Let’s start out by comparing Bush’s website (http://www.georgewbush.com/) to Kerry’s (http://www.johnkerry.com/). Notice a theme (i.e., Bush’s website’s major theme seems to be Kerry, whereas Kerry’s major theme is… Kerry)
There is also wide discussion of how flat out dishonest many of Bush’s ads are: how many specific claims they’ve made as opposed to general broadsides. Many of them are on the level of the “McCain is anti-breast cancer research and fathered illegitimate children” bullcrap from the 2000 election: stuff that was so evil the Bush campaign itself was distancing itself from and blaming on third parties for spreading. Now it’s back embracing the same tactics with wild abandon.
Now all of this is a bit odd from two perspectives. First of all, Bush’s campaign negativity is unmatched in any campaign I can remember from any mainstream candidate, not even counting how early and how immediately he went negative. But second of all, Bush is the incumbent. Pundits have been declaring for months now that this race is going to be, like all incumbent races supposedly are, about Bush. But it seems that both the Bush camp and the Kerry camp instead seem to agree that it’s all about Kerry, whether attacking or defending.
In summary, it seems like Bush is acting like a challenger facing off with an incumbent, trying a desperate scorched earth campaign to define his opponent in his terms. It would be one thing if, as the Post article tries to claim, this was in response to the dismal poll numbers Bush now has. But this all started before those numbers started to slip, and it hasn’t ramped up, it’s pretty much been a constant barrage. Indeed, they are taking a huge risk, because at some point there are going to be articles like this Post one pointing out just how negative and how dishonest their campaign has been.
I would assume its because alot of the pro-Kerry momemtum is based on the idea that ‘Bush is screwing up bad, lets try new leadership’. I would assume bringing up Bush’s accomplishments would be lost on those kinds of people so destroying Kerry is the next best thing to slow down the pro-Kerry momentum.
Bush (honestly) doesn’t have much good to run on as far as i can tell either. Tons of scandals and controversial policies, high oil prices, controversial wars and war actions, a bad economy, etc.
Well, that might be how a liberal might frame it, but conservative bloggers, at least the ones who are still doggedly (with a little “he’s not conservative enough” criticism thrown in to demonstrate their free-thinkingness) pro-Bush paint a very different picture. And they are not without a point. Every president has what his opponents claim are scandals. Bush’s policies, the actual ones, don’t have to be THAT controversial (heck, even Kerry can’t point to an abuse of the Patroit Act he thinks has done real damage so far, it’s all “potential”). The Iraq war isn’t going perfect, but Bush has been making a case that it’s a difficult situation that is going as best as can be expected, and is a phenomenal acheivement (I think even anti-war people have to acknowledge that Iraq’s future is brighter than their past in terms of things like civil rights and economic conditions). The economy is not that bad and getting better, and oil prices are always high in summer. You might not buy all that the way I’ve said it, but you don’t have to. The point is, a plausible positive case can be made. And Bush’s campaign IS making it: it’s just dwarfed by their “kill-Kerry” operations.
Maybe because John Kerry is pulling him down into the muck? I find this not so amazing, given the bias of the media, but it’s KERRY who started this campaign out on an incredibly vicious and personal fashion. You know, things like saying, “These guys are the biggest liars and crooks I’ve ever seen” or something like that? Going around calling them miserable failures, hinting at big oil connection conspiracies, going after Bush’s national guard service again… All of this took place without the media saying a word about how John Kerry’s entire campaign was built on Bush attacks rather than his own positive vision.
In the meantime, we have Nancy Pelosi calling Bush incompetent and ignorant. Attacking him personally rather than just discussing his policies. Al Gore is engaging in spittle-flinging attacks accusing the administration of all sorts of heinous crimes. “HOW DARE THEY!”, etc…
Then when the Bush campaign responds with negative attacks of its own, then suddenly the media wakes up and starts writing stories about how ugly the Republican campaign has gotten. Bah.
Heh, the “compassion” photo section is still mostly all of black people.
Look at George Bush amongst the throngs of needy blacks. Even Colin Powell is worthy of some black compassion! And see, Bush, like Jesus among the lepers, has no problem touching them! See him lecture them on how they can build a house! No no, silly black person, THIS is how you nail a nail into a board! Keep up the good work black people! I have great compassion for your people! Some say you black people don’t understand democracy like us Americans do, but I say to those people: you’ve probably never touched a black person, like I have. It simply overwhelms you with feelings of compassion. I’m even teaching my wife to enjoy the wonders of black people, though we’re ramping her up slowly: http://www.georgewbush.com/images/gallery/12.jpg
Oh please. The article I quoted backs up its assertions with facts instead of vague charges. You can’t even keep your timeline straight pulling in recent things into something about who went negative first. Anyone can pick out some things that both candidates have gone negative on, and of course both campaigns have negative operations. But things like 75% vs 27% give a far better sense of what’s going on. Specific dishonest claims, which started almost immediately and came right out of George Bush’s mouth, vs. more generalized attacks. What do you have to say about that? Have you actually compared the two websites? Why is the front page of Bush’s website, which is supposed to be selling his vision, dominated by Kerry? Why is Kerry’s dominated by… Kerry, without a single blurry attack photo of Bush? (the closest they come is a graphic on one story about oil influences in the Bush White House which looks like they took it from a crude PaintShop graphic)
This is just sort of amusing. Was Gore’s speech “spittle-flinging”? It was very aggressive. But its delivery was mostly what, had the topic been anything else, you might have gone with “boring and dull” as a way to attack it (amusing that you’d throw in “spittle-flinging” accusations of actual specific policy flubs after just complaining about personal attacks that don’t address specific points). But of course, this is how right wing pundits decided to go after Gore, so not coicidentally, that’s exactly the tack you take when you show up.
Kerry has to talk about himself because he still has to establish an identity in the minds of the voters. A year ago, hardly anybody outside Massachusetts knew who he was. Bush, being the incumbent, already has a public identity.
For Bush’s part, he has to build a negative image of Kerry at the same time Kerry is building a positive one – he has to do it now, while Kerry’s public persona is still inchoate. But, more than that, I think Bush’s negative approach is a sign of desperation. The fucker is running scared, and well he should. Yes, he has all the advantages of incumbency, but as the incumbent he is probably more broadly and, in particular, more intensely hated than any president since Nixon. The Democrats and liberals are still smarting from what happened in 2000 – they’re not just out for victory, they’re out for revenge. This is shaping up to be the bitterest, most divisive election since 1968. Anything could happen.
That’s because it’s Laura Bush, not George. She doesn’t yet have the sort of experience and control you need to be truly compassionate, but you can be sure she’s working up to it with these vaugely ethnic children.
Here’s an idea: the reason he’s doing it is because it actually works.
It worked for Gray Davis against Bill Simon. It worked AGAINST Gray Davis when he faced Ahnuld in the recall. It probably worked in quite a few other states where the smearer had fairly little to offer.
Bush has a good, secure number of party-line voters behind him but lacks appeal for the swing voters. He and Rove figured: if we can’t have them, we may as well just deny them to our opponent. What better option than a full-blown smear campaign?
That is the biggest number of understatements per paragraph I’ve seen in a while:
“Iraq isn’t going perfect… its going as best as can be expected” !!! - expected by whom ? Not by the troops or the public. Talk about rose tinted view.
“Iraq’s future is brighter than their past”. - wow… with Saddam in their past just about anything is “brighter”.
“…oil prices are always high in summer” !!! - probably true… its just hitting the $40 a barrel that is uncommon no ?
Ok... back to the topic. No wonder Bush is on the attack. Things aren't going well... even things that aren't exactly under his control... but the boss get's the blame anyway. The scandals are far from minor too. I don't know about smear campaigns effects on US voters... but a pretty decent politician in my state lost the election after excessively bashing his opponent... let's hope Bush loses the same way.
Bush’s website instantly crashed Firefox. I guess that makes sense, since he’s letting MS off the hook and all.
To be fair, it is usually the incumbant who runs the smear campaign. They have years of policy behind them - people know what they represent. They don’t have to “sell” themselves as much. Their goal is to make the challenger’s policies look bad. The challenger, on the other hand, has to demonstrate that his policies are better, so needs more focus on that area.
I wouldn’t say that it “worked against Davis” - Davis was deep in the toilet long before his campaign began. The man could have started sh*ting gold bricks and still lost.
Wow, that’s pretty disingenuous. He said that when he thought the microphone was turned off. Interesting how you give Bush a pass for calling someone a “major league asshole” under the same circumstances, but when Kerry does it, it’s all of a sudden a big issue. :rolleyes:
Actually, the Kerry website has more Bush ‘items’ on the front page than does the Bush website. Remember the ‘Oh ya? I am not Bush’ Democratic primary debates? Also, the OP isn’t taking in to account the negative Moveon.org ads.(defacto Kerry ads)
Cite for your claim of a liberal media bias? Not specific examples, but rather a cite that in general, mainstream media coverage has a noticeable liberal bias.
Meanwhile, we have Republicans running an “extraordinary” assault on Kerry. The RNC compares Kerry to an insect and runs a smear against “Democrat Wackadoos.” Bush’s campaign promotes those who say Kerry is a dishonest, disloyal, indecent man. Republican Paul Ryan says Kerry has a history of voting to “decrease America’s safety”. Republican Jim Dyke blames Al Gore for terrorist attacks during his vice presidency. Interesting that you chide Rep. Pelosi for personal attacks, and then follow it with this positive, issue-based attack:
The right, as one would expect, responds with all the depth and tact of a five year old, claiming among other things that Gore is off his lithium and going insane. You have obviously neither seen nor read Mr. Gore’s speech, as he was calm and reserved for the majority of it, and merely peddled standard-issue anti-Bush claims. Nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing to get worked up about. But hey, there’s a picture of him lookin’ funny, and he raised his voice briefly. He must be crazy - why else would he be passionate about politics?
The Bush website has far, far more Bush items on it than the Kerry site. And just for fun, I’m going to compare the Bush and Kerry front pages.
Kerry website front page Bush items:
[ul]
[li]Attack on Bush’s “secret budget cuts”[/li][li]Attack on Bush’s big oil connections[/li][/ul]
Bush website front page Kerry items:
[ul]
[li]Attack on Kerry’s Iraq views[/li][li]Kerry gas tax calculator[/li][li]John Kerry travel tracker[/li][li]Ad attacking Kerry over Patriot Act[/li][li]Ad attacking Kerry over gas prices[/li][/ul]
Oh, no! They’re taking positions different than those of GW Bush!
They may be de facto Kerry ads, but since the Kerry campaign is completely separate from MoveOn, you can’t reasonably base a claim that Kerry is running a negative campaign on these ads. Still, I’d like to see some numbers on MoveOn/Media Fund ads, and also numbers for Republican 527/501(c) spending. Anyone?
