DNC Launches video "Bush reaction clips"

drudgereport. ^ | 10/01/04 | Drudge

[tort_feasor]

Small headline with link to democrats.org

[gortklattu]

If anyone wishes to understand the democrats there are two major points to make:

1. They said the impeachment was about sex, not perjury

2. They redefine words, such as "is" in order to promote obfuscation of their own acts.

It's not what they do, it's how they get away with it. They usually do this by blaming others (1) or by confusing the argument (2)

[ScottFromSpokane]

I think this was a terrible tactical error by the Dems.

Clearly it's going to be easier for the GOP to get substantive debate footage for commercials. But if they had done it first, the Dems would have accused them of cheating (even though the parties are not party to the agreement), and the media would have echoed the charge.

By going first with their lame-o "Bush reaction" web ad, the Dems have completely taken the cheating charge off the table. Now the Republicans can nail the Dems with Kerry's substantive gaffes.

"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat." Just tack that onto the beginning of their pre-existing ad on Kerry's Iraq flip-flops.

Then, of course, there's the "global test" nonsense, the "give nuke material to Iran and see if they'll use it peacefully" gaffe, and I hope they have the guts to use his anti-bunker-buster nuke-freeze reversion.

And: "LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake? KERRY: No"

Vs.:

"KERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment."

[FesterUSMC]

Or 3. by turning the argument(Like the did with the Swiftboat questions of Kerry's service they said, its a smear from Bush Campaign)Which of course is a lie but they will say or do anything to get or hold power

[Shethink13]

That's an awesome idea. You should email that to a few interested parties in the RNC.

LOL. Then, there's Sean and Rush. Could you imagine how that would look if Sean did a video montage of that on Hannity and Colmes?

You think so? Maybe we should talk it up some more on FR. You know they lurk here.

Maybe I should post a separate thread to toss this idea around? Hate to jam up the site with a vanity thread, but what better way to get the subject going.

[TigersEye]

Just viewed it. Looks fine to me. In fact I have to hand it to Pres. Bush for his restraint. I couldn't listen to all that weasel talk without saying "WTF" or "whadda moron."

[rightallthetime]

I just watched it, and I have to say it was really funny. I love GW, but he's only human :-)

Now I would love to see the RNC do a video of Kerry's insipid head nodding and smiling everytime Bush pointed out his inconsistent positions.

Did he really wear lipstick? Go look at the lead pic on Drudge..

[kkindt]

Bush should never have agreed to debate Kerry at all for these reasons:
1. Bush is no debater - not trained in quick come backs like Kerry has all of his life
2. Bush is not eloquent - stumbles a lot - makes up words and misprounces things
3. He was ahead in the polls and the only thing the debates could do is lose him support not gain
4. He is trying to direct a war effort and run a campaign and now these goofy debates
5. He is at a disadvantage when Kerry changes his positions so often and doesn't know which positions Kerry will present in the debates
6. A poll asking voters "if bush chooses not to debate kerry would it cost him your vote" compared to this question "if bush and kerry debate and kerry clearly wins the debates would this give kerry your vote" and if the results are it would make no difference to the likely voters in the swing states then why did Bush debate? It is poor ego and poor advice to go into these debates. It might cost bush the election.

[MeekOneGOP]

[rightallthetime]

Oh I don't think it'll cost him the election. It is common knowledge in America that Bush is a grammatical fumbler and he has even made light of this fact at his RNC acceptance speech.

Undecideds will pay more attention in the long run to what is said over how it is said. The "Global Test" comment (and Bush's great disbelief that Kerry even said it) was really Kerry's biggest gaff.

That, and his pandering to the feverswamp, Michael Moore left in mentioning the 'oil ministry' and 'Haliburton' then going out on a HUGE limb and mentioning Nuclear Proliferation as his cheif concern?? What about terrorism? Oh I could go on....

[TwoSue]

Kerry reminded me of an old man bobbing his head & smiling.

[linn37]

I was at work last night and only got to see parts of the debate. I walked into one patients room and he was laughing hisself silly over the faces President Bush was making while Kerry spoke. I think its harmless.

[NYCVirago]

How is that any cheaper of a shot than, say, the GOP running clips of Kerry wind surfing in flop-flop directions? Answer: it isn't.

Wrong. The RATs specifically agreed not to use any footage from the debates, and they've broken that agreement. That sounds pretty cheap to me.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I'm sorry, but anyone who trusts a 'rat shouldn't be surprised when they break that trust.

Also, the agreement prevents the campaigns from using the footage, but nothing would have prevented the "527s" from doing so.

[freestyle]

from the debate agreement:

(e) Neither film footage nor video footage nor any audio excerpts from the debates may be used publicly by either candidate's campaign through any means, including but not limited to, radio, television, Internet, or videotapes, whether broadcast or distributed in any other manner.

Well, Kerry has already broken this rule... I don't know why the Bush team would have agreed to this though.

[OXENinFLA]

"candidate's campaign"

The RND & DNC are technically not part of the "candidate's campaign"

[kkindt]

It is not Bush's grammatial fumbling that is a problem for him in debates with Kerry. He is not quick on his feet with regard to responses and he tends to repeat what he already said without elaborations that are to the point.

I suspect a survey of likely voters, especially so called undecided voters, may have been undertaken by Republican operatives and they found out that amongst these voters it would be worst for Bush if he decided NOT to debate than if he decided to debate and lost the debates. But I wonder. If they did not take such a survey they made a mistake. I think Bush could have argued that debating with Kerry was a no win situation for him. He could argue that Kerry is a trained and potent debater who has specialized in debate all his life but that Bush has to command the troops, run the government and campaign - that preparing for these debates with a professional debater would consume too much valuable time and that he has decided to ask the questions in a news conference format that would be put to him in the debate format. Hence a news conference followed by Kerry some where else responding to the news conference and then Bush later on responding to Kerry - this would provide Bush with his strength - good advisers, well considered answers after consultation with those he gathers to give him advice.

presidents are only as good as their advisors and they do NOT make decisions or speak well on topics until they have well considered the advise of those they gather around them - it is this that makes a good president - who has he that gives him advise - Kerry has idiots and it is his taking of this advise that causes him to lose points

In a debate he is not taking their advise nor is Bush and it shows.