It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Bush Campaign Ad Twists Kerry's Words... Again

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
John Kerry was interviewed in a NY Times Magazine piece today on his plan on how to fight terrorism and his words are once again being misconstrued by Republicans and turned into a counter campaign.

On CNN's Late Edition, Marc Racicot, a Bush campaign advisor, paraphrased Kerry's statements from the article, interpreting the meaning such that Kerry stated that he feels terrorism is a nuisance, similar to protitution and gambling and has a "pre-9/11" view of the world. RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie used similar comments on Face The Nation.

However, Kerry's actual quote from the piece was:

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

If you read the quote, and also the full 8000 word article, Kerry said that his wish is to reduce terrorism to a nuisance, not that terrorism is currently a nuisance. He states that it can never be completely eliminated, LIKE prostitution, gambling and other organized crime, but it can be reduced. The rest of the Times interview discusses how he feels that terrorism requires a "multipronged" approach because terrorists are highly mobile and cannot be attacked via conventional war, which is complete opposition with Bush's strategy to single out countries that sponsor terrorism and attack them in a conventional way, which is more of a "pre-9/11" strategy. Can't Republicans read??

CNN reports that the Bush campaign will launch a television ad using (or misusing) the Kerry quotes NY Times Magazine piece tomorrow.

It is truly appaling that this new campaign tactic is based completely on a lack of reading comprehension. The fact that it was repeated by two Republican operatives and is the centerpiece of a new TV ad really shows how stupid the Republicans think Americans are. I suspect that they didn't think that people would actually read or understand the NY Times piece. Perhaps Marc Racicot and the rest of Bush's advisors only skimmed it, as the first few paragraphs aren't all that flaterring, but the bulk of the article really details Kerry's plan and gives real insight into how intelligent this man really is.

For the CNN article:
www.cnn.com...

For the NY Times Magazine interview with John Kerry:
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I had noticed the shift in tactics. The phrase "pre-9/11" view of the world" has been spread around a lot. Didn't Bush say it during the debates?

Just like the "global test", I always find it funny that the Bush handlers always try to tell me something different than what I read or heard. I wonder how many people really fall for it, or does it just make them look bad for trying?



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
It's a Catch-22 for Kerry--if he defends himself, the media focuses on that instead of covering positive issues like his plans or his record. If he ignores it, people believe that it is true. Rove understands this & it's why they use this tactic so often.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Well we know that in order to keep the flip-flop tag on Kerry the opposition has to create more of the same tactics that has used from the beginning of the campaign the whole thing has gotten old all ready so now the new tactic is to used Kerrys world against him.

Bush can lie to national tv during the last debate I know that and others know that.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Well, the Bush camp must be staying up all night looking for things Kerry says that can be twisted and put out for people like Drudge (scary man) to pick up immediately.

On the other hand, the Kerry campaign just needs the true transcript of Bush's speech to make Bush look like the true idiot he is.

Oh, such entertainment!



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I just really hope that the voting public has enough sense not to take these spin doctors at their word and do a little research themselves...but alas, I fear this is not true...most people are too lazy and figure if someone on tv said it, it must be true.

Thankfully we have places like ATS where we all, well, most of us, can educate ourselves and others to the real facts.

It's also very sad to think that the spinners can go on tv and spout their tripe to people knowing that they are speaking half truths (on a good day) and think they are educating the public.

Bring me a debate where ALL the presidential hopefulls get in a room for 10 hours and just talk about their possitions..Will never happen.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Do you really think the ads have any impact this late in the game? I find it very difficult to believe a) anyone really pays attention to the ads and b) there are any swing voters left.

Don't most people walk out of the room during commercials? Don't most people know that the commercials are just B.S. coming from both sides?

I understand that the swift boat ads supposedly had some impact but they were early enough to do damage control. Quite honestly I don't think it was the actual ADS that had the impact, I think it was all the discussion of them on every talk show on the radio and TV as well as on all the news coverage.

I don't think I've listened to one political ad this entire campaign. Sure they have come on but I couldn't tell you what was said on any of them! I thought most Americans were like me and just automatically filter out commercials and use the 3 minute break to get things done around the house.


Jemison



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Actually yesterday for the first time I saw about 3 comercials against Kerry back to back I was very surprised of so many in one shot, and they all seem to be about the last debate.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The fact that Bush hasn't been able to corner Kerry in either of the debates so far concerning all of the senator's "flip-flops," I would imagine they have little effect now.

As someone said before, the fact that Bush and co. is trying to turn this into a referendum on John Kerry rather than preaching the positives of their administration speaks volumes. What's even worse is that if they haven't disqualified Kerry as a viable presidential candidate already, they never will. They should should spend these last crucial weeks talking about their plans for the future, or what good this administration has brought to our country.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
its funny that you guys made this comment because you obviously overlooked the fact that Michael Moore made a film called "Farenheit 9/11" which does the same thing Bush is doing to Kerry, only to Bush. And I am sure MANY more people saw that and believed it as Gospel truth.



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
its funny that you guys made this comment because you obviously overlooked the fact that Michael Moore made a film called "Farenheit 9/11" which does the same thing Bush is doing to Kerry, only to Bush. And I am sure MANY more people saw that and believed it as Gospel truth.


Is Michael Moore running for President? And Bush is doing the same thing Micheal Moore did?



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Oh no. Bush is playing dirty and twisting John Kerry's words? NO! GOD NO! SAY IT ISN'T SO!

That's politics, folks.

John Kerry is doing the same thing to President Bush, although you Bush-hating morons seem to never take note of that.

Politicians will do anything to win an election, it's been that way forever. They're both employing the same tactics and we should all urge swing voters to discredit the ads immediately and do their own research on each canidate, then make their decison. And if they don't like Bush or Kerry, they can vote for a third party canidate



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
What! Moore is running for president!?! Is he on the Ohio ballot? Why isn't he allowed at the debates? Why didn't we know about this? Is the republican party doing to Moore like what they did to the Greens and Libertarians? Alright, Moore in 04, hell, it even ryhmes!



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
the subject at hand was how the democrats have done the same thing to George Bush so get over it! You guys knew what i meant, and decided to give me a hard time...



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The new Bush ad & misuse of the Kerry interview are all over www.georgebush.com today. The sad part is that they actually use the headline that Kerry characterises terrorism as a nuisance, but then include the quote where he states that he wishes to reduce terrorism until it is JUST a nuisance.

Curiously, in trying to tear down his comments, the Bushies fault him for this desire, feeling that he should have a more "apocalyptic" (their word, not mine) outlook on terrorism. So are they saying that Bush has an apocalyptic view on terrorism--there is no way to reduce or contain it until the point where we are no longer in constant fear? Yikes. Nothing scares those "security moms like an apocalypse.

To answer some of the comments above, it is true that mudslinging is a part of the modern political dialogue, but the Bush campaign has taken a new tact. It is one thing to interpret statistics in a way that favors your cause or to engage in the even more dubious practice of name calling without substantiation, but it is quite another to lie about what someone said in yesterday's paper and expect to get away with it. This strategy has one key assumption--that Americans are ignorant.

It is all in black and white--it is not as if we are talking about a speech Kerry made ten years ago. This is an article printed in the NY Times yesterday. The Bushies don't even bother with using full quotes anymore as the ad on the Bush site today has a picture of Kerry surrounded by the words (in quotes) "terrorism", "nuisance", "prostitution", "gambling". There is no other way to characterise it other than a gross misrepresentation of facts.

However, I guess what bothers me most about this ad is that it is assumes that Americans are stupid. It assumes that most people don't read the news and that most people won't understand Kerry's comments. It assumes that most people won't even read beyond the headlines on the Bush website because if they do, they would see that it is all smoke and mirrors.

Or perhaps it is the Bushies that have the lack of understanding. The fact that they still include Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" on the recommended reading list on their website when it is a glaring indictment of the Bush intelligence failings and makes the clear assertion that Cheney and Rumsfeld coerced intelligence that supported Al Qaeda-Saddam links and WMDs is just further evidence that they just can't read.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
ok, maybe some of you Kerry folks can help me out here...

How is it, this late in the campaign, that Kerry does not realize that when he says something like this it is going to be taken out of context and spun to hurt him. I mean, almost all of the attacks from Bush and co. come in the form of something Kerry has said himself, be it spun or not...

Now the way I see it, he is either really dumb to keep making this mistake, or incredibly naive to think it won't be used against him...because he keeps doing it! wtf?

Why does he keep giving them ammunition??

.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Teniente
ok, maybe some of you Kerry folks can help me out here...

How is it, this late in the campaign, that Kerry does not realize that when he says something like this it is going to be taken out of context and spun to hurt him.
.



And may I ask what do you suggest? That Kerry goes mute?
That will be funny, he then will be accused of not talking at all.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I'm sorry i dont feel like we can be a little bit more lax on our terrorist policy right now. But if Kerry does get elected and he does loosen it up a bit, you will all be saying "Oh this is what you meant" as you see thousands of people slaughtered AGAIN! For what? Why? Because you wanted to reduce the terrorism policy. Folks, we can't get around it, he DOES want to reduce it, and right away. Im not saying he wants to just forget about it, but he wants to loosen it up a little bit, and that little bit may offer a crack in which the terrorists can attack.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
C'mon Crybabies!


You know it's only fair, that if Kerry can twist his OWN words, Team Bush has every right to twist them too..

If this Great Orator, Debator, can't even get a boost from 2 debates,
What's left?
Whining about the other side! Thats what KAMP KERRY IS UP TO NOW.



hmmm, a Mute Candidate...I would like to see a debate in sign language.



posted on Oct, 11 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by El Teniente
ok, maybe some of you Kerry folks can help me out here...

How is it, this late in the campaign, that Kerry does not realize that when he says something like this it is going to be taken out of context and spun to hurt him.
.



And may I ask what do you suggest? That Kerry goes mute?
That will be funny, he then will be accused of not talking at all.


Well that is kind of my point...the Kerry campaign has done a miserable job of picking a position and sticking with it. They have tried to play on both sides of the fence on most of the issues, and as such, no matter what he says it gets spun...

But, saying that terrorism should be reduced to a nuisence (sp?) is a gold mind for rove...whether taken out of context or not...it is still him saying it....I just can't believe he'd even say something remotely close to that...and honestly, I have read the whole statement...in context it still sounds ignorant...

I think I understand what he was trying to say, but as usual it was not clear..and as such is open for interpretation....good and bad...







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join