The ad CBS won't air

[Dan Chisholm]

Have you seen the ad that CBS won't air?
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Thomas Paul]

CBS doesn't braodcast political ads during the Super Bowl. Period. I think the NFL contract forbids it.

[Dan Chisholm]

That sounds like a good policy. The web site claims that political ads will be aired during the super bowl, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Even so, I think the ad makes a good point. Certainly, it's something that we should all think about.
[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
That sounds like a good policy. The web site claims that political ads will be aired during the super bowl, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Even so, I think the ad makes a good point. Certainly, it's something that we should all think about.
[ January 27, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

Sorry Dan, can't wait for endless load on my dial-up conneccion. Please just give us the "good point" simply and directly (if you are capable)without making us sit through what I am sure is yet another highly slanted, biased, and thoroughly partisan anti-Bush rant.

[Thomas Paul]

The commerical is pretty simple. It shows a bunch of little kids doing adult jobs like carting trash and changing tires in a service station. the tag line says "guess who will pay Bush's trillion dollar deficit."

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The commerical is pretty simple. It shows a bunch of little kids doing adult jobs like carting trash and changing tires in a service station. the tag line says "guess who will pay Bush's trillion dollar deficit."

That's not just simple but simplistic. Obviously that ad is targetting the "can't exercise critical thinking" crowd.

[Dan Chisholm]

Jason,
Who will be responsible for repaying the debt? Will the debt be repaid before our children become taxpayers?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
CBS doesn't braodcast political ads during the Super Bowl. Period. I think the NFL contract forbids it.

Not true. While CBS claims a long-standing policy of avoiding "advocacy issues" -- a policy actually "inherited" from their parent company, Viacom -- the NFL contract makes no such claim. In election years, in fact, federal law requires that airtime be made available for unaltered political messages from presidential candidates. One message you can expect to see will come from Dubya in the White House -- and that's about as political as it gets.

[Jeroen Wenting]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The commerical is pretty simple. It shows a bunch of little kids doing adult jobs like carting trash and changing tires in a service station. the tag line says "guess who will pay Bush's trillion dollar deficit."

Ah yes, the typical "democrat" way of pulling the competition through the slime to make them look bad...
I guess we should all think about how the political friends of those lefties behave in countries where they are in full control like North Korea, Cuba, and the PRC.

[Richard Hawkes]

I know its a bit of a longshot, but if you're a Dem you might think the ad contained a powerful message and if you're a Republican you probably think it was totally misleading. Am I on the right track?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Ah yes, the typical "democrat" way of pulling the competition through the slime to make them look bad...

Ah yes, the typical "Republican" way of accusing the competition of its own favored tactics...

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Ah yes, the typical "democrat" way of pulling the competition through the slime to make them look bad...
I guess we should all think about how the political friends of those lefties behave in countries where they are in full control like North Korea, Cuba, and the PRC.

I think it's a complete misnomer to compare virtually any democratic party with any totalitarian state. There may be a few exceptions like Le Pen. US Democrats are not Communists nor comparable to them. US Republicans are not Nazis nor comparable to them.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Jason,
Who will be responsible for repaying the debt? Will the debt be repaid before our children become taxpayers?

Balancing the budget vs national defense;
I'd rather my children be alive to pay the debt....
Admittedly a gross simplification (like the ad), but it highlights real differences in priorities of the two parties.
My ad would have little children's tombstones...
Historically, is the deficit one of the big issues of the Left?
[ January 28, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

US Democrats are not Communists nor comparable to them.

I didn't think MD tolerated such stereotyping...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Jason,
Who will be responsible for repaying the debt? Will the debt be repaid before our children become taxpayers?

The debt is a non-issue. The only reason it is being made into an issue, is it is one of the very few things the Dems think is worth crying about. In every war this nation has been involved in, we have had to deficit spend. The fact that this is the smallest percentage by far that we have deficit spent is a fact that I don't think you will hear from the Dems. Nor will you hear the reason we are running a deficit, because that would force the Democrats to start showing commercials of the WTC and Pentagon and such, and we know they will do every thing they can to avoid that obvious linkage.
We've had deficits before and we'll have them again. For them to even make an issue out of this sends the message that we should not have spent for any costs related to 9/11 and its aftermath, including fixing the military that Clinton very nearly broke. That is called being out of touch with reality, and just goes to show where their priorities aren't.
Who will be responsible for paying the debt and will it be repaid before our children become taxpayers? Who knows. It doesn't really matter. It was an unforseen cost that had to be paid, and one that the citizens will necessarily have to deal with. I should note that even if Gore were the one who had happened to be in office on 9/11 and there was a Democrat dominated legislature, that I would expect the same thing. If that did not happen, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs of protecting this country.
So given all the unforseen costs and quick fixes to domestic security that were necessary, in order to not have run up a deficit to pay these vital costs, what would you have recommended we stop funding in order to pay the bill? Education? Health care? Social programs? The arts? Exactly which programs should have been sacraficed?

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Exactly which programs should have been sacraficed?

1. Medicare
2. Health Care for Illegal Immigrants

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

1. Medicare
2. Health Care for Illegal Immigrants

1. But don't old people have a moral right to all the drugs they can stomach at everyone else's expense?
2. But illegal immigrants somehow have legal children (oops!), and they end up voting. Better not mess with them either.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Historically, is the deficit one of the big issues of the Left?

No Herb, the deficit has never been "one of the big issues of the Left". It would be presumptuous to assume that only the left opposes the Bush economic policies. For example, you may recall that even Paul O'Neil, the former treasury secretary of the Bush administration, opposes the Bush economic policies. If Bush couldn't convince his own treasury secretary that deficits are necessary, then I don't know why anyone else would believe it.
My views on fiscal policy have always been conservative. I voted for Reagan when he claimed that he would eliminate Jimmy Carter's deficits, but Reagan's tax cuts only expanded the Carter deficits. I was not ready to give up on the Republicans in 1988, so I voted for Bush 41. By 1992, I realized that both parties are bad, so I cast my protest vote for Perot. (No, I didn't like Perot.) By 1996, I realized the Clinton was doing far better than his predecessors, so I actually voted for a democrat for the first time. I disliked Gore in 2000, but I voted for him anyway because I was certain that Bush would bankrupt the country with his tax cuts for Dick Cheney. My expectations proved to be correct.
I don't like any of the democrats but there's no doubt that I have to vote against Bush in 2004.
It would really be nice if one of the two parties would nominate a fiscal conservative. The Republicans certainly will not. Let's hope that the democrats will. Even Dean is more conservative than Bush on fiscal policy, so I think that any of the leading democrats will do better with the economy than Bush.
I hope the Republicans can do better in 2008.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The debt is a non-issue.

Your view is entirely consistent with that of Dick Cheney and George Bush. That's why the Democrat's nominee in 2004 is likely to be the more conservative choice in the general election.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
That's why the Democrat's nominee in 2004 is likely to be the more conservative choice in the general election.

You mean John Kerry?