Bush's 2004 ads

[NHPolitico]

In case we wanted to start a thread to review the released-this-week ads from BC04 and then use this thread for new ads later on, too.

ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) -- President Bush talks about his hope for the future in his re-election campaign's first television ads but mainly focuses on the national security and economic challenges America has faced during his three years in office.

The ads include images of wreckage from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and talk of a declining stock market as they seek to portray Bush as a leader on both foreign and domestic issues.

"I know exactly where I want to lead this country," the Republican incumbent says in one ad. "I'm optimistic about America because I believe in the people of America."

The Bush-Cheney re-election team unveiled the ads Wednesday, a day before they will start running on broadcast channels in media markets in 17 states expected to be competitive this year and nationwide on select cable networks.

Advisers say the ads are meant to show that the country is safer and stronger today because of Bush and to make the case that Bush's policies have put America on the right path.


"We thought it important to start with a setting the table of where the country's been over the last three years," said Matthew Dowd, the campaign's chief strategist.

Dowd called the ads - one 60-second spot and three 30-second spots, including one in Spanish - the beginning of a conversation that will last until the election. He said ads will be on the air consistently but not necessarily every day until Nov. 2.

The commercials are the first phases in what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar advertising onslaught. They carry the slogan, "Steady leadership in times of change."

Bush has more than $100 million in the bank, and a large part of that will be spent on TV ads over the next few months.

[NHPolitico]

http://www.georgewbush.com/TVAds/

[Beet]

I'm hardworking, decent, and generous. Wow! Flattery works

[Beet]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.

This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

note of interest- Greenspan's interest rate policy. He never cut interest rates in 2000.

[opebo]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.

This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

note of interest- Greenspan's interest rate policy. He never cut interest rates in 2000.

You're quoting some old newspaper article?  You do know the Government revises statistics all the time, right?  I think upon further review they determined the recession began under Clinton.

[Ben.]

 The first two ads are good and the 60 second one is excellent, re-establishes Bush in peoples minds as a candidate and gives him a positive message (low on specifics though)... the last ad is poor, no matter what the reality people did not see the Clinton years as bad economically and they saw the situation in 2000 as pretty rosy... the blame for the economic problems facing the nation now even if ultimately it began under Clinton (in my view it has been exacerbated by Bush's tax cuts) will fall on the president under whom the effects began to be felt (remember Carter?) and in this instance that’s Bush... but that ad could possibly be a way to redefine the period in peoples minds, doubt it will work though...    

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.
This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

quoting 2 1/2 year old snapshots is pretty weak!  Here is the most up to date GDP info:





And, as you can see, the  Leading Economic Indicators were in decline way before Bush took office:



...and Business Spending went negative in Q4 of 2000:

[ncjake]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.

This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

note of interest- Greenspan's interest rate policy. He never cut interest rates in 2000.

You know who planned the budget,  and was therefore responsible for the economy, in 2001? I'll give you a little hint, he was from Arkansas

[angus]

"You may infer from my previous testimony, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have sex with that woman as I understood the term to be defined."

Those indicators look pretty good from where I'm sitting, by the way, go back to calling King George II a dunce, if that's your best play, but don't try to run those faulty analysis on swing voters.  

[emergingDmajority1]

Thought the ads were OK, shows him politicizing 9/11 and passing the buck (nothing is my fault!) but had soothing music and nice imagery

[zachman]

A strong ad that is consistent with Kerry's ads. Kerry had outstanding ads and it did make a differenece!

[classical liberal]

The recession only lasted until 2001 Q4.  At that time the economic cycle had rebounded, the next boom was on the rise.  The only reason anything "bad" happened was that corporations found the lack of a 22% overhead too appealing to hire domestically.  A reduction in this would not work unless it was reduced to 3%-5%, any arguments by politicians trying to sell a reduction in the mandatory portions of the 22% on grounds of ending outsourcing is a ploy.  The only spontaneous anti-outsourcing plan will occur in 2020 with the rise of a middle class in India and China sparking an inflation of those countries' mandatory overhead to match the US.

[emergingDmajority1]

firefighters fire back at bush

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=155-03032004

WASHINGTON, March 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- 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:

-- As Bush Trades on Heroism of Fire Fighters, His Homeland Security Funding Cuts Hurt Fire Fighters and Communities --

"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 percent 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."

[Beet]

The ad incorrectly states that the economy was in recession in January 2001. As I have said it before, by the official measure of recessions, the economy peaked in March 2001.
This article with GDP graphs suggest it peaked even later.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/31/economy/economy/

quoting 2 1/2 year old snapshots is pretty weak!  Here is the most up to date GDP info:
And, as you can see, the  Leading Economic Indicators were in decline way before Bush took office:

...and Business Spending went negative in Q4 of 2000:

Gosh I wish the government wouldn't revise its GDP data 3-4 years after the fact. You'd think if they had any pertinent information, especially information important enough to turn three quarters from expansion to contraction, it wouldn't be sitting in the file cabinet for that long. I guess this means the third quarter's 8.3 percent expansion could be revised up to 12.3 or down to 4.3 percent in 2007. But at least they're doing better than Arthur Andersen!

Now, working with the numbers...

I appreciate what you point out on economic indicators. However, the economy as a whole did actually keep expanding right through March 2001. The economy continued to look stable through the end of 2000, or Alan Greenspan would not have kept interest rates at 6 1/2 year highs throughout the year. Mr. Greenspan knows a lot more about the economy than you or I. Business spending and abstract terms like leading economic indicators sound impressive, and they do measure substantial elements of the economy, no doubt. But they do not determine when recessions begin or end for the economy as a whole. Expert economists like Mr. Greenspan and others make determinations about that. There are two measures of recession, the word used in the ad:
1) two consecutive quarters of contraction.
2) the official estimate by the National Bureau of Economic Research
and right now neither of them support that the U.S. was in recession in January 2001; jmfcst said they "might" be revised, but right now that is just speculation; it "might" happen.

[California Dreamer]

One thing that is interesting about the new ads is that it seems that Laura Bush has replaced Dick Cheney as running mate. Maybe Jay Leno was right and Bush thinks two guys on the same ticket looks too gay

[Platypus]

It's morning in America, and...

oops. I got confused, what with the black guy raising the flag and the schoolteacher...

I am extremely cynical of campaign ads-for both sides.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gosh I wish the government wouldn't revise its GDP data 3-4 years after the fact. You'd think if they had any pertinent information, especially information important enough to turn three quarters from expansion to contraction, it wouldn't be sitting in the file cabinet for that long.

In light of your ignorance, your arrogance is not appreciated.

2001Q1-Q3 numbers were revised to negative a couple of years ago, so it hasn't been "sitting in the file cabinet for that long."

---

I appreciate what you point out on economic indicators. However, the economy as a whole did actually keep expanding right through March 2001.

In light of your ignorance, your arrogant analysis misses the point:

Leading Indicators are called "leading" because they are meant to foretale the ripple effect that current trends will have on the overall economy 6-12 months in the future.

---

The economy continued to look stable through the end of 2000, or Alan Greenspan would not have kept interest rates at 6 1/2 year highs throughout the year. Mr. Greenspan knows a lot more about the economy than you or I.

In light of your ignorance, your arrogance should be replaced by a desire to educate yourself.

Greenspan was raising rates while the interest rate yield curve was negative.  Negative yield curves are ALWAYS a sign of a coming recession.  You will have a hard time finding an economist TODAY that will defend Greenspan's early 2000 decisions.

That's not to say recession wouldn't have happened anyway because it wasn't a Greenspan induced recession, it simply was a function of the business cycle.

---

Business spending and abstract terms like leading economic indicators sound impressive, and they do measure substantial elements of the economy, no doubt. But they do not determine when recessions begin or end for the economy as a whole.

That's like saying heavy rain, which precede the run-off that causes floods, don't determine when rivers rise and overflow.

Go to this site http://businesscycle.com , under the chart click the link "view other charts" and you'll find that it is possible to PREDICT upcoming recessions based on current trends.  

Also, notice that the chart indicates that by the end of 2000, the index's growth rate was at -10 and the ONLY time that has happen is immediately preceding the recessions of the last 30 years.  The ECRI has correctly predicted the last two recessions.

Also note that even given a March 2001 date as the beginning of the last recession, NONE of Bush's economic policies were in place at that time.  And once Bush's tax cut passed in the Summer of 2001, the economy was growing again within 3 months DESPITE the 9/11 attacks which followed.

[California Dreamer]

RE: Economic Data
You all can argue until you are blue in the face, but history has shown that regardless of the laws of macroeconomics, the incumbant tends to be rewarded for a good economy (even if he doesnt deserve the credit), and punished for a bad one.

...in Bush's case its too early to call whether people will consider the economy good or bad, right now it is leaning towards fair to bad...but he has 8 more months...and even though his ads try to make it look like he inherited bad times from Bill Clinton and Al Queda...it is still 'his economy' whether he likes it or not.

Speaking of Al Queda, It is very hard for me to judge since I am biased, but I found his use of 9/11 imagery to be in bad taste

And it seems many families of 9/11 agreeCLICK TO READ ARTICLE

It is kind of ironic that the White House wont allow any cameras to see see the coffins get unloaded from Iraq, but he is willing to politicize a national tragedy.

....I guess he is just bummed he cant use that carrier landing photo op that didnt turn out to be 'mission accomplished' (though Ironically anti Bush ads will be using them)

[classical liberal]

If Bush was frank with the populace about Iraq, they would forgive him and his support would skyrocket.  He shouldn't be instigating a culture war.  Honesty about the rationale behind a regime change could have sufficed and probably helped his campaign more than a culture war will. In any case the sides of the culture war are almost identicle, any conflict could be resolved easily if logic was utilized for once.

[TheWildCard]

Okay just thought I should chime in on the economy for a second... Just from my own personal exprience most of my stocks took a nose dive in Jan. 2000 and they've only recently(in the past year) started to regain their losses.

Perhaps all my picks were bad... Could be who knows its just my personal exprience.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

RE: Economic Data
You all can argue until you are blue in the face, but history has shown that regardless of the laws of macroeconomics, the incumbant tends to be rewarded for a good economy (even if he doesnt deserve the credit), and punished for a bad one.

I agree, but I take issue with someone pulling out a 2 1/2 year old chart and trying to make a political point about it.  It's dishonest.  

Also, that old of a chart isn't exactly easy to find.  It took some digging by someone trying to distort the facts.

I also take issue with the obvious presumption that members on this forum are too dumb to notice the age of the chart.

[NHPolitico]

Okay just thought I should chime in on the economy for a second... Just from my own personal exprience most of my stocks took a nose dive in Jan. 2000 and they've only recently(in the past year) started to regain their losses.

Perhaps all my picks were bad... Could be who knows its just my personal exprience.

All three major indices had peaked by March 2000. It's not just your personal experience and all your picks weren't just bad.

[Wakie]

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.”

[agcatter]

Schaitberger endorsed Kerry back in September.  His outrage is conveniently political.

I watched the ad today to see what all the whining was about.  I thought i'd see something really distasteful.  There wasn't anything.  If i were Dems however I'd play it the same way.  It's off limits to refer to 9-11 because that was Bush's strength.  Just like it's off limits to mention kerry's voting record on defense - after all, Kerry served in Vietnam.  Whoopty do.  What a crock.

[Wakie]

While I agree that it is unsurprising that Schaitberger would blast Bush since he the IAFF endorsed Kerry in September, he does make some valid points.

Bush IS trying to wrap himself up in 9/11.  It's worth noting that the real heroes of that day (the firefighters, police officers, and rescue workers) have been summarily shortchanged by this administration.