Ordinary Least Square

Kerry Ads I'd Like to See

Republican campaign Strategist Ed Rollins admitted this week that his party is trying to scare voters into voting for his party by falsely accusing liberals of wanting to ban the Bible.

Dick Cheney and others have resorted to branding John Kerry as al-Qaeda's candidate, a tactic the New York Times has called "un-American" and "despicable" -- even though Bush has proven to be al-Qaeda's most effective recruiter.

Republican operatives opposed to everything that Ralph Nader stands for have worked hard in key battleground states to get Nader on the ballot solely to siphon votes away from Kerry.

Outright lies have attempted, with partial success, to discredit John Kerry's service in Vietnam. White House spokesman Scott McClellan blatantly lied in saying the Bush campaign wasn't involved in those ads "in any way, shape, or form", a lie exposed almost instantly when Bush campaign staffers had to resign because of their involvement.

Kerry has gotten tougher in his response to these classic Bush tactics, but he still has not hit back in a way that resonates with voters, in the way he is being attacked. That Bush still has even a hope in hell of winning re-election demonstrates how ineffective Democrats have been in exposing his true character and true intentions to an American public that doesn't necessarily understand the issues and accepts baseless innuendo and manipulative lies without question.

Here are a few ads of that type I'd like to see the Kerry campaign use in response to Bush's tactics. The first four are on the overriding issue of combatting terrorism. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, a wide majority of Americans polled believe Bush can protect them against terrorism, a belief that must be disabused.

The first ad emphasizes that Bush has historically had ties to terrorists while Kerry was effective in shutting them down:

Fade in: Dramatic typing, one letter at a time, filling up the screen: B - C - C - I

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "BCCI. Its Pakistani founder used it 'to fight the evil influence of the West' and to finance terrorists and nuclear proliferation."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "Manuel Noriega and the Medellin cartel used it to launder drug money. Also among its clients were Saddam Hussein and Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "In 1987, a BCCI subsidiary loaned George W. Bush's Harken Energy Corporation $25 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, there was a 'mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding Harken since George W. Bush came on board.'"

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "In 1991, John Kerry led the fight against BCCI, 'one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history.'"

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "One candidate profited from bin Laden's bank of choice. The other candidate shut it down. Who do you want fighting the war on terrorism for you?"

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "George W. Bush says John Kerry doesn't know the enemy. John Kerry not only knows the enemy, he knows how to bust them. Yet another thing George Bush is wrong about."

The next ad was conceived in response to the Bush ad showing John Kerry windsurfing, an ad that Kerry did not do nearly enough to counter. The simple message of that ad that resonates with the electorate even though it is false in claiming that Kerry will go whichever way the wind blows:

Fade in: Smoke billowing from World Trade Center.

Narrator: "Mr. President, do you know which way the wind blows?"

Dissolve to: Bush reading My Pet Goat.

Bush sound bite: "On my watch"

Smoke rising from bombed US army vehicle in Iraq, dissolving back into video of Bush sitting in the My Pet Goat classroom, jump/zoom one step in.

Bush sound bite: "On my watch"

Mushroom cloud with headline superimposed about fear of a North Korea nuclear test, dissolving back into video of Bush sitting in the My Pet Goat classroom, jump/zoom another step in.

Bush sound bite: "On my watch"

Steam rising from cooling towers of nuclear power play with headline superimposed about lax homeland security, dissolving back into video of Bush sitting in the My Pet Goat classroom, jump/zoom another step in and freeze.

Narrator: "Can we afford to trust our watch to someone who does not even know which way the wind blows?"

The third ad on the subject of terrorism paints Bush as ineffective to the point of confusion on capturing Osama bin Laden, and shows how the number of Most-Wanted Terrorists has grown rather than shrunk on his watch:

Fade in: Wild West-style poster of "Osama bin Laden, Wanted Dead or Alive".

Dissolve to George Bush saying at 9/17/2001 press conference: "There's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

Dissolve back to bin Laden poster, with Bush V.O. from 9/17/2001 press conference: "I don't know whether we're going to get him tomorrow or a month from now or a year from now."

Dissolve back to Bush at 9/17/2001 press conference: "I don't really know."

Dissolve to video of bin Laden, with Bush V.O. from 9/17/2001 press conference: "Gosh, if he's not gotten by this certain moment, then I'll be disappointed."

Cut to Colin Powell saying on 9/10/2004: "I don't know where he is. I believe he is still alive."

Cut back to Bush saying at 9/17/2001 press conference: "You know, Osama bin Laden is just one person.''

Dissolve to FBI wanted poster of al-Zarqawi, with news V.O. about his voice on execution video.

Dissolve to FBI wanted poster of al-Zawahiri, with news V.O. about his voice on al-Qaeda video.

Cut back to Bush at 9/17/2001 press conference, repeating: "I don't know whether we're going to get him. I don't really know."

The fourth ad on the subject of terrorism is not as laced with irony as the rest -- at least not with humorous irony. Instead, it addresses the dead serious irony of how many people directly involved with terrorism and first-response have abandoned Bush in favor of Kerry:

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "Will the homeland really be safer in the hands of President Bush?"

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "His top expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, resigned his post because of Bush's lack of attention to al-Qaeda before 9/11 and his obsession with Iraq instead of al-Qaeda afterwards."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "Kristen Breitweister, a registered Republican who voted for President Bush in 2000, and four other 9/11 widows have endorsed John Kerry for president because they say Bush and Cheney 'haven't done enough' to make our country safer."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "The International Association of Firefighters withdrew its post-9/11 support for President Bush and endorses John Kerry for president because Bush 'opposes programs to hire new fire fighters to improve public safety', while Kerry successfully co-sponsored legislation to 'increase fire-fighting equipment for homeland security.'"

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "The International Brotherhood of Police Officers withdrew its support from President Bush and now endorses John Kerry for president, as does the National Association of Police Organizations, which represents 2,000 police associations across the nation."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "Americans on the front lines of homeland security know that George Bush has failed to protect our country. You should too."

The fifth ad is a long overdue response to the ceaseless and baseless Bush attacks painting Kerry's stance on the $87 billion Iraq funding bill as anti-troops and flip-floppy, when the truth is that Bush was anti-troop in his zeal to provide pork for Halliburton:

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "John Kerry was in favor of appropriating $87 billion for our troops in Iraq."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "President Bush threatened to veto the bill unless it awarded more than $20 billion in pork to his friends, cronies like Halliburton."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "John Kerry voted to fund the bill with a temporary suspension of tax breaks for incomes over $400,000 and to make sure there was no conflict of interest funding companies that still to this day pay salary to certain administration officials."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "President Bush through his Republican supporters struck these provisions down, along with others meant to protect middle class taxpayers from subsidizing his friends, cronies like Halliburton."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "John Kerry voted for safety equipment for our troops, for extended medical care for our National Guardsmen, for funds to help troops under fire secure and destroy RPGs and shoulder-launched missiles."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "President Bush was opposed to the medical care provision, and through his Republican supporters struck down other provisions intended to save lives."

Narrator (over relevant imagery): "Why? Because it would divert pork meant for his friends, cronies like Halliburton."

Narrator (over image of Bush smirking): "President Bush jokes about John Kerry's stance favoring our troops over the profiteers at Halliburton."

Narrator (over image of troops dodging RPGs): "They're not laughing in Iraq."

The final advertisement utilizes excerpts from the 2000 debates between Bush and Gore to demonstrate how Bush has misled the public:

Narrator: "In the 2000 debates, George W. Bush proved he would say anything to be elected."

Bush: "I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut."

Narrator (over unflattering freeze frame of Bush): "But not equally -- the richest 1% of Americans got more tax relief than the 60% of Americans who make up the middle class -- combined!"

Bush: "A family in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day. They make $51,000 combined income, they pay about $3500 in taxes. Under my plan, they get $1800 of tax relief."

Narrator (over unflattering freeze frame of Bush): "It will take four years for that middle class family to get that much tax relief from Bush while a family in the richest 1% will get $35,000. In ten years, that middle class family will get $8,000 in relief, a family in the richest 1% will get $340,000."

Bush: "Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers. It's an issue I know a lot about. I was a small oil person for a while in west Texas."

Narrator (over unflattering freeze frame of Bush): "US oil production has declined steadily since 2000 while imports have increased. Oil and gasoline prices have reached all-time highs under Bush."

Bush: "Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest."

Narrator (over unflattering freeze frame of Bush): "Four years later, we are at war in the Middle East, our relations in Europe in tatters, and our nation's interest held hostage by fugitive terrorists who have not been captured."

Bush: "That's not the role of a president to decide right and wrong."

Narrator (over unflattering freeze frame of Bush): "Not for a president who has been nothing but wrong."

The Truth Behind the Lies

Why does John Kerry stand by and allow Bush, Cheney, and their henchmen to continually mock him with his own words and never stand up and expose the truth of the matter? Mr. Kerry, I have taken out just a couple of hours of my free time this Labor Day weekend to research and write the following speech for you covering just one single issue that cries out for exposure -- why can't you get your own people to do this for you? Here it is:

My fellow Americans,

On November 2nd, you will be asked to make a choice for the next President of the United States of America. You will also be asked for something more than that. You will be asked to take a test. You will be asked to take a test on how much attention you pay to what your government, your leadership says and does.

I trust you to delve into the issues and into the record, to be duly diligent in making sure I and my opponents are who we say are and will do what we say we will do. My opponents trust you to simply believe everything they say, without checking their facts. They trust you to simply trust them even though they have consistently lied to you, even about things as important as the war on terror and the war in Iraq, where the very lives of our soldiers and citizens are at stake.

Let's take just one example for starters. My opponent relishes with unabandoned glee to quote me time and again on how I voted on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Act, which provides $87 billion for the military and reconstruction efforts in those countries. He quotes me saying I voted for the act before I voted against it, that the issue was a complex matter. To him, it's a big joke, and he expects you to laugh so hard at my expense that you will not take the time to see if he is telling the whole truth on the matter.

To him, and in his mind hopefully to you, my vote was a vote against supporting our military in Iraq, against body armor and other vital military supplies. One of his ads against me even shows me voting "No" to one item after another on which there was in fact no specific vote. Here is the truth: this was a complex act that, in the Senate alone, included 34 individual line items for funding and 93 separate amendments.

By the way, no line item specified body armor -- you will not find the word "body armor" in the bill, just as you would have been loath to find armor on the bodies of nearly 100,000 of our troops when they were first sent into Iraq by our President.

In a "statement of administration policy" on the Emergency Appropriations act, the President clearly stated his position on this act. You can find his statement on one of his web sites. It has the unimaginative but easily remembered name, www.whitehouse.gov.

With respect to the amendments, I quote: "The Administration strongly opposes any such amendments, including an amendment that was accepted by the Senate to provide for expanded benefits under the TRICARE program." That's an amendment to improve health care insurance for reservists and guardsmen sent to Iraq. True to form, our President was opposed to improving health care coverage, even for troops he sent into harm's way in Iraq.

But even though he singled out his opposition to improving health care coverage for reservists and guardsmen sent to Iraq, his position was in opposition to ALL amendments to the emergency appropriations bills. In this case, cooler heads prevailed and the proposed TRICARE coverage was accepted by the Senate. The President did not have to single out many other amendments he was opposed to, because they had already been successfully tabled -- that is, defeated -- by his partisan Republican majority in the Senate.

He did not want to provide, and I quote, "an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000." The President crows in public every chance he gets that I voted against this or against that, but he was the one opposed to an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq, and he got his way thanks to a partisan Republican vote to table this amendment. And toward what end? So as not to reduce the amount earmarked for Halliburton and others in reconstruction funds.

He also opposed an amendment that would, and again I quote, "prohibit the use of Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds for low priority activities that should not be the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers." No, he would rather the U.S. taxpayer fund low priority activities that would profit Halliburton and other companies.

The amendment further attempted to, I quote, "shift $600 million from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund to Defense Operations and Maintenance, Army, for significantly improving efforts to secure and destroy conventional weapons, such as bombs, bomb materials, small arms, rocket propelled grenades, and shoulder-launched missiles, in Iraq."

Did you get that? Perhaps I should repeat it -- the President was opposed to shifting $600 million, a mere 3% of the $20 billion earmarked for Halliburton and other companies, to help the Army secure and destroy the bombs, small arms, RPGs, and shoulder-launched missiles that were killing our young men and women on the ground on an almost daily basis. And his Republican majority in the Senate successfully defeated this amendment.

And he has the unmitigated gall to stand up in front of you, the nation, and smirk and joke and laugh that I voted against the body armor that he forgot to provide in the first place!

This is why I changed my mind on this bill. I was all for supporting our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I was opposed to the roughly one quarter of the $87 billion emergency appropriation going to directly to Halliburton and other such corporations for non-military purposes, even at the expense of our troops on the ground, their health, and their health care.

And I was opposed to how this was to be funded. Senator Byrd attempted to remove most of the Halliburton pork package from the bill right up front, in the second amendment to the bill. The President opposed that, and his Republican majority killed it.

In another amendment, introduced by Senator Biden and co-sponsored by myself and six other senators, we proposed these emergency appropriations be funded by a temporary suspension of a portion of the tax cuts targeted at those who earn $400,000 per year or more. Again, our President opposed, and successfully defeated, our attempt to save the middle class taxpayer from subsidizing Halliburton.

The list goes on. The president was opposed to and defeated, in a partisan vote, amendments to, I quote, "provide emergency relief for veterans healthcare, school construction, healthcare and transportation needs in the United States, and to create 95,000 new jobs. To require that Iraqi oil revenues be used to pay for reconstruction in Iraq. To amend the Internal Revenue Code to improve tax equity for military personnel. To achieve the most effective means of reconstructing Iraq and to reduce the future costs to the American taxpayer."

I did not vote "No" against body armor and other funds intended to protect our troops. I voted "No" time and again against the tabling, the defeat of these amendments -- an amendment for emergency health care for veterans, an amendment to require that American taxpayers be paid back out of Iraqi oil revenues, another to make the tax code more equitable for military personnel, and one to reduce the cost burden of reconstructing Iraq on the American taxpayer.

In each case, the President killed this support for veterans, for military personnel, for U.S. taxpayers -- except of course for those who earn $400,000 a year or more.

Finally, to add insult to injury, the President opposed and killed an amendment that would, and once again I quote directly from the text of the amendment, "prohibit the use of funds for any contract or other financial agreement or arrangement with any entity that pays compensation in the form of deferred salary to certain United States Government officials." I think you know which certain goverment official is still on the payroll of a certain entity granted generous contracts, without competitive bids, in Iraq. That would be our Vice President, Dick Cheney, and the company he once headed as CEO, Halliburton.

And as if that wasn't enough, he opposed and killed an amendment "to eliminate the flexibility given to the President to reallocate all of the $20.3 billion Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds, without approval by Congress." I suppose he didn't want to have to go through the motions of killing off our attempts to control his wild spending on behalf of his corporate friends, since his lock-step Republican majority in the Senate gave him what he wanted anyway.

Or maybe he just didn't want to leave a highly public paper trail, like the votes on these amendments, that you, the voter, could later use to hold him accountable for consistently favoring Halliburton, despite its conflict of interst with respect to Vice President Cheney, and the wealthiest of American taxpayers, at the expense of military personnel under fire on the ground in Iraq, veterans in need of health care back home, and the middle class taxpayers who have to fund his Iraqi miscalculation.

This is the truth of the matter. These are the complexities that I ended up voting against after initially supporting the simple matter of funding our troops in the manner most cost-effective for our taxpayers. My opponent calls this a flip-flop -- I stand by my convictions that this was a deceitful fleecing of middle-class America that put our troops in further danger so that special interests directly tied to the administration could benefit financially.

This is what you will be voting on in November. Will you look into the truth of these matters and understand what this is really about? Or will you simply laugh at the cynical jokes of a President who has lied to you every step of the way? That's what they want you to do -- to laugh all the way to November 2nd. My fellow Americans, this is no laughing matter.