(I posted this here because I figured it would get too political for GQ or CS, and too frothy for GD.)
Serious question: I don’t watch a lot of ad-supported TV, so I haven’t seen a lot of ads, but every single one of them that I have seen has been a negative ad about Kerry rather than a positive ad about Bush. Surely this can’t be the case; not 100%.
Anyone know what the ratio is? Or is this the most negative campaign of all time?
Why should Bush talk about himself? He’s got Kerry to do that for him… 
Well, no, and that’s the point. The Kerry ads I’ve seen talk about Kerry. We don’t see many here, from either side, since these aren’t “battleground” states, but I don’t think I’ve seen one yet from the Kerry camp that attacked Bush.
The few Bush ads I’ve seen, however, are have all been about Kerry. I’ve haven’t seen one yet that touted the great accomplishments of the Bush Administration, or said a single word about his vision for the next four years.
Anyone from one of those poor, hapless states that’s getting bombarded with “media buys?”
Wouldn’t there have to actually be some before they could do that?
I usually don’t pop into political threads, but I’m getting extremely fed up with the Bush ads. At least with Kerry, he’s talking about what he’s going to do, how he’s going to do it, etc. The Bush ads are nothing more than:
“Kerry sucks! Kerry did this and this and this, and I’ll bet he eats babies, too!”
Hello? Bush? Ever thought about extolling your own virtues? (Yes, I realize that would be quite a feat.)
By the way, the most recent ad with Kerry discussing people getting laid off and having to pack up their own stuff? That took place right here in Canton, Ohio at Perry High School:). We were going to try to attend, but had to leave town for a family wedding. I was rather disappointed.
Ava
Oddly enough, I’m from Virginia – supposedly a “vulnerable” Republican state (though I disagree) – and I haven’t seen a single ad…Hmm…
Missouri resident checking in. While the majority of Bush ads are about Kerry, I do recall some back in the mists of time that were basic non-offensive pablum. “I support America.” “George supports America.” “America is good.” That sort of thing.
Nowadays, though, Katy bar the door. Nothin’ but “John Kerry is a liar.” “John Kerry doesn’t support America.” “John Lerry doesn’t think that America is good.”
Those who think it’s “vulnerable” have probably been spending too much time hanging around Tyson’s Corner. Northern Virginia is a somewhat-liberal pocket in an otherwise conservative state. I’d be mightily astonished if the state went to Kerry.
Anytime there is a discussion of campaign ads, it is a good idea to check out FactCheck.Org which does a very good job of cutting through the bullshit OF BOTH PARTIES.
From one of their articles, which can be found here, they state:
While that article is dated June 1, 2004, I haven’t heard much of a change in Bush’s campaign to refute that.
So, to answer the OP, not all of Bush’s ads are negative. Only 3 out of 4.
And if you want the truth about the substance of those ads, read the site. They also do a good job of pointing out Kerry’s misleading advertising also.
Not a huge surprise Bush is going negative. Perhaps they recall the success Poppy Bush had charging Dukakis with everything up to (and perhaps including) being the cause of genital warts. Course, in that case it helped that Dukakis had all the charm of year-old spackle.
People, people, why leap to conclusions when the simplest answer is that Bush is the incumbent President? And that people already know a good deal more about him than Kerry?
Or would that be too non-evil an explanation?
No, that makes perfect sense. People already know a lot about Bush, they don’t like what they’ve seen, so Bush is driven to paint Kerry as Even Worse Than Me™ in hopes of not losing his job come November.
If Bush had actually accomplished things worthwhile in his four years in office, you can bet he’d be trumpeting those achievements to the heavens. But he hasn’t, so he can’t, so he resorts to smear instead.
Not at all, but it’s not a very sound strategy on Bush’s part. If you’ve accomplished good things in your term of office, you crow about them and remind people how much better off they are than 4 years ago. You don’t just stay silent and assume that everyone will remember all about the time you approved House Bill 40283.b.
It’s also not an explanation that’s backed by history. Clinton '96, Bush '92, Regan '84 and so on all played up their accomplishments over the preceeding term.
Well, I gotta agree with **Lissener ** on this. I don’t know if it’s the most negative campaign, but I’m getting VERY tired of the anti-Kerry ads that Bush is putting out (in CA, where I live). At some point, if not already, they are going to have to opposite effect as desired.
Cool! Let’s increase that 75% by a third! 
I’m in Florida, a “battleground” state, and it feels to me like about 90% (or even more) anti-Kerry. I do recall a sort of hazy pro-George ad a while back, which was sort of trying to make Bush look presidential and noble with flags in the background, similar or same as mentioned by GLWasteful. But I’ve not seen that one in a while. Most of the Kerry ads have been about what he would do (I saw an Edwards pro-Kerry ad last night) and what kind of person he is. I think they’re leaving a lot of the negative Bush stuff to groups like MoveOn.org (so the ads don’t come with the “I’m John Kerry and I approve this massage”). Most or all of the anti-Kerry ads have run the “I’m George W and I approve this”.
And I’m sure that the Bush team must have something positive to say, even if the content/accuracy might be debatable. There’s a lot of margin for spin and mendacity when it comes to political ads (applies to all politicians, not just those you disagree with).
I have the misfortune to live in a so-called battle ground state (much to my amazement) and have been subjected to an overwhelming barrage of political ads since last Christmas in the work up to the Iowa caucuses. The tone of the President’s ads has been consistent from the time it started to look as if Senator Kerry would be the Demo nominee. Those ads have been uniformly nasty and filled with half truths – mostly about the Senator supposedly voting against military appropriations (flack vest for out boys). When ever an ad does get off the hatchet job theme it is to praise Bush for his heroic struggle against some vague and undefined terror threat which blurs the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. You would think that people would quit paying attention simply because of sensory overload, but some highly paid hot shot seems to think it is doing some good.
I miss the items from past elections where some apparently honest talking head tells us all whether the ad is honest or not and if dishonest the specifics of the dishonesty. Apparently the powers that run the tube think they are better off titillating us with juicy details of the lives of Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson and random pro basketball players.
I look forward to the return of non stop ads for seed corn, herbicides and vaccines for swine scours. The TV stations are making a mint, however.
Do you guys not pay attention? Bush’s ads ALL talk about what he’s done as president. It’s plain as day, right at the beginning:
“I’m George Bush, and I approved this message.”
Thank God I live in Illinois where Kerry will win by double digits, and don’t have to watch any of this crap. And now that Jack Ryan has dropped out of the Senatorial campaign, I don’t have to watch any of his commercials either.
I have, and I am. The most recent one discussed that Kerry has missed 2/3 of the Senate votes this year; the ad chose not to mention how many Dole missed during that election year, but then inclusion of that doesn’t unfairly paint Kerry in a negative light for having the same thing happen to him that happened to Dole back in '96.
They all remind me of Bush Sr. re-election campaign, though it’s certainly possible, reading Sublight’s post, that I am not remembering that one fully. Wonder if the results will be the same.