, Vermont.
About the only poll I pay much attention to these days is Zogby.
March 4, 2004 08:19 PM
Well, don't look at me for perfection. The NYT is a partisan paper masquerading as legitimate news. I don't judge the individuals who write for them as I am certain there are talented people on the staff. I can most certainly pass judgment on the way they attempt to "report" the news. In my opinion, they are just a shade above the National Enquirer. At least the Enquirer doesn't pretend to be legitimate.
As for Kerry, I thought you would take a much stronger position. I would actually concur with your take of 16 states.
John Zogby is an excellent pollster. Rasmussen also has a great track record.
March 4, 2004 08:41 PM
And the Wall Street Journal, Daily Oklahoman, and Washington Times aren't partisan?
I have never believed Bush would be easy to beat. It is Bush's election to lose. However, I also remember that most experts gave Bill Clinton little chance of defeating Bush I. I also never thought Brad Henry could beat Steve Largent.
March 4, 2004 10:16 PM
You know what... ANYTHING is possible. It is a wacky world we live in. Kerry COULD win. If Clinton could win twice, anything could happen. I'm sure there are some in the Republican party that wouldn't mind Kerry winning, only to delay Hillary's mad grasp at power in 2008. Besides, a Republican congress could block Kerry at every turn, including his liberal judicial appointees that would drive our country further into the depths of depravity.
The Largent vs. Henry thing all came down to cock-fighting. See? Wacky world we live in!
March 5, 2004 10:28 AM
On the Bush TV ads, you miss the point and/or misuse/misunderstand the word, "jealousy". It's not only the Democrats (by the way, proper nouns begin with capital letters) who are unhappy with those ads. Relatives who lost loved ones in that national tragedy and fire-fighters who have been denied adequate help since the tragedy all have decried the insensitivity of the ads. Exploiting people's sorrow and grief for one's selfish benefit is pretty awful. BTW, I try to be a true Christian and the Bible teaches me that the second commandment that Our Lord enunciated is "Love thy neighbor as thyself" -- empathize with her/him, commiserate with her/him, help her/him when you can and don't ABUSE her/him!
God bless!
anozie
March 5, 2004 12:59 PM
There are also people who approve of the ads. People will always be divided. But how about the insensitivity in Kerry's ads when he brings up the Vietnam war where over 50,000 people died. Sorry, but it is hypocritical to the core. It doesn't wash.
March 7, 2004 03:48 PM
I don't care what your political affiliation or belief system is, anyone who finds these harmless (if not downright PLEASANT) campaign ads offensive in any way shape or form is LYING. It's nothing but a big fat partisan LIE! The bottom line as I see it is this: Once again, Bush has simply made all of you Dem's and Liberals JEALOUS because by direct contrast to Kerry's campaign ads, Bush's ads are beautiful sculptures. They are pleasant works of art compared to the rotten, below the belt, dirty, empty and CHEAP campaign tactics employed by Kerry thus far. I think Democrats are shaking in their boots right now because their MAIN guy Kerry (the cream of their patheticly sad crop) has yet to even tell anyone who the heck he IS...let alone outline for us what HIS plan is for our country. What have we heard so far? Just how AWFUL Bush is.
Let me see if I got this right. Bush's campaign ads are OFFENSIVE because of 1-2 seconds of American flag-draped 9/11 images? HELLO??? EXCUSE me folks, but can you honestly blame Bush for giving us a subtle reminder of what was a pivotal and PROFOUND turning point of his very young Presidency at that time? A challenge that he met head-on and quite brilliantly, I might add. I feel for all of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. It was an awful, terrible day none of us will ever forget. But there is a much bigger picture that is bigger than any family's loss. September 11th, 2001 was the day that terrorists SLAPPED AMERICA ACROSS THE FACE IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. AND THEY WANT NOTHING LESS THAN TO SEE EACH AND EVERY LIVING AMERICAN DEAD!
(please pause just for 10-20 seconds before you read on and think about that last thing I just said in bold print)
But on that exact same day, President Bush stood tall and began ferociously fighting back, and he has not stopped fighting back since. And its a darn good thing, because guess what gang? The fight is FAR FROM OVER! Does anyone think for one second that we have beaten down the resolve of these sick freak terrorists? Do you think they have run out of steam? These MONSTERS never run out of steam. In fact, if we really want to be honest with ourselves, running out of steam or falling asleep at the wheel is something Americans are guilty of from time to time, but not these terrorists. If we allow ourselves to take off our game faces and fall back asleep into our silly partisan quibbling,...it will only be a matter of time before the next 9/11.
In my opinion, Bush has every right to use those 9/11 images (ESPECIALLY in the fashion with which he used them,, which was very MINIMAL) because they represent one of the marks of his Presidency. The families of 9/11 do not hold exclusive province over those images. Now, if Bush had chosen to use EXCESSIVE amounts of those images and if he used some of the more ghastly images from 9/11....I'd be right there with all of you calling it tactless, offensive and disrespectful to the 9/11 families. But that is NOT the case here at all...and EVERYONE knows it! It is high time you far left liberals stood up, looked in the mirror and searched your hearts for what you really believe is the TRUTH. And if the conclusion you come to is that Bush really IS (despite his faults) a decent and responsible leader who is consistent and doesn't flip-flop all over the place on KEY issues....and that he is the better man for this job, then SO BE IT. Sometimes, the candidate in your partisan heart is not (at the end of the day) the best one for the country. As for myself, I am definitely leaning towards Bush because he has already proven many good things to me. Thus far, Kerry has shown me nothing....ZIP! Anything of any substance that Kerry might have said at one point, he has since flip-flopped on. That is the cold truth. But my door is still open to Kerry. But time is running out. Hey...I'm not the one who has wasted precious time here...Kerry has. And now, he only has 200+ days left to convince me that he IS the better leader for America. But if he DOES convince me...I WILL vote for Kerry.
But jumping on this partisan band wagon of calling an obviously non-offensive campaign ad offensive is just plain transparent and pathetic.
March 7, 2004 08:18 PM
Macmusic,
I think your sermon is directed toward the choir only.
I'm voting for Kerry, but I'm not offended if someone else wants to vote for Bush.
March 8, 2004 07:19 AM
Joel Thomas,
You're right...that post of mine was LONG, and I smacked myself after submitting such a long-winded thing. So I can't blame you for calling it a sermon. I'll try to be more succinct from now on.
As far as it being only for the choir? Well, that statement pretty much sums up what I was trying to say is wrong with our partisan "tunnel vision" problem in this country. But I guess it's hard to look yourself honestly in the mirror when you don't even own a mirror. I think it's wonderful that you won't be offended if someone else votes for Bush, Joel. I was, however, asking you to try and reach a little deeper than that. I realize I may have been asking too much.
March 8, 2004 07:20 AM
Peace. (see? I can be succinct) ;)
March 8, 2004 09:15 AM
I have no clue what it means to be told that I don't own a mirror.
As for partisanship, each opposing camp always claims that the other is being partisan.
March 9, 2004 12:49 AM
Joel
You are right...most people on both sides do claim the other is just being partisan...that is true. But when I tell someone that, I always try to back it up with facts and with a healthy dose of logic and honesty.
Now back to the mirror thing. I was saying that liberals need to drop the partisan crap and just look themselves in the mirror and "honestly" ask themselves a few things, for example: "What do I really believe in my heart?" or "Was I really OFFENDED by Bush's campaign ads?" "What about them really was "OFFENSIVE to me?" or maybe the best question of all that you liberals need to ask yourselves as you look into that mirror: "Why do I HATE Bush so darn much?" You see, the whole "mirror" thing was metaphorical language, Joel. I was simply trying to find a more pleasant and tasteful way of saying: "You guys have GOT to be kidding me!"
Then after you made your comment about my "sermon" being for the choir only, I felt like I must be talking to another hopeless liberal who is able to read the words, but cannot get the concept that the person is trying to convey. So then I said: "But I guess it's hard to honestly look yourself in the mirror when you don't even own a mirror" Again, it was just more metaphorical language. I was just another way of saying "I guess you just can't ask a liberal to be open-minded...it's just not gonna happen". Based on what I've seen from liberals and democrats over the past 10 years, I believe that to be true for the most part. There are always rare exceptions.
April 12, 2004 04:05 PM
while this may be a rare occurance, i'm inclined to believe with Macmusic. i don't agree with most of Bush's policies. But his ads are harmless. They depict what he thought of as solid leadership (and what polls at that time reflected) during a trying time. 9/11 was a turning point for his administration, and it would be absurd to expect Bush not to point to it during campaign season.
April 12, 2004 04:06 PM
agree with macmusic is what I meant, not believe. I should really learn to read stuff before posting it.