Republicans Attack Kerry in Video and E-Mail

New York Times ^ | February 13, 2004 | Jim Rutenberg

[billorites]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 — Republicans attacked Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts on an array of fronts Thursday, the beginning of what party officials said would be an attempt to undercut Mr. Kerry's reputation at a time when he is riding high from repeated victories in primaries and caucuses.

On Thursday night, Mr. Bush's campaign posted on its Web site an advertisement-style video juxtaposing Mr. Kerry's promises to stanch the influence of lobbyists in Washington with news articles about large numbers of donations to Mr. Kerry from lobbyists. The video gave a hint of the television advertising war to come between the two men.

The Internet commercial appeared hours after Ed Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, gave a speech accusing Mr. Kerry's campaign of running an already unreasonably harsh campaign.

And the Republican National Committee sent out e-mail messages accusing Mr. Kerry of changing his stands on major issues.

The broadsides have come as some of President Bush's most prominent supporters have been loudly urging him to engage in a fight with Mr. Kerry, concerned that the re-election campaign is not doing enough to slow Mr. Kerry's momentum.

Mr. Kerry's campaign aides said the attacks were evidence that the president was nervous about the increasing the possibility that Mr. Kerry would be the Democratic nominee.

"There's one person they don't want to run against and that's John Kerry," said Mr. Kerry's press secretary, Stephanie Cutter. Citing polls showing Mr. Kerry beating Mr. Bush in a head-to-head contest, she added: "They have no choice but to attack below the belt. It's not as if they can talk about the issues."

In alerting the news media to the new Web video Thursday night, Mr. Bush's campaign aides said they were merely responding to millions of dollars of advertisements that Mr. Kerry's campaign has run during his primary bid that have used the White House as a whipping post.

"After months of John Kerry attacking President Bush on special interests," said Scott Stanzel, a campaign spokesman, "this Web video provides an opportunity for our supporters to see how Senator Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record."

[cripplecreek]

He did say "bring it on".

[KellyAdmirer]

It's funny that when Democrats make bogus charges, the media highlights the charges and runs with them, allowing the candidate himself to stand back as if, "Who, me? I have nothing to do with it!" When Republicans make charges, though, the headline is, "Republicans Attack," like they are Dobermans and the poor victim is unfairly maligned.

Nah, there's no media bias.

[marty60]

You do know that Evil Dums LIE? They didn't mean bring on the FACTS.

[Frank_Discussion]

"He did say "bring it on"."

Yeah, and soon they'll be screaming "Take it off! Take it OFF!"

[jwalburg]

It does seem to work that way.

[JustPlainJoe]

Poor Kerry....Being ATTACKED!!!

When he and his Democrat colleagues do it, they're "CHALLENGING" Bush...

[gov_bean_ counter]

Yeah, and soon they'll be screaming "Take it off! Take it OFF!"

Drudge broke that one yesterday.

[counterpunch]

[EvilOverlord]

Democrats make bogus charges, the media highlights the charges and runs with them

I was listening to ABC radio news this morning. There were two stories of interest:

1) President Bush is still trying to defend himself against allegations that he was AWOL. Scott McClellan was basically saying "Look people, we HAVE the documents proving he was paid and served. There's no story here! Go away!". So, the president is being hounded regardless of the evidence he has showing the story to be untrue.

2) John Kerry was on Imus responding to an "unconfirmed internet report" relating to an intern. John Kerry says there's nothing to it. Repeat again that it is an "unconfirmed internet report". End of story.

Just a little bit of bias? Where's the note that the story about the president is unconfirmed, and there is paper evidence that it's not true?

[So Cal Rocket]

No liberal bias here. /sarcasm

Headline on the National Guard issue:

"Bush's National Guard Service Questioned"
(notice the passive voice (they don't mention who's doing the questioning) - and the issue is brought up as a "question".

Headline on the Kerry lobbyist issue:

"Republicans Attack Kerry in Video and E-mail"
(notice the active voice (it's the Republicans making the assertions) - and the issue is brought up in an "attack".

[Frank_Discussion]

?

[My back yard]

This is too funny. It reads == Republicans take up fists and start viciously and maliciously telling truth about Kerry.

[freeperfromnj]

The President has been attacked relentlessly for months from nine candidates and the mass media. Now, because we're finally fighting back, they twist it to make it appear that the Republicans are on the attack. Unbelievable. The sad part is the the mass sheeple will go with whatever the alphabet channels tell them.

[billorites]

"The sad part is the the mass sheeple will go with whatever the alphabet channels tell them. "

Then you're unlikely to be consoled by the knowledge that the average American voter is as dumb as a turkey dropping.

[GailA]

It's ok for him to call Dubya a liar, a cheat, and worse, BUT Dubay can't put out an ad with hanoi john's own flip flopping words?

[smith288]

And the Republican National Committee sent out e-mail messages accusing Mr. Kerry of changing his stands on major issues.

How is it an accusation when the facts are there? The Times continues to suck.

[GailA]

That should have been DUBYA, not what I mistyped.

[concerned about politics]

an attempt to undercut Mr. Kerry's reputation

GASP!!! They're actually fighting back? Those ba$tards!!!
We MUST demand Bush's birth records. Did he weigh enough when he was born? The public has the right to know !!!!

(PS. Heh heh heh. Release Kerry's military records. The public has the right to know about his "heroism.")

[alloysteel]

All the attacks being made on Kerry are being made by - other Democrats. Namely Al Gore, Chris Lehane, the sock puppet Weasely Clark, back behind there somewhere, the stealthy hand of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001" and most of all, his venomous viper of a spouse.

Guess this kinds of wipes out the likelihood that Clark will be endorsing Kerry anytime soon. Oh, Clark might OFFER the endorsement, but will Kerry accept it, in light of the revelations that Clark made a few days ago, "Off the record"?

By the way, is Michael Sneed still employed at Chicago Sun-Times? Her column got pulled really fast earlier today.