Bush runs from a debate

[Mark Stapleton]

Once again the Iranian leader has challenged Geoge Bush to a public and open debate. And once again George Bush has gone to ground:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0907-06.htm

I thought the leader of the world's most advanced society would jump at such an opportunity to charm the Iranian 'fanatic' with his erudite logic. But no. Silence. What are we to make of this?

[David G. Healy]

Once again the Iranian leader has challenged Geoge Bush to a public and open debate. And once again George Bush has gone to ground:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0907-06.htm

I thought the leader of the world's most advanced society would jump at such an opportunity to charm the Iranian 'fanatic' with his erudite logic. But no. Silence. What are we to make of this?

Nothing... Let the Iranian jerk, try to impress the rest of the world from say, old Jerusalem? THAT, I'd buy a ticket for ....

What sounds good to me is get both of them together in scrub country, west TEXAS. Who doesn't make it to the Rio Grande - gets 150 virgins... the NEXT American president can debate the jerks successor in Mecca, Medina or the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California, (Hillary's option)...

[Mark Stapleton]

It's hard to believe that Bush is actually sane after listening to some of his statements. Bush states that acquiring nuclear weapons would enable Iran to blackmail the free world.

How? America posesses the weaponry to destroy Iran many times over and this is exactly what would happen in the unlikely event of Iran committing suicide by launching a nuclear attack. Does North Korea blackmail the free world? Have they destroyed "our freedom"?

Bush follows it up by stating that he won't let it happen and no future US President can let it happen either. These are the words of a man who has lost his grip. Apparently America has the divine right to determine the nuclear capability of other sovereign nations, now and in the future. When JFK tried to prevail upon Israel to curtail its nuclear ambitions, Israel claimed he was infringing upon their sovereignty and that they had the right to formulate their own security policy. Israel was right, although they lied in assuring JFK they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region. If America fears a nuclear war in the Middle East, will they ask Israel to dismantle their weapons or is it OK for our side but not OK for the other side?

America knows damn well that Iran would not launch a war which would result in its certain annihilation. The real fear is that Iran's pending nuclear capability will balance the region and prevent the US and Israel from acting as though this region was their personal property.

Ahmadinejad seems to be lucid and intelligent. George Bush seems to be.....George Bush. The media tells us daily that Iran is a nation of demented fanatics, bent on destroying ''our freedom", while America is the voice of reason, determined to spread freedom, peace and prosperity around the globe. What a surprise to discover that it's actually Ahmedinejad who is sounding reasonable and Bush who is sounding like the rabid fanatic. It's no wonder America is terrified of a free and open debate with Iran. On this issue, they don't have a leg to stand on.

In the 1983 election campaign, when former Aussie PM Malcolm Fraser refused to publicly debate then Opposition leader Bob Hawke, the Hawke camp ran television commercials with an empty chair cast as Hawke's opponent. Ahmadinejad's team should follow suit.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Sid Walker]

Whatever the selection criteria may have been when Bush 2 was chosen by the unpleasant sharacters who are the real power behind his Presidency, debating skills was not one of them.

Imagine if Dubya was a member of this forum. What incisive contributions might he make? Perhaps he could share something about the art of eating pretzels? Or how it feels to commence ones education about world affairs only after being elected President (by the Supreme Court)?

I have to acknowledge that Bush's minders got this decision right. Seeing that man perform in a fair debate with a real leader might seriously destabilize American society - and provoke American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to mutiny, realizing they've been fighting on the wrong side all along.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Sid Walker

[John Simkin]

Whatever the selection criteria may have been when Bush 2 was chosen by the unpleasant sharacters who are the real power behind his Presidency, debating skills was not one of them.

Imagine if Dubya was a member of this forum. What incisive contributions might he make? Perhaps he could share something about the art of eating pretzels? Or how it feels to commence ones education about world affairs only after being elected President (by the Supreme Court)?

His postings would resemble those of Brendan Slattery.

[Terry Mauro]

Whatever the selection criteria may have been when Bush 2 was chosen by the unpleasant sharacters who are the real power behind his Presidency, debating skills was not one of them.

Imagine if Dubya was a member of this forum. What incisive contributions might he make? Perhaps he could share something about the art of eating pretzels? Or how it feels to commence ones education about world affairs only after being elected President (by the Supreme Court)?

His postings would resemble those of Brendan Slattery.

I seriously doubt G. Dubya could even measure up to lowest rung on the ladder known as B.S., John.

But, for a chaser, take a look at what truthout.org just posted regarding the GOP's planned tactical campaign assault on the Democratic party during the up and coming elections. More dirty tricks from the right-wing.

What do you think? The t r u t h o u t Town Meeting is in progress. Join the debate!

Go to Original

Desperate to Remain in Control, GOP Resorts to Attack Ads

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza

The Washington Post

Sunday 10 September 2006

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy - combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation - proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University and the author of a book on negative advertising, said Republicans and Democrats alike lack positive issues on which to run because of divisions over the war and economic policy. This will be a "very negative campaign and probably a more negative campaign than any in recent memory," Geer said.

As Republicans try to localize races, Democrats' hopes for the most part hinge on being able to nationalize the election and turn it into a referendum on the Iraq war, President Bush, and the performance of the Republican Congress - all faring poorly in polls this year.

Bush will try to make terrorism the issue nationally, casting the election as a choice between two distinct approaches for protecting the nation from attack. Beyond that, however, most Republicans want to distance their elections from the national context.

That strategy is born of necessity. Republicans are alarmed by the large number of House and Senate incumbents who are trailing or tied in their internal polling. Many are attracting the support of less than 45 percent of likely voters - a danger zone for any incumbent 60 days before an election. The political rule of thumb is that incumbents rarely draw a majority of voters who make up their minds in the days shortly before Election Day.

History shows how the combination of opposition research and negative advertising can work. In 2000, Republicans unleashed a furious attack on the spending practices of Democratic House candidate Linda Chapin, including her purchase of an $18,500 bronze frog as a legislator in Florida. Chapin, then the favorite to win an open Florida House seat, lost to Republican Ric Keller. That same election cycle, Republicans dug up a tape of state Rep. Eleanor Jordan (D-Ky.) asking to speed up a vote so she could attend a fundraiser, an image that destroyed her chances of knocking off Rep. Anne M. Northup ®.

This year, the challenge is tougher, as national polling shows voters dissatisfied with the party in power and ready for a change.

"When all [Republicans] do is launch potshots, they look like they're trying to cover up the fact that they have no solutions" said Phil Singer, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As in past elections, the bulk of negative advertising this year probably will be delivered by party committees - a strategy that allows the candidates to distance themselves from the trash-talking messages that turn off some voters.

Wisconsin's 8th District offers an example. Earlier this summer, the NRCC sent a young staff member to the district for one week to look through court records, government and medical documents, and local newspapers to find embarrassing information about physician Steve Kagen, one of the leading Democratic candidates in an important swing district, an NRCC aide said. The researcher discovered that Kagen's allergy clinic has sued more than 80 patients, mostly for failing to pay their bills.

A new NRCC ad airing in the Green Bay area, the district's main media market, warns: "What Dr. Millionaire doesn't want you to know is his clinic left more than 80 patients behind - suing them. That's right, suing more than 80 patients."

In recent elections, Democratic officials have complained that Republicans are much better at opposition research. But Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chair the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees, have invested more heavily in research. Notably, the researchers dig not only into Republicans, but also their own candidates. This allows Democrats to anticipate what is coming and be ready to respond quickly.

One Democratic research success this year came when Emanuel's staff combed though the archives of several universities to find a copy of an article Colorado Republican candidate Rick O'Donnell wrote for an obscure publication in the mid-1990s. A researcher eventually found the article at George Washington University. In it, O'Donnell argued that Social Security should be abolished - a revelation that was highlighted in three sharply worded DSCC mailings in the district.

Direct-mail appeals often carry the most negative and potentially damaging messages. Dan Hazelwood, a leading GOP direct mail consultant, said that if a hypothetical Democratic candidate favors the establishment of a garbage dump in a section of the district, for instance, it makes more sense to "narrow-cast" this message by mail to the people most affected rather than buying an expensive, districtwide television ad.

The RNC's expanded role in part reflects concerns that Senate Republicans may not have enough money to take the fight to Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, under Chair Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), had $15 million less to spend than the DSCC at the end of July. But, the RNC is planning to make up the difference. The committee ended July with nearly $44 million in the bank, four times what the Democratic National Committee had on hand.

In setting up a separate arm to spend money on Senate races, the RNC is altering its past practice. In the past, the RNC simply transferred a large sum of money to the House and Senate campaign committees and let the chairmen decide how to spend it. This year, Nelson - a former top official in the Bush reelection effort and political strategist for House Republicans - will work with consultants Tony Feather and Curt Anderson to oversee the TV and direct-mail campaign, which by law must remain independent of coordination directly with candidates.