Bush's campaign ad against Kerry, a new low?
 

So, I was watching MSNBC this morning and I saw another one of Bush's ad against Kerry. Opening is the same, "I'm President Bush, and I approved this message" Then the ad suddenly go black and white. Attacking Kerry and his vote to raise tax on gasoline. The ad showed a long bicycle with about 10-15 guys paddling the bike, then switched to a guy pushing the car, and to a guy emptying his pockets inside because the have no more money to pay for gas (chronologically incorrect). During the whole ad, stupid music you'd hear in black and white movies plays in the background and the animation is presented in a cartoon-like manner.

This really piss me off. Of all the campaign ads I see, this has got to be the worst one, its not even political any more, its just plain petty.

you have to love americans and the way they do their whole election thing, to be honest, why can't they take a leaf from our book, find some random whore, pay her a fiver to tell the tabloid she slept with the PM/other party leader, and bam, all the work done for you.

everyone loves politics:)

Been there, done that.

Kerry did support a gasoline tax.....TEN years ago. Bush of course was busy destroying the Texas public schools and environment at that time.

I'm getting sick of the garbage Bush is putting out as well. So I started a game of it. For every Bush ad I see, I contribute another 5 bucks to kerry or Joe Hoeffel for US Senate (Pa) Or a number of other candidates I want to support.
I just gave Kerry another 50 yesterday.

FactCheck.org Bush's Gas Attack: Does Good Policy Make Bad Politics?

Factcheck.org is non-partisan, and their main page critiques every attack ad from either side and researches the statements made. Their summary of this ad:
and later,
A new low? No, just a continued low. And I'm sure it will drop further from here.

How about calling for factual accuracy from everyone involved?

Bush's ads are no lower than the ads Kerry and the "independent" organizations opposing Bush are running.

FactCheck.org says that both sides have been less than completely honest in their ads. According to an article in yesterday's USA Today, they also haven't gotten around to the ads from places such as Moveon et al.

Until people call both sides on their inaccuracies the status quo will remain.

No, Bush's 9-11 ads were the lowest thus far. These ads are just normal attack ads.

I've been thinking the same thing. What if every political ad had to be reviewed by someone like FactCheck prior to general release? I'm sure some people would have free speech issues with this, but I think that it would be a necessary compromise.

Let's get the whole answer.
Slight pandering, sure. But how else is he supposed to answer a vapid question to the MTV crowd? Bush will do it too when he gets on MTV. But he is pretty much saying what he feels here. He admits that it isn't his bag, that he likes the rock from the 60's and 70's. But he acknowledges the messages that can be in legitimate rap and hip-hop and knows that you can't just take that for granted, or blow it off the way Bill O'Reilly does.

I still fail to understand how this could even be in the same ballpark as Bush's blatant misuse of 9/11 and firemen in his campaign ads though. Or the outright lying and misleading to hurt someone else.

I wil admit, Rush's staff has improved in their photoshop ability in the past year or so.

This one almost looks real. The hand can be overlooked, but the hat and $ are just out of phase.

Maybe Rush's guys are the ones who did that picture of Kerry and Fonda standing at the podium together....

That would put too much strain and power into a single organisation.
If you would split it up into multiple organisations you'll get difference between them and Guy A will know he needs to submit his ad to Organisation Z because Organisation Y won't accept it.

The only way you'll keep it independent is to not make it too important. Sad, but true.
Do we believe "indendent analysts"? I don't. They're paid for their research usually by the company that comes out on the positive side of the conclusions. I believe regular people that do their research because they hold a grudge against someone or somecorp (or some 'way of (political) life). Their results are questioned and therefore need to be more accurate. Give them authority status and their credibility diminishes (IMHO).

While an interesting idea, it raises lots of questions as well. I wouldn't care so much about the free speech implications (because it's only limiting a candidate's ability to say untruthful things in their campaign ads) but more about who the members of the "judgement panel" would be. Certainly it would be difficult to keep it independent and neutral.

Unfortunately it still wouldn't solve the cultural problem of the American voter. People are all too happy to shout against the other guy and believe what "their" guy is saying. The process you propose would probably help to clean up the crap in the short term (until the process is coerced by the parties) but their speeches would still be full of half truths.

Ideally I'd love to see people holding all elected officials responsible for the things they say and stop going the partisan route of "The Republicans" (or Democrats) are so bad because they made an ad that exaggerated the truth or used too liberal a definition of what a tax increase is. The first step toward that end is the press really challenging the assertions made rather than playing off them for ratings.

Re: Bush's campaign ad against Kerry, a new low?
 

So the problem is the imagery?

Did you have a big problem with the add in 2000 which blamed Bush for the murder of the black man dragged by the pickup truck?

The FACTS of the add are true. Kerry is out there whining about the price of gas when Kerry himself tried to artificially raise the price of gas. The president doesn't control oil prices, but he can tax it.

This isn't a negative add, its the truth about a liberal taxer. Suck it up, the democrats nominated him, now they gotta live with his record.

How about Cheney's record of support for artificially inflating the price of crude oil? Cheney is an intrinsicate part of the ticket.

Besides Congress, the republicans et all want to increase our gas tax. They know we need to to keep improving and maintaining our road infrastructure. Bush is telling them to hold off until after the election to do it. Obviously because he is using it as a campaign issue.

I have regular contact with my US Congress Rep Todd Platts (R), as a transportation planner. Todd, who is on the House Transportation Committee, told us specifically that Bush will not accept a gas tax increase until AFTER the election. They want to do it now because of the Transportation Equity Act bill that is in the process of reauthorization. They are coming up short for money but BUSH DOESN'T CARE. He wants his election issue.

Re: Re: Bush's campaign ad against Kerry, a new low?
 

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

The advertisement conveniently leaves out the "whole truth". Context is everything, and lack of context turns the "facts" of this ad into lies. See the factcheck.org discussion above.

That's why I hate politics! (corporate or otherwise).
I can see through a lot of those "facts", but seeing people mindlessly act on them makes me despise the people who state these "facts".
Though in all honesty I should despise the general public for not educating themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Bush's campaign ad against Kerry, a new low?
 

After reading that site, I haven’t really changed my opinion on the add. I can see how they used Kerry’s votes on gas taxes in a way which makes it look worse then it was in terms of numbers, but it is not a lie.

Also while they attack the use of the term ‘wacky’ on Kerry’s gas taxing, Kerry would NEVER EVER EVER go for a 10% decrease in the income tax across the board they cite, so I have no idea why they even mentioned it in their fact check. I think every Republican would happily support a .50 gas tax if it meant a 10%, fair to all, tax reduction. You know and I know the democrats would never allow that.

As for the 657 vrs 598, that’s just who’s numbers are correct. It’s a minor amount in my book and not as if it were 657 vrs 200 or something of that nature.

Finally the quote about higher gas taxes meaning less traffic, safe roads, and less global warming is laughable at best. Banning cars would do even more for it. It is a stupid point to bring up. It also smacks of socialist social engineering which is the last thing I want to see happen in the US.

Actually to be honest Bush's ad hurts Bush in my eyes.

Every other country out there pays more in gas than the US. Most tax gas far higher than we do because they have better environmental policies. My worry is that we are supposedly the greatest nation on Earth and we are showing people having a hard time affording gas because of a tax? Tells me more about the wages paid in this country and the economic situation as a whole.

What should be called into question, more than any gas tax is, why can corporations ship jobs overseas and still be allowed tax breaks? Why are we showing that paying less than everybody else for gas is such an economic burden on us? If Bush wants to play the economy card then he should answer why he refuses to raise minimum wage from $5.25 an hour to a liveable wage, he should answer why in these days of "patriotism" he allows jobs to be shipped overseas while he gives massive tax breaks to those very corporations, and he should answer why he chooses to spend more and more on military but cuts veterans benefits drastically.

To those that say Bush has to go by what Congress votes and therefore it is not all his fault, are blind and ignorant to the fact that Congress is controlled by the right and he has pretty much a blank check right now to do whatever he pleases. Which make no mistake, he does get whatever he wants, but for his own gain not for the gain of the country and the citizens and certainly not for future generations.

You obviously are missing some basic ideas about the minimum wage.

#1 The minimum wage is NOT meant to be lived off of. Its for basic entry level unskilled jobs. You can't afford to pay every teenager working for you a 'living wage'.

#2 As such if you made it a living wage, jobs would be lost. This would be first in the cost, second in the economy as a whole as productivity goes down. Many small business would fail, such as my brother in laws. He has a small pizza place and employs a lot of local kids there part time. Prices would HAVE to go up if the wage were raised, and at his current margins he would go under. He wouldn't be making more money per pizza, but he would have to charge more, if the price is higher less people will be able to buy said pizzas, hence bye bye pizza place.

#3 Unions always push the democrats to raise the minimum wage, but only because they get to base their wages off the minimum. If the minimum is X dollars for UNSKILLED labor, they can argue their skilled labor is worth more.

My sister's volunteering for Hoeffel. I haven't seen the ad, but my friend described it to me in between bouts of laughter. It just seems badly designed. Maybe the Republicans are trying to load the expectations game.

Oh, and Ustwo, I see you couldn't stay away. Welcome back.

Welcome back Ustwo :)


Anyway,

I catagorically am against any campaign ad that twists and distorts facts, since rational decisions on who to support NEED solid facts.

But if you Kerry supporters think your side is immune to this nonsense, then you have your heads in the sand.

I saw the ad twice this afternoon...and laughed my ass off twice this afternoon. Definately a creative way of doing it other then dramatic music, deep voices and grainy photographs.

YES CAMPAIGN ADS SUCK!

But you know what? THEY WORK! The Bush Campaign has produced some of the finest political ads I have ever seen. (It is much easier to do when you have more money than God) This one, however, drives me crazy. AZ has been determined to be "in play", so that add has been on t.v. every other break for at least a week. I am sure it plays well to its audience, but everyone I know thinks it is "amateurish" (that may not be the best word to describe it.)

Both sides are going to water down the truth no matter how much I would like it to be different. I do like the fact that there are resources out there to help guide us to the truth. I do, however, think that the Bush Campaign has stretched the truth and twisted the facts to a much greater degree than the Kerry Campaign(so far). With a voting record as long as Kerry's, there is more than enough material to spin things the way the Bush Campaign would like us to see them.

Re: Re: Bush's campaign ad against Kerry, a new low?
 

the President may set the agenda for tax cuts or increases... but only congress can formally propose or implement any form of taxation.

I'll cover your #2 first, because I owned a pizza shop from 1995-97. I paid my workers $7.50 an hour and gave benefits. Yes, it hit me in my pocket but it maintained a good crew and the best and most reasonably priced product in the town and I still made a very comfortable living. If I had been like many places and paid minimum wage I would have had the turnover many places do today and I would have been spending more than what I saved in the continous training and extra hours I would have been there. Unfortunately my 1 mistake was not my wages but the fact I gambled it away and trusted the wrong people to run the place, but such is life.

As for Minimum Wage, many companies are paying just barely above it and calling it "competitive wage". As the manufacturing jobs are leaving more and more people are having to turn to these "basic entry level unskilled jobs". With College grants and loans being reduced and fewer being able to afford college these jobs are about all there are if these people can find them. Then these people have to pay for their own insurance and get very few benefits. Raises of 25 cents a year, if they are lucky just doesn't cut it.

And no minimum wages do not affect places with fewer than 15 employees or making less than I believe $150,000. I have no problem with teens making minimum wage.

Here's a link to a nice stat sheet to read over. http://www.adaction.org/mwbook.html

The biggest problem in the USA right now is the fact that businesses complain they can't find good loyal help, so they pay crap. The laborers feel they get paid crap with no benefits so they show no loyalty.

Henry Ford, the most anti-unionite ever, said, "pay your workers enough to buy your product and live in comfort and you will always have customers." Big Business has gotten away from that idea.

Henry Ford also fired any man he found coming to work in a non-Ford car.

And he funded and contracted for Hitler.

Living Wage is for Nazi lib's!

Well, if you work for a company, they pay you well and take care of you, then you should have pride enough to own the product.
Like working for Dell yet having an Apple Mac on your desk. Sure at home where noone cares you can have anything you want but not on company property because you are showing you support a competitor and that's not good business.

You are absolutely wrong on this point.

-- http://www.chn.org/issues/issue.asp?iss=18

-- http://www.opm.gov/flsa/overview.asp

:confused:

How is he wrong? Looks to me like your evidence supports his view more then yours.

From your first source.

Yes I fail to see how I am wrong as well based on what was posted.

Ah well.

I am also correct on the other points.

smooth,
Hmmmm, it seems Ustwo is talking about the intent of the law, and you are talking about the effect. It's true that the modern federal minimum wage is not a liveable salary, but I'm not convinced yet that that is the intention of the FSLA (mostly because I know diddley about it).

Actually, the intent was to make a living wage. The evidence points to the fact that the effect of the law hasn't been to create a living wage.

I understand Ustwo to be claiming that the intent wasn't to create a living wage. I merely gave the websites for someone to get the correct terminology. Anyone interested can run searches on the fair labor movements, I'm not going to waste my time since ustwo and others aren't going to change their minds about anything I post anyway.

Case in point, the actual legislation speaks to securing wages for skilled labor provisions. It makes exceptions for unskilled labor positions--what ustwo claims minimum wages are referring to.

That is, if minimum wages are securing sub-living wages for unskilled laborers, then it wouldn't include provisions to pay unskilled laborers less money than mininum wage.

Upon reading the provisions in the law, one realizes that it is referring to skilled labor positions, not entry workers. The entire legislation was geared toward securing fair and equitable wages for industry positions for middle-class workers--not transitory ones.

In short, my post was for people who actually care about researching the intent behind movements that led to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mininum wage legislation came out of those movements, but no one can google it if they don't have the terminology. I couldn't care less what Ustwo thinks about the matter, he's already demonstrated to me that he doesn't give a shit about what I have to say about enough topics and I won't engage in arguing with him. For those who care, you now have the tools to plug into a search engine and determine for yourself whether ustwo's interpretation is correct or not.

"Immature-ish" is the word I'm thinking too. I don't get how the a president of the United State can approve such a "message."

Run a search and read the act.

It's pretty explicit that it doesn't refer to "teenagers" or other unskilled workers.

How can we induce this?

By the fact that minimum wage laws don't encompass unskilled laborers. That is, one can pay unskilled workers and entry positions less than the minimum wage. The rest of the act delineates who is subjected to the legislation--and it refers to skilled laborer positions.

The buying power of the minimum wage speaks to the effect of making more than $5 dollars per hour. It doesn't address what the writers intended the act to protect--liveable wages. ustwo claimed that minimum wages were never intended to protect liveable wages. He's historically wrong--it's a fact one can google, not something I inferred from those two sources.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews...4_20040407.htm

Getting away from the minimum wage argument and back to campaign ads. Has anyone seen the one produced by MoveOn which impersonates Bush's voice? Utterly fascinating to me that any group can think this is going to convince anyone (beyond those who are already convinced) to join their camp.

Have you seen anything produced by Club for Growth?
Their breakout was the Howard Dean "Latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, NYT-Reading, Body Piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show."
The most ludicrous incendary ad's devised.
CFG ad's consist of nothing but personal attacks, never have substance. They just spout the weirdest stream of crap imaginable. It's like it's written by someone with Tourettes of the hand.

MoveOn is almost as bad, but at least MoveOn comes with data and usually contains an alternative policy.

Club for Growth was created specifically to destroy all non-hard right candidates and nothing else.

No I haven't seen them. New Jersey isn't really a hotly contested state so it doesn't surprise me that they aren't being run (or aren't being run frequently) here. This ad that I'm talking about is far from providing an alternative policy or any real data. Just an example of how not to do a campaign ad. I can't possibly imagine anyone being swayed by it. Of course, there's something to be said for ads that will mobilize your base and I suspect that's what both of these groups' goals were.