Here's the Commercial I would do if I was running the Bush Campaign

[MarkDel]

Opebo,

Thanks for the kind comments. The reason Rove and other Republicans are afraid to do this kind of advertising is because they fear the media inspired backlash. As you know, the media is FAR quicker to point out Republican dirty tricks than Democratic dirty tricks. For example, it's OK for Democrats to do ads like the ones in Missouri where they say that every time you vote Republican you vote for the burning of a black church...or the ones in Texas where they exploited the racial killing of James Byrd where they said every time you vote Republican against hate crime legislation and allow blacks to be dragged to death behind cars, etc, etc...

The problem is that in modern politics, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is grossly unfair, even with the presence of Fox News and Talk Radio to help balance the scales of justice. Here's the analogy I came up with back in 2000 when the "dented chad" crew was trying to steal the election in Palm Beach County:

American politics is like a prize fight between two boxers. One boxer, the Republican, is fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules with gloves. The other boxer, the Democrat, responds by coming into the ring with a crowbar...where he proceeds to bludgeon the Republican boxer in the head. The media/referee then intervenes by grabbing the Republican Boxer and telling him to "keep it fair" while he's the one getting beaten to death by the crowbar.

That's a TRUE picture of American politics in the 1990's and 21st Century. If I were in the analogy as the Republican Boxer, I'd respond by bringing a crowbar with sharp edges into the ring...and if the referee wouldn't be neutral, I'd clobber him too. And that explains why I got out of the political game after the 1992 Elections...I was just disgusted by the unwillingness of my colleagues to fight back against the Democrats who were willing to do ANYTHING to win.

[opebo]

Opebo,

Thanks for the kind comments. The reason Rove and other Republicans are afraid to do this kind of advertising is because they fear the media inspired backlash. As you know, the media is FAR quicker to point out Republican dirty tricks than Democratic dirty tricks. For example, it's OK for Democrats to do ads like the ones in Missouri where they say that every time you vote Republican you vote for the burning of a black church...or the ones in Texas where they exploited the racial killing of James Byrd where they said every time you vote Republican against hate crime legislation and allow blacks to be dragged to death behind cars, etc, etc...

The problem is that in modern politics, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is grossly unfair, even with the presence of Fox News and Talk Radio to help balance the scales of justice. Here's the analogy I came up with back in 2000 when the "dented chad" crew was trying to steal the election in Palm Beach County:

American politics is like a prize fight between two boxers. One boxer, the Republican, is fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules with gloves. The other boxer, the Democrat, responds by coming into the ring with a crowbar...where he proceeds to bludgeon the Republican boxer in the head. The media/referee then intervenes by grabbing the Republican Boxer and telling him to "keep it fair" while he's the one getting beaten to death by the crowbar.

That's a TRUE picture of American politics in the 1990's and 21st Century. If I were in the analogy as the Republican Boxer, I'd respond by bringing a crowbar with sharp edges into the ring...and if the referee wouldn't be neutral, I'd clobber him too. And that explains why I got out of the political game after the 1992 Elections...I was just disgusted by the unwillingness of my colleagues to fight back against the Democrats who were willing to do ANYTHING to win.

Well said!  I couldn't agree more - its a very unfair situation regarding the press.  But perhaps going negative near the end is the answer, so there's not enough time for the left wing press to spin it against Bush.  But you make a great point about the essential unfairness.

[MarkDel]

M,

Remember, it was not just Jesse Ventura that got booed. Even before the real ugliness took place, they booed Trent Lott for nearly a full minute. Trent Lott, who had traveled all the way from Washington in a non-partisan gesture to honor one of his fallen colleagues.

[MarkDel]

Opebo,

I totally AGREE about going negative, but like I said, that's why my political career came to an end.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually there is no evidence that young people in the U.S are anymore conservative than previous generations... they are just less likely to vote, meaning that the GOP % is exaggerated.

The Republicans would be very, very stupid to run a load of negative ads against Kerry.
As you are all aware, Kerry's wifes money (and there's a lot of it) is not to be used by Kerry for political campaigning.
However you may not be aware that her money will be used if she thinks that an advert etc. is "slanderous" against either Kerry or her.

[NHPolitico]

This one's pretty good...

[opebo]

Actually there is no evidence that young people in the U.S are anymore conservative than previous generations... they are just less likely to vote, meaning that the GOP % is exaggerated.

The Republicans would be very, very stupid to run a load of negative ads against Kerry.
As you are all aware, Kerry's wifes money (and there's a lot of it) is not to be used by Kerry for political campaigning.
However you may not be aware that her money will be used if she thinks that an advert etc. is "slanderous" against either Kerry or her.

Yuck.  Limousine liberal.

[Nym90]

Yeah, isn't it disgusting when people have political views contrary to their own economic self-interests? I suppose everyone should only look out for themselves and not give a rat's behind about anyone else.

MarkDel--

Well, yes, I am different than those anti-war protesters that you mentioned, and that is probably why I have a different view on the subject. However, it still seems as though most of the venom is leashed against the President and the Generals, not the rank-and-file military people themselves. That is how it should be, the President is the one at fault when one opposes a military operation...no one should be angry at the people out in the field, as they are only taking orders and trying to earn a decent living. If anti-war protesters are angry at the troops themselves, that is definitely not something that I would support at all. Those people are honest hard-working folks who should be supported, but I still disagree with you on what the best way to support the troops is. I don't think that it supports the ideals of this nation to merely get in line behind the war effort and not exercise one's Constitutional liberty of freedom of speech. I feel that it is more unpatriotic to say that people shouldn't protest the war than it is to protest the war. The freedom to protest and dissent is about as American as it gets.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the impact of the ad, but the rest of my points about it still stand.

I strongly disagree about the overall political views of the media, but that one has been discussed to death elsewhere, and ultimately it boils down to another "agree to disagree" point. I think that a lot of people's subconscious definition of a liberal if they are conservative (or a conservative if they are liberal) is someone who is to the left (or right) politically of themselves and thus their opinion of bias in the media is greatly skewed by their own political views.

BTW, what do you mean in saying that you ended your political career in 1992? Did you hold elected office somewhere? What exactly was the extent of your political career, if you don't mind me asking? It would be cool if we had some actual politicans on this board!

[Gustaf]

OK, I will give an opinion on the matter of war protesting. I will start off by saying that I don't know enough about this particular situtation to comment specifically on Kerry, but I will give a general opinion.

I think that one should always have the right to criticize the actions of the government. The state, including all branches in that denomination, can send people off to war without asking the people. Then it would be very dangerous to prohibit people from criticism.

Since this was pre-CNN, I have to admit feeling some doubt about Vietnamese prison guards monitoring the anti-war protests, but that's just me. Most coutries at war, especially undemocratic ones, claim that their opponent is demoralized and that the people is rising up, etc.

Also, the argument that it demoralizes the troops, can be used the other way around. If support for a war is not sufficient, maybe it shouldn't be started in the first place? Why should the critics shut up, perhaps the people in charge should step back and think?

The exceptions to the above are basically if you're fighting for the survival of your nation, or in an epic clash of good and evil, like WWII. Under such circumstances I agree that one should keep quiet, but I don't think Vietnam fits into any of these patterns.

[Nym90]

Even in those dire circumstances, people still have the right to protest. However, most people will realize that circumstances are dire and won't protest. There were not large-scale protests in WWII because almost everybody supported the war once we got in. The people can be trusted whether to protest or to fall in line behind the government. If there are lots of anti-war protests than it is the government's responsibility to make the case for war to the American people. The government ultimately has to listen to public opinion.

The government has no right to send us to war if the American people do not support it. If the government wants to wage war, it is their responsibility to explain the rationale for it, it's not our responsibility to just assume that they know what they are doing. There would not have been as many protests against Vietnam if the government had simply come clean on what was going on, the reality of how bad the situation was, and of what we were doing there, what our long term goals and purposes were. The government's lack of communication is what caused the protests.

[Gustaf]

Even in those dire circumstances, people still have the right to protest. However, most people will realize that circumstances are dire and won't protest. There were not large-scale protests in WWII because almost everybody supported the war once we got in. The people can be trusted whether to protest or to fall in line behind the government. If there are lots of anti-war protests than it is the government's responsibility to make the case for war to the American people. The government ultimately has to listen to public opinion.

The government has no right to send us to war if the American people do not support it. If the government wants to wage war, it is their responsibility to explain the rationale for it, it's not our responsibility to just assume that they know what they are doing. There would not have been as many protests against Vietnam if the government had simply come clean on what was going on, the reality of how bad the situation was, and of what we were doing there, what our long term goals and purposes were. The government's lack of communication is what caused the protests.

Ah, they should *probably* still have the right to do so, but they really shouldn't.

[Nym90]

Yeah, I was talking more about a moral responsibility to explain the war than a legal responsibility. My point was that it is wrong to brand the anti-war people as morally wrong for daring to question it. The government is the one that holds more responsibility to explain their actions to us, since we elect them.

[MarkDel]

Nym90,

I don't mind you aaking about my political past. At age 18, I started working as a volunteer in the 1984 re-election campaign for Ronald Reagan. I also volunteered on the unsuccessful campaign of Republican Mary Mochary to defeat Bill Bradley for the US Seante seat. This did not make too popular with my left wing classmates at Princeton, who considered an alum like Bradley to be one of their heroes.

After college in the summer of 1988, I secured a paid job on the campaign staff of James Walsh, who went on to win and become a Congressman. I also worked on the George Bush campaign that same year. I then went to Washington, DC as part of Walsh's full-time staff on Capitol Hill for 1989.

I worked on a number of successful campaigns in Upstate NY from 1990 to 1992, and was asked by the Republican Party to run for state assembly in 1992. I declined, mainly because my goal was always national government rather than state office, and instead worked on the George Bush re-election effort in 1992. After Bush lost, I decided to leave politics over my disgust with my Republican colleagues that refused to play "hardball" in the camaign that year. I had significant disgareements with other Bush operatives over how nasty we should get with Clinton in our attacks. The same people who had let us "go to town on Dukakis in 1988" were suddenly cowards in 1992.

That's sort of the reader's digest version...it's a bit more detailed than that, but I won't bore you to death with all of the details.