SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (42934)4/17/2004 12:21:13 AM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush campaign losing financial advantage

BILL STRAUB

President Bush's re-election campaign, complicated by the turn of events in Iraq and new questions about his reaction to the terrorist threat, is losing its edge in a key area that few would have predicted - money.

While the Bush campaign still has plenty of cash on hand - it has raised about $180 million - more than $40 million was sunk into a massive television ad buy intended to turn the electoral tide in 18 tossup states. That expenditure, coupled with the recent fundraising success of his Democratic challenger, John Kerry, means the substantial monetary advantage the president once held has all but vanished.

"We have been overwhelmed by the grassroots and financial support for John Kerry over the past six weeks," said Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager.

Bush entered the spring with a distinct financial edge. About half of the money collected, $90 million, was targeted for a television ad campaign that, GOP operatives acknowledge, was intended to define Kerry before the Democrat had an opportunity to introduce himself to voters and, hopefully, deal an early knockout blow.

The strategy seemed to be working. The ad campaign started in March, shortly after Kerry won a string of primaries and became his party's presumptive nominee. On March 11, according to Rasmussen Reports, which is running a daily tracking poll of the presidential contest, Bush and Kerry were dead even, each receiving support from 46 percent of those polled.

By March 19, the survey showed Bush with a 47-43 lead. On March 22, Bush topped out at 48 percent.

"The ad campaign was effective," said Bill Schneider, veteran political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "They convinced voters that Kerry was a flip-flopper and a tax raiser who would raise their taxes on gas by 50 cents a gallon."

But it was right about then that events - growing unrest in Iraq, rising gas prices, concern about the jobs picture - caught up with Bush and his edge began to dissipate. Kerry built a substantial lead at one juncture, Rasmussen had the challenger ahead 48-42 on April 2, and the two have traded the top spot since. Five of the seven polls released publicly in April show Kerry ahead.

Having reportedly gone through more than $40 million of the $90 million budgeted for its spring and summer media effort, the Bush campaign finds itself in no better position than when it started. And its once vaunted financial advantage, which had Democrats muttering nervously, is no longer quite so substantial.

Kerry set a new presidential campaign record by raising more than $50 million in the first quarter of 2004, including $38 million in March alone. He also is finding success in April, pulling in $6.5 million in one night in New York City. That means Kerry, who risked being buried in the Bush bombardment, expects to compete and respond to any attack.

Now the Bush campaign is scaling back its television attack. The number of Bush ads running in the 18 tossup states is being cut by 30 percent, a move the campaign said had been planned all along. Pro-Kerry forces offer a different rationale - they reduced the ad buy because they had to.

"Not even George Bush's special-interest-lined-pockets are deep enough for $8.5 million per week ad spending for almost 25 weeks," said Jim Jordan, with America Coming Together, an anti-Bush organization. "Not given their stunning burn rate and historically high overhead."

Without the money edge, Schneider and others maintain, the Bush re-election effort is looking a little wobbly given recent events. The president had hoped that his reputation for fighting terrorism would generate the sort of support necessary to assure a second term. But the hearings of the commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy, including the revelation that Bush was told that Osama bin Laden was looking to attack the United States, has affected those numbers.

"He always intended to run as a warrior president," Schneider said. "But his strategy to run as a warrior president is in peril."

Schneider also noted that Bush has spent considerable political capital on Iraq - "Some say he has spent himself into deficit" - and reports of the tragic violence emanating from Baghdad isn't helping matters.

Another analyst, Norm Ornstein, said Bush isn't even receiving credit for what generally has been good news on the economy - traditionally the top issue on the minds of voters. That's because the price of a gallon of gasoline has reached record levels and it appears the cost will jump even higher during the summer driving season.

"This could be an explosive issue," Ornstein said.

Even so, the campaign remains "extraordinarily volatile " in the view of Whitt Ayers, a respected GOP pollster who recently has moved his operations from Atlanta to Washington.

The contest to this juncture, Ayers said, has been driven by events more so than in previous years. Currently, with the job picture in flux and the troubled Iraq picture that Bush attempted to address in a news conference earlier this week, the president has reached a low point.

But good news, Ayres said, could reverse those fortunes quickly.

"This election will be determined by events that have not occurred yet," he said.

knoxstudio.com

lurqer



To: lurqer who wrote (42934)4/17/2004 12:59:43 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
What he said was
she took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say.
In other words, at a meeting with Saddam for which she had NO time to prepare or consult with DC, she gave the answer that American diplomats are supposed to give. Which is quite different from "Go ahead. Invade." which you and your ilk often intentionally distort that into.

And it's not surprising she has had trouble since then considering the hatchet job you and your ilk did on her.



To: lurqer who wrote (42934)4/17/2004 8:37:10 AM
From: Harvey Allen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
They lost David Brooks.

A More Humble Hawk

nytimes.com

How much more worse can it get? Safire next?