Cite for where the Kerry campaign is funding Moveon.org? I didn’t realize that independent campaigns counted as official propaganda.
No, you can’t. Coordination between a campaign and a 527 group is a direct violation of federal campaign laws. Give me a cite (not speculation) that they’re coordinating; and no, someone changing employers is not coordination and is not illegal.
Wow, that’s amazing how Kerry was responsible for the moveon.org ads that were made before he got the nomination. :rolleyes:
Sure I can. You guys make far more serious accusations with far fewer incriminating circumstances. But I’ll tell you what: When the above listed investigation is completed, I’ll let you know.
I’ll be looking forward to that.
If you want to pull third party groups into this, dumb move. There are giagantic amount of them on both sides (though not all are 527s, the only ones you’ll hear Republicans complaining about), and you gain nothing by it. It’s the actual campaigns which are at issue.
“These guys are the biggest liars and crooks I’ve ever seen”
This was in response to someone trying to spread a completely unsubstantiated rumor that Kerry was cheating on his wife. I can’t say I blame him.
ahem
On the subject of the OP…
I did an article on negative campaigning several years ago and analyzed negative campaign ads through 1980 forward.
What I found was that it
A) Tended to benefit the incumbent more
and
B) Tended to benefit Republicans more
The overall effect I found was that saturation level negative campaign ads (defined as those ads that presented a negative image of the opponent while mentioning little in the way of positive messages for the candidate) depressed marginal voter turnout. That is…those who MIGHT have voted on a specific issue but weren’t passionate about it were instead moved to stay home in a sort of ‘pox on both your houses’ and ‘there’s no real difference between the parties’ zeitgeist.
And that, my friends, would be my analysis of why GWB is running negative early and often. It’s got a real chance of benefitting him strongly. Expect it to ramp up to a frenzy over the last six weeks of the election.
Whether it’ll be enough? Only time can tell.
blowero said:
He thought the microphone was turned off while he was engaged in negative campaigning. He was caught telling people this stuff while on the stump. That was what the whole scandal was about, the fact that John Kerry was going around on the campaign trail calling the administration crooks and liars. The camera footage was the evidence. You seem to think that ‘negative campaigning’ only counts if it’s caught on camera.
He made the comment while whispering to one person in response to a comment that person had made. That’s hardly saying this stuff while on the stump.
Oh, yeah? So you never heard of whispering campaign? Those could very well have been a couple of undecided voters, up there on his campaign platform, and he was subtly undermining support for The Shining One. One, two voters at a time like that. Those crafty devils!
Exactly. C’mon, Sam Stone - give us a freakin’ break here.
Have I missed something? Do any of you guys think that complaining about how slimy the other side is is going to influence anyone’s opinion, or do any good whatsoever?
Put another way: I am shocked – shocked! – to discover politics going on here!
Sam Stone and VarlozZ would like to change the subject. They would like to pretend that the subject is “Kerry never does negative campaigning, and Bush does.” Try again, guys.
And in retrospect, “That nasty Kerry dragged us into it!” pretty funny. It’s the be a man and claim personal responsibility as long as it’s convienient or the other guy won’t do it parade!
I think you missed my point rather badly:
-
You (apparently) assumed the wrong antecedent for “you guys” in my first post. I was referring to both the Kerry and Bush supporters in this thread who are maligning the “other side” for mudslinging, not the Kerry supporters in particular.
-
Changing the subject to “Kerry never does. . .” would not affect my post at all. My (admittedly off-topic) point was that the partisan bickering in this thread (and countless others like it) is worse than useless. No one will be convinced of anything that they didn’t already believe, and most who participate in the discussion will only be antagonized further. The OP contains the beginnings of a debate, but most of what follows would fit more comfortably into a mild pit thread.
-
Most importantly: You misspelled my screen name – gah!
Regards,
Jer
I didn’t see that at all. Bush’s front page has one blurb on Kerry: John Kerry: the Raw Deal, and Kerry’s front page has one blurb on Bush: Bush’s Secret Budget Cuts Exposed. Searching “Kerry” on the Bush site gives 91 hits. Searching “Bush” on the Kerry site gives 1,146 hits.
I’ve noticed the numbers on Bush’s site dwindling over the course of the thread. Maybe someone in his merry band is watching us and has pulled the plug on many of the Kerry pittings because we are such a powerful demographic.
Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?
Er, what?
The biggest graphic on the page, front and top left, is “Kerry on Iraq: Track Kerry’s shifting positions on Iraq.” Then there is the Kerry Gas Tax Calculator (pretty much the lowest of the low in ridiculous dishonesty), the John Kerry Travel Tracker (see why Kerry is wrong for your state), two streaming anti-Kerry ads. John Kerry: the raw deal is the LEAST prominent of all these.
It’s undeniable that the at-a-glance theme of Bush’s front page is Kerry, while the at-a-glance for Kerry is Kerry. Kerry’s page is longer, putting more content on the actual page, put GW’s page has more graphical layout as a portal.
How was this search done?
I dunno, but Google indexes 3,630 hits for “Kerry” on www.georgewbush.com and 10,600 hits for “Bush” on www.johnkerry.com.
When you’re counting the number of items on Bush’s web site, please note that some of them cycle randomly. I saw this news blurb on Talking Points Memo, where the author noted that Bush’s face doesn’t appear at all on the front page of his own web site (though Kerry’s face appears 4 times), but when I passed the link on to someone else, he said there was one block on the page with a picture of Bush’s face. I reloaded a few times and a few things changed, though I still couldn’t see Bush’s face, but I have no reason to think this guy was lying.