Bush campaign plans on using 9/11 for political boost.

[Rokenn]

Have they no shame?

For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election

excerpt:

The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2. The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign.

[Jorath Calar]

They are scum... you would only expect this of them... right?

[WillowIX]

Probably goes for both sides. And no, they have no shame. "On to glory"

[ 04-22-2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Timber Loftis]

While I give no quarter to repugs, this sounds like a reasonable campaign strategy. What's Bush going to sell us on to get re-elected if not national security? The economy? Blindingly swift health and education reforms he promised? Not likely.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: While I give no quarter to repugs, this sounds like a reasonable campaign strategy. What's Bush going to sell us on to get re-elected if not national security? The economy? Blindingly swift health and education reforms he promised? Not likely.

Maybe he will run on the fact that the Iraqi's now have universal health care and a fully funded public education system [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Thorfinn]

What is with this short-term memory problem? The Democrats considered holding their convention in New York, but, to the dismay of New Yorkers, chose not to. The Democrats were not willing to bring a single dime of business to the city. Initially, Republicans had not intended to be in NY, but eventually decided that the city needed the business.

As WillowIX implied, if the Democrats thought they could get any advantage out of being in NY, of course they would have been there. But they decided they could get more mileage out of knocking Republicans than doing anything themselves.

That is the irritating part about the Democrats -- they have lost their vision. They no longer propose jack. They have noting to offer, so to cover that up, they attack Republicans, hoping people will not notice. And thanks to the public schools, most people don't have the reasoning skills to notice that the Democrats have not given a single reason to vote for them...

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: That is the irritating part about the Democrats -- they have lost their vision. They no longer propose jack. They have noting to offer, so to cover that up, they attack Republicans, hoping people will not notice. And thanks to the public schools, most people don't have the reasoning skills to notice that the Democrats have not given a single reason to vote for them...

If I was a democrat I'd take that as a flame. Lucky for you I'm not.

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: What is with this short-term memory problem? The Democrats considered holding their convention in New York, but, to the dismay of New Yorkers, chose not to. The Democrats were not willing to bring a single dime of business to the city. Initially, Republicans had not intended to be in NY, but eventually decided that the city needed the business. As WillowIX implied, if the Democrats thought they could get any advantage out of being in NY, of course they would have been there. But they decided they could get more mileage out of knocking Republicans than doing anything themselves. That is the irritating part about the Democrats -- they have lost their vision. They no longer propose jack. They have noting to offer, so to cover that up, they attack Republicans, hoping people will not notice. And thanks to the public schools, most people don't have the reasoning skills to notice that the Democrats have not given a single reason to vote for them...

Well, I don't personally agree with this. Being someone that lives in NY and has my whole life, it's our Republican govenor that is currently killing our future by making drastic cuts to our Health Care, Education System, Public Assistance, and Libraries. However, I don't lump all Repubs into that category, nor do I lump all Dems into a "good" category. I don't vote party line personally, but instead judge each candidate by their own merits rather then by what party they belong to.
And if you want to talk about "milking" 9/11, Pataki came out with ads thanking NY's for helping to get through 9/11 conviently starting 2 months before the election (a year AFTER 9/11). Golisano (from where I live) was no better in his campaigning, even though he was running as an Independent. My point, I don't think it matters what party someone's a part of, if they're a good guy, they're a good guy and if they're slime, they're slime.
JMHO.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: While I give no quarter to repugs, this sounds like a reasonable campaign strategy. What's Bush going to sell us on to get re-elected if not national security? The economy? Blindingly swift health and education reforms he promised? Not likely.

Maybe he will run on the fact that the Iraqi's now have universal health care and a fully funded public education system [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Well, he can sweep the Iraqi vote for all I care. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Commenting further, [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Attalus]

*Shrugs* Of course, he is going to campaign on his successes. Why not? That's why he has such a high approval rating. Think the Dems are going to campaign on their military foreknowledge?