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 ...
I am glad we are keeping on top of things this time around.
So9
Finally - a rapid response team doing the work that needs to be done to combat the left.
Better put some ice on that, Senator Kerry.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
One thing about Clinton, he knew how to play politics.
ping
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?
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....
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.
Does the 'War Room' know about the 'rope a dope' strategy that so many here seem to think is in effect at BC04?
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.
I hadn't picked up on that but you're right.
Heard Rush reading from this on today's show. He trusts this Slimes reporter.
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.