[dpwiener]

Maybe given these facts, Dubya might pick up a few votes: 1) It's completely untrue.

What is untrue about the ad? It asks who will pay for President Bush's trillion dollar deficit, and indicates that our children will have to pay for it.

Off-hand I don't know the exact total that the deficits add up to during Bush's first term in office, but a trillion dollars sounds like it's in the right ballpark. It's a legitimate criticism of a Republican White House and a Republican Congress, neither of which seem to comprehend the concept of "spending restraint" or "fiscal responsibility".

So what's your problem with the contents of the ad?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

There's nothing wrong with the content, however, those who would run it would have absolutely no problem with spending except when a Republican does it.

[Alas Babylon!]

I do not like the huge deficit either but a lot of the money is going towards fighting an ongoing war. Be that as it may, we didn't need a perscription drug benefit.

Having said that, the Democrats said throughout the 80's and early 90's that Reagan's deficit would last generations as well, but it dwindled after the Republicans got control of Congress. Let's give this one a little time to see if an improving economy can shorten it. Still, no new social spending, please, Mr. President!

[Lazamataz]

What is untrue about the ad? It asks who will pay for President Bush's trillion dollar deficit, and indicates that our children will have to pay for it. It's a legitimate criticism of a Republican White House and a Republican Congress, neither of which seem to comprehend the concept of "spending restraint" or "fiscal responsibility".

I don't have much problem with the contents of this ad, but having a group air it who would happily embrace 5 times that level of deficit is particularly galling.