NationStates Jolt Archive

From Pandagon: (http://pandagon.net)
On the campaign trail in Davenport Iowa today, George Bush quoted Iowa's unemployment rate of 4.3% (below the national average) as proof that his economic policies were working and that we had "turned the corner" on the economy. (Side note--the last presidential candidate to make that phrase a cornerstone of his re-election campaign was Herbert Hoover. Spooky, huh?)

So what's the "doh!" moment?

In November 2000, when George W. Bush was selected President, Iowa's unemployment rate was 2.5%. (http://www.ded.mo.gov/business/researchandplanning/indicators/unemp/unemp-nov2000.shtml)

The national unemployment rate for November 2000 was 4.0%, a slight increase from last month's rate of 3.9%. Looking at the Midwest region, only three states posted unemployment rates lower than Missouri - Oklahoma (2.9%), Nebraska (2.8%) and Iowa (2.5%).

Ouch. That's got to sting going in.

hehe.. dumb ass.

whats sad is there are gonna be people that believe him

You are wrong.

4.3 is clearly a bigger number than 2.5 and bigger is better so I've heard. well that is how Bush probably sees it anywayz

Thing is, Chess Squares, Bush wasn't lying. You can make the argument that his economic policies are responsible for the 4.3% unemployment rate in Iowa. That he left out the fact that Iowa is worse off under his administration is certainly misleading, but he's not technically lying about anything.

It was a dumb move, however, simply because it's tailor made for an attack ad. Roll a clip of Bush's speech, and then follow it with the unemployment rates from November 2000 and close it with a catch phrase like "Iowa can't afford four more years of George W. Bush" maybe with a snazzy graph or something.

Just like a couple of addition errors (1=5? on the voting record one) in his political ads, Kerry won't seize on this.

Imagine the heyday the Democrats could have if they wanted to use Verbal Flubs as ammo in their campaign ads...

And is it just me, or do Kerry's ads have a sopophoric effect? They really need a new narrator.

Thing is, Chess Squares, Bush wasn't lying. You can make the argument that his economic policies are responsible for the 4.3% unemployment rate in Iowa. That he left out the fact that Iowa is worse off under his administration is certainly misleading, but he's not technically lying about anything.

It was a dumb move, however, simply because it's tailor made for an attack ad. Roll a clip of Bush's speech, and then follow it with the unemployment rates from November 2000 and close it with a catch phrase like "Iowa can't afford four more years of George W. Bush" maybe with a snazzy graph or something.

Can't miss with a snazzy graph.

it beats george bush's ads, they keep getting more childish, i head the latest one involve the flipper tv show, i cant wait until they roll out the smurf ads

whats sad is there are gonna be people that believe him

What's even sadder is that such people are allowed to vote...

Actually, the defense of that statement is much easier made than that. Simply place the blame for the 4.3% unemployment on

1) terrorism: Thus one must re-elect him for fear that terrorists will blow up wall street if he's not elected...But if they do under his administration that in no way reflects on his leadership.

2) democrats: Who fought against his economic policies that would have otherwise made the 4.3 much smaller (compare democrats to terrorists for additional effect)

3) Gay marriage: Of course GW wouldn't say that, its political suicide but leave it to a congressman to speak of community decay linked to gay marraige, twist the meaning a bit, and viola! Gay marriage now prevents job growth.

4) Not enough tax cuts to make his policies work (see #2)

5) A declining economy he inherited from Clinton/Gore

See? Simple.

Actually, the defense of that statement is much easier made than that. Simply place the blame for the 4.3% unemployment on

1) terrorism: Thus one must re-elect him for fear that terrorists will blow up wall street if he's not elected...But if they do under his administration that in no way reflects on his leadership.

2) democrats: Who fought against his economic policies that would have otherwise made the 4.3 much smaller (compare democrats to terrorists for additional effect)

3) Gay marriage: Of course GW wouldn't say that, its political suicide but leave it to a congressman to speak of community decay linked to gay marraige, twist the meaning a bit, and viola! Gay marriage now prevents job growth.

4) Not enough tax cuts to make his policies work (see #2)

5) A declining economy he inherited from Clinton/Gore

See? Simple.
Ignoring for the moment that all five of those reactions are pure caca simply because political ads are generally full of such things, the biggest problems are that 1) it's hard to counteract a good, simple attack ad at the best of times and 2) there's nothing in any of those replies that's as catchy as the original ad would be. Unfortunately, in today's politics, you have to get something across in 15 seconds, 30 if you're lucky.

Ignoring for the moment that all five of those reactions are pure caca simply because political ads are generally full of such things, the biggest problems are that 1) it's hard to counteract a good, simple attack ad at the best of times and 2) there's nothing in any of those replies that's as catchy as the original ad would be. Unfortunately, in today's politics, you have to get something across in 15 seconds, 30 if you're lucky.

Well of course they're pure, unadulterated bullhockey; refined and sold in pill form. But seeing as I'm just quoting arguments that I've seen before, and contributing nothing of my own, my point is that rational thought has little to do with anything in this election. You go with gut reaction, "Your guy is a nazi" attack ads or trolls and let the 10% or less that are the swing voters make up their minds in the span of one last commercial on election day. Everyone else knows where they stand.

Niccolo is absolutely right about how the other side can spin it. Downright... Machiavellian?

The problem with the dems is that they don't have and seem to prefer going without the types of people that the Republicans have in spades and use to great effect. I'm talking about people who are not above doing things that are wrong either politically, morally or legally and executing those things efficiently and without question. I'm talking about people like Karl Rove, Katherine Harris, Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Bob Barr and all the other patsys throughout the history of Republican politics that have thrown themselves to their deaths so that their man has a bridge of corpses to get across the gap safely. The Dems need a good junkyard dog to go out front and eat the other guys alive if they stray just an inch closer than they should.

You talking about people like these, (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=41491) Punkoritis?

From New Hampshire
CONCORD — The state Republican Party’s former executive director said yesterday that before an illegal Election Day 2002 scheme to jam opposition get-out-the-vote phone banks began, he discussed it with two other top GOP officials.

The admission came as Chuck McGee pleaded guilty to a federal felony conspiracy charge. His attorney, Patrick Donovan, said McGee would now help investigators in the continuing probe.

By the way, the Democratic party does have those types--James Carville comes to mind--but god I despise them. I know a lot of people think they'r enecessary to win elections, but I'd just as soon do without them if possible.

From Pandagon: (http://pandagon.net)
On the campaign trail in Davenport Iowa today, George Bush quoted Iowa's unemployment rate of 4.3% (below the national average) as proof that his economic policies were working and that we had "turned the corner" on the economy. (Side note--the last presidential candidate to make that phrase a cornerstone of his re-election campaign was Herbert Hoover. Spooky, huh?)

So what's the "doh!" moment?

In November 2000, when George W. Bush was selected President, Iowa's unemployment rate was 2.5%. (http://www.ded.mo.gov/business/researchandplanning/indicators/unemp/unemp-nov2000.shtml)



Ouch. That's got to sting going in.

oh classic, I got too many of dubya's d'oh moments on my computer at home.....notice my username.....

This is the beauty of politics. No one will remember something as trivial as statistics. The voters remember events that've either happened to them, or someone they know. Iowa's unemployment rate, in this sense, is an unnoticable shift over four years.
Besides, any politician can get away with this because, by and large, day-to-day life for most people never changes, regardless of who's president. When was the last time politics was a major, personal issue to most Americans? I feel that many in here are hard pressed to remember such an event. The last I can think of is WWII.

By the way, the Democratic party does have those types--James Carville comes to mind--but god I despise them. I know a lot of people think they'r enecessary to win elections, but I'd just as soon do without them if possible.


thinking of Carville - dunno if you caught Crossfire today, but the Republican Congressman (or Senator - I forget which and the transcript isn't posted yet) guest flat out stated that the Democrats were hoping for another terrorist attack before the election so they could use that as ammunition against Bush's execution of providing security to the people.

I thought that that was about the lowest thing I'd ever heard - accusing the other side of hoping that people died to further their political agenda.

This is the beauty of politics. No one will remember something as trivial as statistics. The voters remember events that've either happened to them, or someone they know. Iowa's unemployment rate, in this sense, is an unnoticable shift over four years.


The 8 million Americans still out of work certainly won't hold this slip against him...

Don't have cable, so I can't watch CNN, but I'll check out the transcript. I did see a report on the Daily Kos, however, that said Donna Brazile bitchslapped the Republican strategist who was claiming Kerry was undistinguished as a Senator. She asked him how many bills had Cheney's name on them while he was a member of the House--the answer was 2. Kerry, meanwhile, had 57 during his time in the Senate.

[QUOTE=Purly Euclid]This is the beauty of politics. No one will remember something as trivial as statistics. The voters remember events that've either happened to them, or someone they know. Iowa's unemployment rate, in this sense, is an unnoticable shift over four years.
QUOTE]

The 8 million Americans still out of work certainly won't hold this slip against him...
They are about 0.26% of the US population, spread out in all different states. This effects their friends and family, but it can't be more than 5% of the population, and they're probably not clusted all together in a single state. Politicians can ignore these realities, both the left and right. You'll find more pandering to coal miners or farmers, all of which are the main voting blocs in certain states. Unemployment can be safely bipassed by Bush if he minimizes it's impact. I see it, however, as being too late for Kerry to do the same. He's built almost his whole campaign on this. All Kerry needs to do now is to hope that job creation is small between now and November to make sure Kerry wins. Low quality jobs may do, but I can't see Kerry sustaining a campaign on that. After all, a job is a job. Many Americans feel that it's better to be working than unemployed, sitting around, and watching daytime TV.

From Pandagon: (http://pandagon.net)
On the campaign trail in Davenport Iowa today, George Bush quoted Iowa's unemployment rate of 4.3% (below the national average) as proof that his economic policies were working and that we had "turned the corner" on the economy. (Side note--the last presidential candidate to make that phrase a cornerstone of his re-election campaign was Herbert Hoover. Spooky, huh?)

So what's the "doh!" moment?

In November 2000, when George W. Bush was selected President, Iowa's unemployment rate was 2.5%. (http://www.ded.mo.gov/business/researchandplanning/indicators/unemp/unemp-nov2000.shtml)



Ouch. That's got to sting going in.

Hmm... actually... don't know how to tell you this... but you totally missed it.

First, the "doh!" moment occured when Bush used an exception, a natural variation, as proof that the economy is getting better. That's the real "doh!" moment. Seems like you all missed that one.

Second, your "doh!" moment is actually no such thing. It all depends on what happened in between. If unemployment rates has been higher between november 2000 and now, then a reduce actually is showing an improvement.

So you missed the real "doh!" moment, and you found a wrong one. Not very impressive. :rolleyes:

All you guys who have no better arguments than claiming Bush is so stupid, don't you see that you only make yourself look stupid? I understand it may be fun, and you all laugh at each others jokes and probably think you are very clever. But to outsiders reading it, you just appear stupid an unable to give an actual argument.

Don't have cable, so I can't watch CNN, but I'll check out the transcript. I did see a report on the Daily Kos, however, that said Donna Brazile bitchslapped the Republican strategist who was claiming Kerry was undistinguished as a Senator. She asked him how many bills had Cheney's name on them while he was a member of the House--the answer was 2. Kerry, meanwhile, had 57 during his time in the Senate.
Buggard, if under Bush it is a net loss, then it's a net loss. That's a d'oh.

Incertonia: If you don't have cable that means you missed one of the best Daily Show interviews where Stewart pressed the hell out of a republican senator who was on the "rapid response team." He kept pressing him for where they got things like the "First and fourth" most liberal senator and how that was used and took him to task on spurious claims. Not to mention shredding the very idea of a rapid response team.

After the convention he made a plea that we watch the republican convention, the debates and then TURN THE TV OFF, not listen to the pundits and showed a list (both left and right). It was a few of his finer moments.

Buggard, if under Bush it is a net loss, then it's a net loss. That's a d'oh.

Incertonia: If you don't have cable that means you missed one of the best Daily Show interviews where Stewart pressed the hell out of a republican senator who was on the "rapid response team." He kept pressing him for where they got things like the "First and fourth" most liberal senator and how that was used and took him to task on spurious claims. Not to mention shredding the very idea of a rapid response team.

After the convention he made a plea that we watch the republican convention, the debates and then TURN THE TV OFF, not listen to the pundits and showed a list (both left and right). It was a few of his finer moments.
I saw the clip tonight at the Daily Show website. It was beautiful the way he kept pressing Rep. Bonilla and finally called him out about the National Journal.

Jon Stewart ROCKS!
Loved him since he had that MTV show where he'd answer/act out viewers letters, and they did the "King of the Bees".

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name]Buggard, if under Bush it is a net loss, then it's a net loss. That's a d'oh.
[QUOTE]
Two mistakes:
The claim was 'turning the corner'.
The reason (like result of previous politics or 9/11) it was higher is important.

........The problem with the dems is that they don't have and seem to prefer going without the types of people that the Republicans have in spades and use to great effect.....

It's like that old joke about God, Satan and the tech dudes. Haven't heard it?

A technology expert died and went to hell, despite having led a good life. God was too busy to care, and Satan never turns away extra souls. Now, the tech guy decided that hell was too hot, and rigged up some air conditioning. Over the next three years, he transformed hell into a paradise, made even better by the fact that in hell you can do anything you like, sinning not only included, but encouraged.
Anyway, God saw all this going on, and got really pissed (God doesn't like things to be unbalanced). So he set up a meeting with Satan and said "I want that tech guy back he's mine by right". Satan refused to hand him over. So God resorted to threatening to sue Satan.
"Oh yeah?" said Satan, "And where are you going to get a lawyer?"

Sorry if it's corny, but I'm tired and easily amused.

Buggard, if under Bush it is a net loss, then it's a net loss. That's a d'oh.

Two mistakes:
The claim was 'turning the corner'.
The reason (like result of previous politics or 9/11) it was higher is important.
The claim was also incorrect--the unemployment rate in Iowa has pretty much followed a straight line upwards from November 2000's low of 2.5% to the current 4.3%. That sort of negates any reason Bush could use to claim that the economy is turning the corner, now doesn't it--unless of course he's claiming the economy is turning straight into a brick wall.

James Carville comes to mind

Tell me it isn't so? Are you saying you don't like Carville? How can any one not like Carville, he's such a character! I love him, the "Raging Cajun" Mind you he did marry Mary Matlin.. so that is for sure a strike against him..lol

Wow... can he get any stupider?

And don't forget when Bush came to Iowa to speak at some plant about the improving economy and a few months after he left it closed down....sorry, I'm lazy and don't feel like looking up the specifics right now but that's the short version

i think this is a good one... look at the monkey. Dance monkey dance... there is never a shortage of his stupid facial expressions which only express how confused and stupid he is.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040804/ids_photos_ts/r3923286853.jpg&e=4&ncid=1756