Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Bush's War Room, the Gloves Are Always Off
The New York Times ^ | July 14, 2004 | Jim Rutenberg

Posted on 07/14/2004 10:42:27 AM PDT by quidnunc

Arlington, VA – Shortly before 2 p.m. on Monday, a handful of President Bush's campaign aides huddled around two small speakers in a room that, with its shades drawn, was lit by the glow of 15 television monitors. They were listening to the voice of Senator John Kerry.

None of the networks were carrying Mr. Kerry's entire speech to a group of financial donors, mostly women, in Boston that day. But Mr. Bush's operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack.

After sitting impatiently through what seemed to be a typical stump speech, they found one: Mr. Kerry said he was "proud" of votes by him and his running mate, Senator John Edwards, last fall against the president's requested $87 billion appropriation for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a vote that Republicans have used to make a case that Mr. Kerry has been failing to support the troops after voting to authorize the war.

Within an hour or so, Mr. Bush's team, at the campaign's headquarters in a corporate office building in suburban Virginia, across the Potomac River from the White House, had sent a release via e-mail to hundreds of journalists, supporters and campaign surrogates. The e-mail message included the new quote and one from September, when Mr. Kerry implied it would be "irresponsible'' to vote against such spending. The quotation, along with the idea that Mr. Kerry's position on the money had evolved, found its way onto Fox News and into articles in The Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Associated Press.

And this was a relatively slow day in Mr. Bush's war room.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arlingtonva; gwb2004

1 posted on 07/14/2004 10:42:28 AM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
GOOD NEWS

I am glad we are keeping on top of things this time around.

So9

2 posted on 07/14/2004 10:45:48 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Goldwater Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Finally - a rapid response team doing the work that needs to be done to combat the left.


3 posted on 07/14/2004 10:47:14 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

Better put some ice on that, Senator Kerry.


4 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:12 AM PDT by hchutch ("Go ahead. Leave early and beat the traffic. The Milwaukee Brewers dare you." - MLB.com 5/11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

its always a slow day in the war room - is this the war room that allowed the media to characterize Abu Ghraib as "torture" every day for 6 weeks while saying nothing? the same war room that allowed Cheney to be attacked over Halliburton without responding for months on end, to the point where his unfavorable numbers are so bad that people are talking about tossing him from the ticket? the same war room that applied these new restrictions on packages sent to Cuba, causing Bush's south florida poll numbers to erode?


5 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:55 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

This article is an attempt to hinder their efforts, IMHO. That means to me that Kerry is still not up to speed and needs the help. He's toast if this keeps up and I hope it does.


6 posted on 07/14/2004 10:49:24 AM PDT by Thebaddog (Woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Oh yes, when Clinton had a "war room" it was for Defense against those Wrascully Wrepublicans. Sure, Sure. Bush's "war room" is to go on Offense. There's your media bias right there.


7 posted on 07/14/2004 10:51:37 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
War Room
Gloves are off
Questionable audio feed
Ready to Pounce

Objective reporting? If this had been Kerry the language would have been:

"John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, knows more about defending the things he loves than most people. When duty calls, and he needs to defend his presidential campaign, he is not alone. A dedicated, loyal, and patriotic staff stands ready to point out chinks in his opponents armor. Through informative news releases, these loyal soldiers help spread the word about President Bush's latest public stumble."

8 posted on 07/14/2004 10:51:49 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The Fourth Estate is a Fifth Column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

I guess the NY Slimes thinks that only the democrats should have war rooms. I don't recall many articles by the Times on Clinton's bimbo-eruption team. Of course one way to limit the damage Bush's war room could do would be for Kerry to quit flip-flopping on all the issues.


9 posted on 07/14/2004 10:56:43 AM PDT by Alcibiades (Put a Hollywood type out of work --- turn off the TV and go fishin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

where? It seems they have backed off defining kerry and edwards.

These are two lawyers.

Kerry was BRIEFLY a prosecutor. ( I have even seen people who were prosecutors for less than a year claim it as a "qualification" decades later after being asked to leave. )

Edwards is a ABA, ATLA trial lawyer. Two left of left voluntary groups.

Forget teh gloves, go for political BLOOD.


10 posted on 07/14/2004 11:03:09 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Another liberal op-ed from the NYT, thinly disguised as "news".


11 posted on 07/14/2004 11:05:53 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

One thing about Clinton, he knew how to play politics.


12 posted on 07/14/2004 11:07:36 AM PDT by ServesURight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reagan

ping


13 posted on 07/14/2004 11:10:22 AM PDT by marblehead17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marblehead17
Several journalists who cover Mr. Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Mr. Kerry's remarks. -JIM RUTENBERG, New York Times

Embarrassed! Isn't this an admission that this particular "spot" is completely fair game in a political campaign? And why didn't the journalists notice it? Could it be their bias preventing them from recognizing a flaw in the spiel of their favored candidate?

14 posted on 07/14/2004 11:14:57 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
As such, the war room is the nerve center of what Democrats, and some presidential scholars, have called the most relentlessly negative re-election campaign in memory

Let's see. The Dems have the Whoopi hate-fest, Michael Moore, and moveon.org comparing the President to Hitler, and it's Bush's war room that is "relentlessly negative"????? Yeah, uh huh, ok NY Times....

15 posted on 07/14/2004 11:15:06 AM PDT by Libertarian444
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
None of the networks were carrying Mr. Kerry's entire speech to a group of financial donors, mostly women, in Boston that day. But Mr. Bush's operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack.

I love how the New York Times tries to paint a picture of women being victimized by the skullduggery of the Bush camp.

Hurray for the Bush campaign.

16 posted on 07/14/2004 11:19:40 AM PDT by cyncooper ("We will fear no evil...And we will prevail")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Does the 'War Room' know about the 'rope a dope' strategy that so many here seem to think is in effect at BC04?


17 posted on 07/14/2004 11:21:10 AM PDT by familyofman (and the first animal is jettisoned - legs furiously pumping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy

They were not embarrased.

They were frustrated their intentional ommisions were caught and so they called it "embarassment".

There are no journalists in the daily mass print media, only propaganidists.


18 posted on 07/14/2004 11:22:42 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

I hadn't picked up on that but you're right.


19 posted on 07/14/2004 11:22:49 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Heard Rush reading from this on today's show. He trusts this Slimes reporter.


20 posted on 07/14/2004 11:48:05 AM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pookie18; quidnunc; longtermmemmory; familyofman
Heard Rush reading from this on today's show. He trusts this Slimes reporter.

Ah. I was going to ask why did the Times reporter write that bit about embarrassed since it seems to be bias-revealing. If Rush trusts the reporter, maybe he has a modicum of intellectual honesty. It really jumped out at me, as you see from my post # 14.

familyofman, what did you mean by Does the "War Room" know about the "rope a dope" strategy that so many here seem to think is in effect at BC04? The "War Room" is part of the the Bush campaign, so why wouldn't they know? And which rope-a-dope strategy did you mean?

21 posted on 07/14/2004 1:43:02 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Ah. I was going to ask why did the Times reporter write that bit about embarrassed since it seems to be bias-revealing. If Rush trusts the reporter, maybe he has a modicum of intellectual honesty. It really jumped out at me, as you see from my post # 14.

Rush mentioned, among other things, that the guy has never misquoted him. If there's a piece on this later on Rush's site, I'll post it under this thread.

22 posted on 07/14/2004 2:06:03 PM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Bush has "operatives" according the NYT... whereas I guess Kerry would have "campaign staff".


23 posted on 07/14/2004 2:31:07 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Here ya go (feel free to pass it around):

Bush War Room Does Media's Job

July 14, 2004

Listen to Rush… (...expose a Kerry flip-flop, ignored by the mainstream press until the war room nailed it)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My buddy Jim Rutenberg from the New York Times -- and I have to tell you, Rutenberg, any time he's talked to me about a story, he's quoted me accurately and the story has always been good, and when I see Rutenberg's byline I believe it in the New York Times, and that's just from personal experience. The headline of the story: "In Bush's War Room the Gloves are Always Off." This is an amazing story, and again I don't want to do damage to Mr. Rutenberg's career here by praising him and citing him here, but I have to. This is the Raspberry Effect. Oftentimes I will praise a mainstream journalist to their detriment because their colleagues wonder what they've done "wrong" to get my praise.

"Shortly before 2 p.m. on Monday, a handful of President Bush's campaign aides huddled around two small speakers in a room that, with its shades drawn, was lit by the glow of 15 television monitors. They were listening to the voice of Senator John Kerry. None of the networks were carrying Mr. Kerry's entire speech to a group of [financial] donors, mostly women, in Boston that day. But Mr. Bush's operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack." So this, the Bush war room, but hang with me here.

"After sitting impatiently through what seemed to be a typical stump speech, they found [an opening for attack). Mr. Kerry said he was 'proud' of votes by him and his running mate, Senator John Edwards, last fall against the president's requested $87 billion appropriation for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a vote that Republicans have used to make a case that Kerry has been failing to support the troops after voting to authorize the war. Within an hour or so, Bush's team, at the campaign's headquarters in a corporate office building in suburban Virginia, across the..." Okay, Jim. We get where they were. Listen to this description: "[I]n a corporate office building in suburban Virginia, across the Potomac River from the White House." Why not say "across from National Airport, across from the Air and Space Museum?"

"...had sent a release via e-mail to hundreds of journalists, supporters and campaign surrogates. The e-mail message included the new quote [from Kerry] and one from September, when Mr. Kerry implied it would be 'irresponsible'' to vote against such spending," the $87 billion. "The quotation, along with the idea that Mr. Kerry's position on the money had evolved, found its way onto Fox News and into articles in The Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Associated Press. And this was a relatively slow day in Mr. Bush's war room. Several journalists who cover," (EIB emphasis added)

This is the nut here of the story. This is the nut graph. "Several journalists who cover Mr. Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Mr. Kerry's remarks." Now, this reminds me of when Clinton went down to Texas shortly after his retroactive tax increase. He was talking to some fat-cat Democrat fund-raisers out there, or donors and, he said he made a mistake in raising their taxes. He said, "I think I raised your taxes too much." New York Times was there, didn't catch it. Washington Post was there, didn't catch it. I think it was a wire service reporter, a stringer for Reuters or somebody who caught it and reported it. No other reporter got it. It's not that they weren't paying attention. It didn't register. It wasn't a big deal. A Democrat president admitting such a mistake? Eh, yawner, ho-hummer. They said, "It was a long day. This was a nighttime speech, been on a plane all day. We were just tired. We just missed it."

Now, typically, reporters said, you know, they were just too embarrassed to admit they gave Kerry a pass on his new rationale for his vote against the $87 billion funding, and it was the Bush team that had to point it out to them and when the Bush team pointed out, Oh!" They got it. "Yeah, damn. We missed that." They didn't miss it. They were too embarrassed to admit they gave Kerry a pass, and this is why I like Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times, because he reports this, and he actually -- I mean this is his line. He's not quoting anybody: "Several journalists who cover Kerry later said they were too embarrassed to say publicly that it took the Bush operatives to spot what was notable in Kerry's remarks." Meaning: if the Bush war room had not been listening to their exclusive audio feed of the whole thing, the press would not have picked up on the policy reversal on the contradiction, whatever you want to call it.

Kerry changing it -- flip-flopping, in essence. The press would not have picked up on it, probably because they're not looking for Kerry errors. They're not looking for Kerry mistakes. That's not their mindframe. They're not looking to be critical of Kerry. They're not looking to point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies. They're totally zeroed in on that when it comes to Bush and Cheney. So I'm going to look for Jim Rutenberg's byline in the New York Times in the next two or three days to make sure he still has a job. It's one thing to publish this story for the Times, another thing to have it heralded by the eeevil, wicked right-wing attack machine, which I have just done.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071404/content/stack_a.guest.html

24 posted on 07/14/2004 3:06:40 PM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pookie18; quidnunc; longtermmemmory; familyofman
Ha! My take in #14 was exactly like Rush Limbaugh's even though I heard not a word of his show. I guess in order to get Rush Points, I have to prove that I posted before he mentioned it. Maybe next time.
25 posted on 07/14/2004 4:45:27 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy

"...which rope-a-dope strategy did you mean?"

Just referring to the one mentioned so often here about the BC04 campaign waiting to unleash all their 'evidence' about almost everything. It's usually used in regards to the WMDs - stating that in Oct. the campaign will release a load of evidence as to where all the stockpiles are & have been. There i also a lot of references to 'playing poker' and BC04 will show their winning hand when the time is right, but not now, no not now - that's far too early.

That's the 'rope a dope' I'm referring to.


26 posted on 07/14/2004 6:27:26 PM PDT by familyofman (and the first animal is jettisoned - legs furiously pumping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Bush's operatives had somehow arranged for their own audio feed, they refused to say how, and were listening intently, ready to pounce on any opening for attack.

Hmmm...

VoIP setup with Fox News or other legit press person?

It would be interesting to know how they do it.

Well, both parties do conduct full-time intel surveilance of the other team with a war-room staff always ready to spin those faxes out.
27 posted on 07/14/2004 6:51:53 PM PDT by George W. Bush (It's the Congress, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

slick's war room was for bimbo erruptions


28 posted on 07/14/2004 7:13:32 PM PDT by GailA (hanoi john kerry, I'm for the death penalty, before I impose a moratorium on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; pookie18
This was also posted here: In Bush's War Room, 'It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid'.

Note the headline. It's not your fault that you didn't catch this: At some point between when the article was posted on the Internet and the Slimes went to print, the headline was changed to "In Bush's War Room, the Gloves Are Always Off".

I guess the original headline wasn't slanted enough against President Bush. I wonder what else they changed in the article....
29 posted on 07/15/2004 12:03:38 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

I checked. Only the headline changed.


30 posted on 07/15/2004 12:13:16 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc
In case you missed this:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071404/content/stack_a.guest.html

31 posted on 07/15/2004 2:26:28 AM PDT by pookie18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson