Beginning of Bush Re-election Campaign to Center Around 9/11 Anniversary - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-29-2003, 09:46 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,957
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Beginning of Bush Re-election Campaign to Center Around 9/11 Anniversary

Well, colour me surprised!

Quote:
WASHINGTON, April 21 President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.


In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million twice the amount of his first campaign to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.

The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.

The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

.....

For example, when the Democrat that many of Mr. Bush's advisers see as the most likely to win the nomination, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in New Hampshire that it was time for a "regime change" in the United States, Republican organizations orchestrated attacks on Mr. Kerry. That forced Mr. Kerry to explain his remarks for a week.

In assessing Mr. Bush's potential opponents, Mr. Bush's advisers said Mr. Kerry could be presented as ideologically and culturally out of step, both because of his liberal positions on some issues as well as his Boston lineage and what some Bush advisers described as his haughty air.

Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that Mr. Kerry "is going to have a hard time translating out of New England." Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, "He looks French."
You can read the entire article here.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 10:40 AM   #2
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:26 AM
He spends 2,5% of the depts iraq has in france for the campaign? wow that's a fortune..
..but the bush family were never small minded when it was about spending money of others:

__________________

Klaus is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 11:55 AM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 03:26 AM
None of this surprises me.

This should be an interesting campaign.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:55 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:26 AM
This is the aptrt I find funny:

"For example, when the Democrat that many of Mr. Bush's advisers see as the most likely to win the nomination, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in New Hampshire that it was time for a "regime change" in the United States, Republican organizations orchestrated attacks on Mr. Kerry. That forced Mr. Kerry to explain his remarks for a week.


Thsi goes to prove what I said in another thread: that no one takes responsibility for their actions anymore. Mr. Kerry's remarks are what forced him to have to explain for a week. If he had never made that inflammatory statement (in the middle of war time, I might add), he wouldn't have to be explaining it. Evidently, whoever wrote this article agrees with Kerry's free speech in saying this, but doesn't agree with the free speech of Republicans in calling him on it. Typical.
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 02:04 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:26 AM
It is from the NY Times. This might explain the "orchestrated attack" description. Also, the campaign kickoff is September 2. It is the newspaper that decided to draw the connection to the 9/11 anniversary.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 02:07 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 17,957
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It is from the NY Times. This might explain the "orchestrated attack" description. Also, the campaign kickoff is September 2. It is the newspaper that decided to draw the connection to the 9/11 anniversary.
Did you miss this part of the article?

Quote:
Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 02:21 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Sorry, I missed the name of the advisor. I tend to have reservations about statements made by unnamed sources.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 02:55 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:26 AM
I don't exactly expect Republicans to be saying nice things about Kerry. Heck, if they did, it wouldn't be politics.
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 03:14 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 04:26 AM
In case the Repubs have forgotten, a "regime change" is an "election." Or have we forgotten how to vote in this nation? I guess if we get used to Supreme Court appointed presidents...

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 03:56 PM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 03:26 AM
Quote:
I guess if we get used to Supreme Court appointed presidents...


Hey Melon who does the artwork in your signature and avatar?
BVS is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 08:33 PM   #11
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 05:26 AM
melon -- they are just forgetting that revolutions can be non-violent.

I just find this administration sickening when it comes to 9/11. They used the deaths of 3000 as an excuse to attack other countries and now they are using it as a way to get more votes. Fuck them. I don't know who I will be voting for in November but it won't be Bush.
sharky is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 11:38 AM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
melon -- they are just forgetting that revolutions can be non-violent.

I just find this administration sickening when it comes to 9/11. They used the deaths of 3000 as an excuse to attack other countries and now they are using it as a way to get more votes. Fuck them. I don't know who I will be voting for in November but it won't be Bush.

I don't like this stuff either. I know I'm going to be voting for the Democrat, I don't give a damn who it is at this point.
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 03:12 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:26 AM
So it's not enough the the tragedy of September 11th has been used to justify some horrible foreign policy decisions, now it's also going to be used to boost the Republicans election campaign? Wonderful - what a great tribute to the memory of those who died on September 11th.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 07:14 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
So it's not enough the the tragedy of September 11th has been used to justify some horrible foreign policy decisions, now it's also going to be used to boost the Republicans election campaign? Wonderful - what a great tribute to the memory of those who died on September 11th.
My sentiments exactly.
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-03-2003, 10:29 PM   #15
Blue Crack Distributor
 
tiny dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: small town Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 96,196
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Patriotism is their strategy, so this doesn't surprise at all.
tiny dancer is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 04:07 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:26 AM
Fizzing,


"So it's not enough the the tragedy of September 11th has been used to justify some horrible foreign policy decisions, now it's also going to be used to boost the Republicans election campaign? Wonderful - what a great tribute to the memory of those who died on September 11th."

I'll never understand how it is horrible to actually go after the people who committed this crime and all and I repeat ALL who aided them in any way shape or form.

What a horrible thing it is to disarm and remove a dictator who has murdered 1.7 million people?!?!
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 06:52 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:26 AM
STING,
I think we've discussed the issue of the war on Iraq enough times to know we're never going to agree!

There is lots of evidence that the attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq were planned long before September 11th and so I think it's fair to say that tragedy was used as justification for foreign policy decisions made long before it.

But as I said, we're not going to agree on this issue so can we just agree to disagree, respect each other's opinions and let the thread get back to it's original subject.
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-04-2003, 07:06 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Sting:
The horrible thing is that the US burned a lot of diplomatic bridges - not by invading the countries, i'm sure the others could have bin convinced, but by the way they did it.

One of the political results is for example that the EU starts to build their own military command.
US diplomacy made it possible that lots of powerful countries start to allie against the US. Not "only" one big country (USSR) with its satelites this could have serious longterm effects.
I really hope that this won't happen and i really hope that the next US government has diplomats whos excelence can be compared to the excelence of the US army.

Other examples are the boycots in France and US. They really hurt the economy of both countries - and by that the people who loose their jobs.

Europe and US drift in 2 different regions and as long as the US president is unwilling to talk to France and Germany this problem dosn't get smaller.

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-05-2003, 09:12 AM   #19
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Sting -- as Fizzie mentioned, the war with Iraq, at the very least, was planned before Sept. 11. The attacks gave the gov't a better excuse. They still haven't found any direct connection between bin Laden and Iraq.

What disgusts me is the rally they held at Ground Zero to support the war in Iraq. 3000 people died and they are using the deaths of these people as a reason to support the war. As if all 3000 of them would want us to invade Iraq and can't speak now because Iraq killed them.

And dammit! Sept. 11 is not a Patriotic day. The people that died were just people, they weren't American heroes. They were British and Japanese and, oh my God!, some of them were French! And they were at work. Nothing remarkable. If people started to realize how normal those that died were, how much they were just like any of us with families and friends, people would be pissed off and wondering why we are going after Iraq and not still trying to find bin Laden to put an end to any threat to us.
sharky is offline  
Old 05-06-2003, 04:49 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
NY Times Editorial/OP-Ed May 6, 2003
Man on Horseback
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Gen. Georges Boulanger cut a fine figure; he looked splendid in uniform, and magnificent on horseback. So his handlers made sure that he appeared in uniform, astride a horse, as often as possible.

It worked: Boulanger became immensely popular. If he hadn't lost his nerve on the night of the attempted putsch, French democracy might have ended in 1889.

We do things differently here or we used to. Has "man on horseback" politics come to America?

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.

Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit was as scary as it was funny.

Mind you, it was funny. At first the White House claimed the dramatic tail-hook landing was necessary because the carrier was too far out to use a helicopter. In fact, the ship was so close to shore that, according to The Associated Press, administration officials "acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the sea as his background instead of the San Diego coastline."

A U.S.-based British journalist told me that he and his colleagues had laughed through the whole scene. If Tony Blair had tried such a stunt, he said, the press would have demanded to know how many hospital beds could have been provided for the cost of the jet fuel.

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

Anyway, it was quite a show. Luckily for Mr. Bush, the frustrating search for Osama bin Laden somehow morphed into a good old-fashioned war, the kind where you seize the enemy's capital and get to declare victory after a cheering crowd pulls down the tyrant's statue. (It wasn't much of a crowd, and American soldiers actually brought down the statue, but it looked great on TV.)

Let me be frank. Why is the failure to find any evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear weapons program, or vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons (a few drums don't qualify though we haven't found even that) a big deal? Mainly because it feeds suspicions that the war wasn't waged to eliminate real threats. This suspicion is further fed by the administration's lackadaisical attitude toward those supposed threats once Baghdad fell. For example, Iraq's main nuclear waste dump wasn't secured until a few days ago, by which time it had been thoroughly looted. So was it all about the photo ops?

Well, Mr. Bush got to pose in his flight suit. And given the absence of awkward questions, his handlers surely feel empowered to make even more brazen use of the national security issue in future.

Next year in early September the Republican Party will hold its nominating convention in New York. The party will exploit the time and location to the fullest. How many people will dare question the propriety of the proceedings?

And who will ask why, if the administration is so proud of its response to Sept. 11, it has gone to such lengths to prevent a thorough, independent inquiry into what actually happened? (An independent study commission wasn't created until after the 2002 election, and it has been given little time and a ludicrously tiny budget.)

There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country.
from NYTimes Article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/op...06KRUG.html?th
__________________

Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×