Indecision 2004: The Money Gap
It should be no surprise, but it still is.
Bush has well over $100 million on hand.
Kerry has negative $5 million.
Bush is about to unload $10 million in ads. MoveOn will counter with $1.5 million in ads, and RNC Chair Gillespie has the gall to complain about it.
Since Republicans dutifully railed, bitched and complained LOUDLY when former president Bill Clinton was the money raising kinig, I feel it is my duty to return the favor.
When is it too much money? Why shouldn't someone like me get the impression that Bush is buying his re-election? If Bush's message and track record are so strong, then why need the annual operating budget of a small country in order to win a campaign?
Does Kerry even have a chance? Will Republicans outspend Dems 4-to-1 while also complaining about George Sorros? Who knows?
Bush has well over $100 million on hand.
Kerry has negative $5 million.
Bush is about to unload $10 million in ads. MoveOn will counter with $1.5 million in ads, and RNC Chair Gillespie has the gall to complain about it.
Since Republicans dutifully railed, bitched and complained LOUDLY when former president Bill Clinton was the money raising kinig, I feel it is my duty to return the favor.
When is it too much money? Why shouldn't someone like me get the impression that Bush is buying his re-election? If Bush's message and track record are so strong, then why need the annual operating budget of a small country in order to win a campaign?
Does Kerry even have a chance? Will Republicans outspend Dems 4-to-1 while also complaining about George Sorros? Who knows?
Comments
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
newsweek reported a couple of weeks ago that once the nomination was sewn up, democrats would have 90 million dollars in pledges, mostly from hollywood.
Pledges from whom? Single contributors. 527's? According to Republicans, i don't think we're allowed to raise any money, let alone use it.
Bush is already +$100 million over John Kerry. I hope the Bush campaign continues to waste all their money on those dispicable, ground-zero 9/11 hyping TV spots. Sadly they'll probably spend it on more "below the radar" campaign methods. Radio ads, Spanish language ads, push polls (remember John McCain), etc. $100 million buys a lot of nastyness and spreads a lot of disinformation (Gore is a lier).
What I mean by "below the radar" is that while TV ads get a lot of attention from political reporters, the rest of it is completely ignored. So, they can target their message to a particular audience without having it be more widely exposed.
Partly from Atrios
Originally posted by alcimedes
kerry will be helped by the fact that the other canidates have dropped out. now he's the only democrat in town to give money to, odds are you'll see a major swell in his bank account.
Yes it's a logical answer.
And i doubt that TV adds can change an election dramatically. A little, but not a lot.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes it's a logical answer.
And i doubt that TV adds can change an election dramatically. A little, but not a lot.
all it takes is a little..gore had 500,000 more votes than bush, but 500 votes in florida got him the presidency
or one vote in the supreme court..depends on how you look at it
g
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes it's a logical answer.
And i doubt that TV adds can change an election dramatically. A little, but not a lot.
Actually ads can have a dramatic impact on elections. You might not remember the Willie Horton ad, but it caused major headaches for Dukakis. In 1996 the Dole/Gingrich ads really killed Bob Dole. For the most part, the only ads that work are negative ads, but they don't create support for the person running them. They drive down turnout among the supporters of the person depicted in the negative ads.
Originally posted by trick fall
Bush's 9/11 ad is disgusting. He doesn't deserve to be a citizen of this great country let alone lead it.
What exactly about it is disgusting? And please don't reply with the litany of democratic points. Be specific about why.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What exactly about it is disgusting? And please don't reply with the litany of democratic points. Be specific about why.
I haven't seen it but if it I can guess he objects to the likelihood that Bush is exploiting the deaths of 3000 people to get reelected.
What the president DOES NOT have the right to do is use imagery of firefighters at the WTC, bodies draped with flags being pulled out of the rubble, etc. THAT'S EXPLOITATION! Period.
My god, if Bill Clinton pulled this stunt every network news show, every cable news network, every talk show would lead with this as their top story. Ed Gillespie would be working the circuit for a week railing against the Dems. Sean Hannity would be in a furious fit DEMANDING apologies from every Democrat that crossed one of his microphones. I can almost hear it, "aren't you ashamed of the president? Are you prepared to demand an apology from him?"
Yet, what do we hear from the press...chirp chirp. Page six.
Originally posted by Argento
How then would you react to an ad about Kerry and Vietnamn? Does that fall into the same category of exploiting tradegy?
David Sirota writes, ?Is it me, or is it kind of sick that at the same time Bush won't let the media photograph soldiers' flag-draped caskets coming home from Iraq, he has a flag draped casket image from 9/11 in his political ad??
Indeed._
NEW BUSH ADS USE OF FIRE FIGHTER IMAGES SMACK OF POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM
As Bush Trades on Heroism of Fire Fighters, His Homeland Security Funding Cuts Hurt Fire Fighters and Communities
WASHINGTON, DC ? The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO (IAFF), Harold Schaitberger, issued the following statement today after President Bush unveiled new political ads that use images of fire fighters in September 11, 2001 attacks for political gain.
?I?m disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks. The use of 9/11 images are hypocrisy at its worst. Here?s a President that initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and now uses its first anniversary as cause to promote his re-election. Here is a President that proposed two budgets with no funding for FIRE Act grants and still plays on the image of America?s bravest. His advertisements are disgraceful.
?Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country?s history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign. Since the attacks, Bush has been using images of himself putting his arm around a retired FDNY fire fighter on the pile of rubble at ground zero. But for two and a half years he has basically shortchanged fire fighters and the safety of our homeland by not providing fire fighters the resources needed to do the job that America deserves.
?The fact is Bush?s actions have resulted in fire stations closing in communities around the country. Two-thirds of America?s fire departments remain under-staffed because Bush is failing to enforce a new law that was passed with bipartisan support in Congress that would put more fire fighters in our communities. President Bush?s budget proposes to cut Homeland Security Department funding for first responders by $700 million for next year and cuts funding for the FIRE Act, a grant program that helps fire departments fund equipment needs, 33% by $250 million. In addition, state and local programs for homeland security purposes were reduced $200 million.
?We?re going to be aggressive and vocal in our efforts to ensure that the citizens of this country know about Bush?s poor record on protecting their safety and providing for the needs of the people who are supposed to respond in an emergency."
About the International Association of Fire Fighters
The International Association of Fire Fighters, headquartered in Washington, DC, is the 16th largest union among the 64 national unions that makeup the AFL-CIO. The IAFF represents more than 263,000 full-time professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel who protect 80 percent of the nation?s population. More than 2,900 affiliates and their members protect nearly 6,000 communities in every state in the Unites States and every province in Canada.