|
If this is how far the Democrats have sunk already, with eight months still to go before the election, 2004 is going to be a very dirty Presidential campaign year indeed. In answer to the vicious attacks constantly being levied at him by the Democrats, President Bush released a series of quiet, thoughtful tv commercials this week. The ads were designed to remind the viewer that America has been faced with some serious hardships and challenges in the last few years, and that America -- led by President Bush -- has risen to meet them. As part of a series of photographs that flash by in a montage, there is a brief shot of the American flag flying over the World Trade Center wreckage of 9/11, and an even briefer shot of one of the thousands of flag-draped stretchers that were carried out of the buildings' remains. Since 9/11 was one of the challenges Bush helped the country survive, the defining moment of his Presidency and our generation, and arguably the greatest disaster this country has ever faced, it's entirely right and proper for him to allude to his leadership in its aftermath. 9/11 redefined this country, and redefined George W. Bush as well. But the Liberals, as we know, see the worst terrorist attack in history as a hiccup, a fluke, a one-time thing rather than part of an ongoing campaign against us. They refuse to see that it was an act of war, and that war against terrorists and their supporters was the only appropriate response. While the rest of us were saying "Remember 9/11", they were -- and still are -- telling us, "remember 9/10". The media (reduced to being the pets of the Liberals these days) immediately attacked the ads with everything they had, and in the sickest way imaginable. Within hours of the ads' release, "news" stories began circulating such as "Victims' Families Press Bush to Pull 9/11 Ads" and "9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads" which ran quotes from people mostly identified only as relatives of 9/11 victims. But the stories somehow neglected to identify nearly every person quoted as someone who has either contributed to John Kerry's campaign, works for John Kerry's campaign, or is a member of an organisation that's either "anti-war"... or just anti-Bush.
Ms. Kelly, it turns out, protested the liberation of Iraq in NYC alongside actress and activist Susan Sarandon. Her group also visited Iraq before the war to stage a protest against the US. The news story forgot to mention that. But wait! There's more! This Peaceful Tomorrows group (which also opposed the war in Afghanistan), is "a project of the Tides Center" according to their own web site. The Tides Center, in turn, is funded by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz Endowment -- both chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Got all that? David Potorti, quoted as saying, "It's an insult to use the place where my brother died in an ad," is also a member of Peaceful Tomorrows. So is Bob McIlvane, who said, "To argue that using footage of the wreckage of the towers to further someone's political career is 'tasteful' really needs to be rejected outright, and I condemn it." Yet he is allowing the media to use his son's death to further the political career of John Kerry, whose wife's foundations contribute money to his organisation. The media neglected to report any of this in their "outrage" stories. Two members of the International Association of Fire Fighters Union are mentioned as being angry about the ads, Jeff Zack and Harold Schaitberger . The IAFF gave their endorsement to Senator Kerry. Schaitberger, in September 2003, gave the endorsement speech. In fact, Harold Schaitberger is "co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign", according to the Firefighters for Kerry website. The news media must have just forgotten to mention that. Are you feeling sick yet? Tom Ryan, who said, "As a firefighter who spent months at Ground Zero, it's deeply offensive to see the Bush campaign use these images to capitalize on the greatest American tragedy of our time," is an active campaigner for gay "marriage" as an officer of FireFLAG. President Bush recently called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Coincidence? I wonder. I think I hear the scraping sound of an ax grinding. Kristen Breitweiser, who also attacked President Bush for "using 9/11 as political propaganda," was not identified as the woman who decided "to wage a battle against the United States government" in the "ad" story. However, that is the way she was introduced in an interview with Phil Donahue in 2002. In both interviews, she attacked President Bush for not panicking a schoolroom full of children by personally overreacting while preparations were made for his departure. That meme -- "how dare he react with such calm?" -- seems to be resurfacing again as a Democratic talking point. But that's what makes a President a leader, not rushing around in a hysterical panic. Thanks to RightWingNews and little green footballs for some of the links. |
| Robert McClelland March 6, 2004 02:07 PM PST >Are you feeling sick yet? Yes, you sicken me. Launching a smear campaign against the relatives of 9/11 victims just because they don't share your views is beneath contempt. Save your spin doctoring. This is just wrong. | ||
| Michael Cosyns March 6, 2004 02:50 PM PST What??? They are attacking <I>these</I> commercials???? <I>"Are you feeling sick yet?"</I> No. Just disgusted. Robbo I don't get you man. From your postings over at the Iraqis I understand that you are not even against the war on terror since you seemed to deplore the shifting of troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. So it seems to be more a rgument over strategy. You even approved of some aspects of GWB's domestic policy. If anything you are hard to put a label on. These commercials are anything but aggressive. Guys attacking the Prez over them are sick. Cav just pointed out a few important things the media conveniently forgot to mention, and I'm grateful for that. | ||
| JM March 6, 2004 08:37 PM PST Robert, can you point out where I attacked the relatives of 9/11 victims? Not, of course, that they get a free pass for the rest of their lives, but I'm upset that the media did not accurately portray them in order to paint a certain picture. The same way that when Rudy Giuliani's open support of the President's ads is mentioned, they invariably say "Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is campaigning for Bush's re-election, says..." | ||
| American Joe March 7, 2004 12:08 PM PST Here is the situation as I see it: 1. The major media are almost unanimous in their hatred for George W. Bush. They have kept up an unrelenting torrent of attacks for months and that torrent shows no signs of slacking off. In fact, it probably will get worse. 2. Any attempts that are made to get Bush's message out will be drowned out. The 9/11 ad is a case in point. The "news" is not the message, but rather the attacks on the ad. 3. Because of McCain-Feingold, the voters will see and hear almost nothing but the major media reports for the last 60 days before the election. My conclusion: Bush is toast. He could heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water, and all the voters will hear about is that somebody was offended. It's all over folks - get ready for President Kerry. | ||
| Jamie G March 8, 2004 09:16 AM PST I don't think that it will be such a cake-walk for Kerry. You've got to give more credit to the average American voter. (I know, the media thinks that the average American is an idiot and believes just about anything they are told by Dan Rather, Katie Couric, NBC, CBS, etc.) But, guess what, it isn't trued. Its funny, Kerry and all the other Democrats have been bashing Bush (and the Admin) for months now, yet the media doesn't characterize this as "negative campaigning". Which it is. The B.S. story about Bush's Nat Guard service; the B.S. about those 16 words and Bush's "lying"; are just a couple of examples. Yet, all the media can talk about is how Bush will "soon begin airing 'negative' ads"; ads which will emphasize how Kerry has flip-flopped on most of the major issues facing this country. But you see, all that will be emphasized is the truth! So, its only negative when you consider it from the viewpoint of the Kerry campaign. I think that the media (and the Kerry campaign) are attempting to scare the Bush campaign into not running any ads exposing Kerry for what he is. There are many months still to go in this and people are already tired of the stuff that is going on..... | ||
| Jamie G March 8, 2004 09:34 AM PST BTW - to me, the fact that Pres Bush did NOT panic and run around like an idiot when told about the WTC attacks confirmed that he is a leader. And that is why I will vote for him to remain in office. (And that is probably one of the reasons that the leaders of some of the most oppresive regimes in the world are hoping that G.W. won't win re-election). Can you imagine what any of the Democrats would have done? (I guess they would have consulted with Kofi Annan, called an emergency session of the U.N Security Council ..... called Jaques Chirac or Gerhardt Shroeder, perhaps? I thank God every day that George W. Bush was in office when those attacks occured, and NOT Al Gore (or Clinton). | ||
| Name March 8, 2004 12:09 PM PST Bush will *not* be allowed to get his message out to the voters. The underlying theme of this election is driving home the fact that this country is controlled by the "permanent" Democratic establishment and the big media. | ||
| Jamie March 8, 2004 01:27 PM PST The "big media" is losing viewers every day. And don't dismiss alternative news outlets (like Fox News) from getting the message out, not to mention the Internet as a valid source for current news/ideas/opinions for a lot of people. Kerry's wife was quick to dismiss the media late last year when she said "Until EVERYONE has access to a computer and knows how to access the Internet, it will still be an adjunct political grassroots organizing tool”. But then again, most mega-rich folks like her don't have much respect for the abilities of commoners, do they? Hasn't anyone ever told her that one doesn't have to personally OWN a computer to be able to access the Internet? BTW - go to the Wall Street Journal Online and read a couple of the articles posted there from family members of 9/11 victims. There was a really interesting one posted last week and another one today. Not all family members are opposed to what the Bush campaign has done. | ||
| Leave a Comment: |