Presidential Elections: The Ads

With presidential elections coming up, all TV channels are being flooded with Bush- and Kerry-commercials, and it's starting to bother me: how can the public ever form an opinion on any of the candidates when all you ever see is bashing the other candidate?
I'm doing some research on those ads, and here are some of my findings (yups, they're all Bush-ads... I'm sure someone will want to do the same with Kerry ads)

Kerry: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

This quote of Kerry is being used in Bush ads, but I'm pretty sure 99% of viewers of that ad have no idea what it is really about.

The $87 billion is the money needed by Bush for the military operations, and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Kerry saying he voted for it, is a reference to his October 11, 2002 vote that granted Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his own discretion.
What he voted against, is the $87 billion needed by Bush. There's a difference between those two, and the ad doesn't make that distinction.
At the time he voted against the $87 billion, Kerry was co-sponsoring an amendment (which was later rejected) that would pay for the $87 billion by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for incomes of over $400,000.

A Bush ad: "Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror. "

In 16 of his 19 years in the Senate, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills. The body armor the ad mentions, is part of the $87 billion package, which Kerry would have voted for if the amendment would have passed. Apparently, tax-cuts for those making $400,000+ are more important.

Kerry didn't vote against body armor in particular, he voted against a package of $87 billion (the body armour would cost $300 million, which is only .33% of the total package). And let's not forget that Gen. Abizaid was the first to acknowledge that over 40,000 troops had been sent to Iraq already without proper body armor (long before the $87 billion was even discussed).

A Bush ad: "As our troops defend America in the War on Terror, they must have what it takes to win. Yet, John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror: Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot Missiles, B-2 Stealth Bombers, F-18 Fighter Jets and more."

In 1984, Kerry indeed did vote against strategic weapons (the Trident nuclear missiles, mainly), and space-based anti-ballistic weapons systems (Star Wars, anyone?).

In 1989, Cheney (now VP, then Secretary of Defense) himself proposed a cancelling of the Apache program, and in 1991 he proposed a cancelling of the Bradleys, the F-14 and the F-16.
Wouldn't that make Cheney an opposer of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror", too?
Either both Cheney (and father Bush) and Kerry are opposers of weapons vital to winning the war on terror, or they both aren't...

A Bush ad: "Some people have wacky ideas. Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That’s John Kerry. He supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. If Kerry’s tax increase were law, the average family wouldpay $657 more a year.
Raising taxes is a habit of Kerry’s. He supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times. Maybe John Kerry just doesn’t understand what his ideas mean to the rest of us."

Kerry never voted for a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. All he ever did (over 10 years ago) was complain to some local journalists, saying he deserved more credit for trying to cut the deficit. Back then, gas cost a little over a buck for a gallon...

He doesn't support that tax anymore.

But wait... someone else does...
On May 24, 1999, a Harvard professor wrote an article entitled "Gas Tax Now!"
(http://post.economics.harvard.edu/fa...mns/may99.html). That name sounds familiar... oh looky! It's Mr. Mankiw, the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors! What a "whacky" man!

Negative,
If you think it is bad now, wait untill September/ October when they start the wisper campains. Then any symbolance of truth goes out the window, and any lie, the more sentational the better, will be used.
(sorry about the mis spellings......I can't get the spelling checker to work with firefox.)

Interesting Negative,

Over here, what you just posted would be a great submission to the Advertising Standards Council, Bush would be forced to retract and heavily fined........that's the law........in the UK.

Actually our electoral laws only allow "Party Political Broadcasts" not advertising...........you need to have newspaper barons on your side.............I remember one year when on the morning of voting (!!!) our largest circulation national daily newspaper (about 5million copies per day) had a picture of a lightbulb superimposed above the contender for office (Like Kerry is now?)

The banner headline read:

"If this man wins today's election.............will the last person to leave the country please turn out the light"

We allow that :D

Good job Negative, you are doing research and forming an opinon outside of those who wish to control your thought, nothing along the lines of a conspiracy but they want you to think like them, they are salesmen. On both sides, you lean one way I the other. But.... :D

You sure you don't want to do more research on them before I reply?

I'm sure I've got all the facts right, RoadClosed, and your reply won't change anything about the facts ;)

I snuck in some personal interpretations and opinions... feel free to reply to those :D

If it turns out I'm wrong on one of my claims, I'll blame it on my knowledge of the English language, cultural differences, and racism on your part....

:D

This stuff is tame compared to the real professionals

Quote:

---

The infamous “Daisy Ad” proved to be one of the very first negative ads in political history. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, the Republican extremist, gave a speech during a Republican convention that haunted him for the rest of his campaign. The first part of his famous line stated, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” This created a stir by the media, which caused Lyndon B. Johnson and his campaign team to produce an ad that was known to be the “Daisy Ad.” The ad featured a girl counting petals on a daisy while a voice in the background counted down to zero from ten. At the count of zero, a giant mushroom cloud is shown. Even though the ad only aired on television for one day, the message shot across the nation. This ad suggested that Goldwater would get “trigger-happy” during the nuclear age and cause a nuclear holocaust.

---

http://www.term-papers.us/ts/ga/pbk109.shtml

When it comes to dirty politics, your Democrats are the undisputed masters.

That year, Lyndon Johnson castigated Goldwater as a warmonger, and promised
that he would not send any American boys to die in Southeast Asia.
Yeah, right!
:cool:

"Bombs away, with Curt LeMay"...................... :D

I think that Bill Gates should run for president with "clippit" as his running mate?

That should focus you guys?

:drink:

Ah Yes let the mud slinging begin. It must be nearing election day. You can smell the guano flying!

Reminds me of the ole, "I gonna reach over and poke you in the eye, then I am gonna reach over and poke you in the eye, then I am gonna reach over and poke you in the eye, well fine then I will reach over and poke your last eye out as well!

Know they are both blind and will fall into the ditch!


;)

I agree in the history of my lifetime the Democrats have been the masters of advertising. The rupublican party has always been critisized for being wimps and not fighting back.

Negative: Oh lord now I am racist? **** yo. :)

Well let me drum up my memory....

Apache: Riddled in problems throughout the 80s. Cheney is NOT the president. Kerry is running for president on a platform he is for defense, when he never was. Around the 1989 time frame the apache was undergoing extensive retrofitting. In fact its not the glory of all attack copters; it's a pain in the ass. Sure the Army would argue, but they are a wash, not really used for Attacking (that is what its designed for) but used in reality as reconnaissance and back line support. Anyone in the Army want to argue my analysis? Perhaps Cheney was right by eliminating a **** system and REPLACING it. A-10s do a better job and if you compare historical missions the Apache is a waste. Those things are damn cool though. Cheney never proposed eliminating a weapon that didn't have a replacement. There is a reason the Bush campaign is cashing in on these things. Kerry has flooded the people with his stance that he is for the war on terror and jumped at the opportunity to rally support that said Bush didn't do enough to protect us prior to 911, hell he was screaming it. While he constantly vetoes weapons and intelligence budgets in the decades preceding the attack. They are merely calling him on his own ground and his own game. It would take too long to go into the F14 and F16 but here's a one liner: Can you say F18-Hornet the official F14 REPLACEMENT which began much later than planned; perhaps 1991 was the original plan?

I admit never even checked to see if that quote was accurate. Just gave my own analysis of what I would have done in the same position. I would challenge that Cheney wouldn't just cancel and eliminate good fighters without a slow phase in. Especially the F16, but every country in the world has them now. Portugal, Singapore, Belgium, etc etc¡K all over; hell even Denmark has em. :) Yeah let's keep that one. Or should we spend money on new systems?

Oh if Kerry never supported the tax increase why the line: "He doesn't support that tax anymore?" Confusion here. Lol and Kerry adds tell the whole entire truth, nothing but. Showing him in all his internal glory. :) After all he does vote for things, right before he votes against them ya know. And he throws his medals away, oh wait they weren't my medals, I just, oh darn hold on they were my medals, but then they were someone elses medals, that's right and then, oh wait medals and ribbons are the same thing, no wait I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it, but hold on Saddam should never be allowed to continue his weapons of mass destruction, ok I was mistaken, he should be allowed to continue his weapons of mass destruction. What I am not strong on terror? Its Bush's fault. Damn republicans, oh wait, nice republicans. Oh wait, its Halliburton's fault, and they all lied! They are liars, and they oh wait sorry. They are nice but it's still Bush's fault!

Were is Kerry's vice president!!!!!!! **** it's JUNE people, you are ready to vote already with NO one as his running mate. It amazes me.

I never said Kerry never supported the 50 cent tax; what I said is that he never voted for it. Sure, he's been in favor for it, just like Mr. Mankiv still was in 1999.

Kerry used to be in favor of that tax some decade ago (when gas cost $1 per gallon), now he isn't anymore.

And about the Apache/F14/F16/Bradleys: why are they blaming Kerry for the same thing Cheney did back then: a proposal to cancel those weapons programs? If that makes Kerry a opposer of winning the War on Terror, then Cheney is in that same group... If Cheney isn't, then Kerry isn't either. Simple logic.

And everybody knows that Bill Clinton is going to be Kerry's VP :D

Ahh so I see this will be young Negative's first American election (where he's here :D). Those fact's and the information you posted above are pretty accurate to my knowledge (I especially remember the Cheney bit, he really WAS against any interballistic missle or any of those weapons.) let alone interesting. I can't wait for when the smear campaigns and all the good juicy stuff come's out. :D

Quote:

---

And everybody knows that Bill Clinton is going to be Kerry's VP

---

Haha! I actually found that very funny, considering Hilary has lent her support to Kerry. LOTS of support that has been questioned by the media on whether she could be a possibly VP candidate?

Confusing me Negative

The add says he supported it, just like you agree on, not that he voted for it, just as you agree on. The add never said it either, at least not in your example.

Quote:

---

I never said Kerry never supported the 50 cent tax; what I said is that he never voted for it

---

Ok, I don't feel like researching what Cheney said or voted for or against. He was the Defense Secretary Kerry was a politician with the power to give or take money. Doesn't sound right to me, unless their were (and there is) replacements for the things. The deal is, he's not running for president. It's Kerry I care about. As for logic:

That add doesn’t mention the Apache or the F14, Kerry wanted to Ae the replacement of the F14 which was the F18, at the same time calling for the 9/11 commission to impeach the president for not being tough on defense. That is the issue; otherwise I don’t think anyone would be saying anything. Is there anything that is not truthful in the add, Kerry didn’t vote against all those things? Will Americans care if Cheney wanted to cut the fat off weapons that were redundant? I still don’t even know if he actually said those things. I would agree with you on the Bradley, if Cheney tried to axe them and Kerry did, then it’s goofy to mention those in the add. I am sure Cheney tried to get many things replaced. He was noted as a war monger ya know. Or were all the Dems. Wrong at the time and Cheney was actually slicing away at America’s defense?

//EDIT hold on, the Bradley issue with Cheney was almost 10 years after Kerry voted to have them cancelled. Hell that changes the logic.

Here's the list of weapons Kerry was opposed to:
the MX missile, the B-1 bomber, the B-2, anti-satellite weapons, the Star Wars program, and the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Bradley, the Aegis cruiser, and the F-14 and F-15 fighters.

No F-18s. And father Bush stated in his 1992 State of the Union that he would cancel the B-2's and the MX missiles, Cheney proposed a cancelling of Apache and Bradley, F-14 and F-15. The point is that I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's voting-record when it comes to defense. If there is something wrong, he's not the only one ;)

I definitely don't see what this has got to do with the war on terror... If it did in 1984 (when Kerry was against them), then it definitely should in 1991 (when Cheney was against them)...

Good, I don't see anything wrong with it either. But to try and use tactics that send witch hunts through congress based on lack of or incorrect intelligence while voting against it is stupid. Hence my distaste for that action. Papa Bush isn't running for president, I don't care what is voting record on weapons is. Especially old weapons. Speaking the opposite for months and then saying, "Hey Ya'll I am for defence now since no one supported my other stance." is tough for me to swallow. I tried to see if I could find a quick definitive run down but the first dozen hits or so are Bush, capitolist hating blogs or Right Wing houses of self imposed glory. :) The only thing I really dislike is the counter intelligence stance Kerry has had. If he was really against all that stuff and had a reason, he should be standing his ground not back peddalling that is was all a "misunderstanding" and pointing fingers back, stand on a principle or two.

//Edit In my eyes it was Kerry's constant attack on pre-911 Bush at the cheers of speech atendee's for the last year that forced attention on his defensive voting posture of the past decades. He's been on the attack for sometime at any little piece without thought to the consequence.

I was thinking about this thread last night. I find it politically amusing that the internet is filled with twisted views of the Bush "Resume" and the republican, oh wait what are they now, NEOCON's world dominating "Doctrine" and that a popular website hosted a contest to come up with comercials depicting the leader of the United States as a Nazi, with the winner scaring children into believing the world is on the brink of finanical destruction, all without a blink or even a small critical eye. No one ran out and checked facts, they just nodded their heads and said, "yep" :p Until this week that is. :)