Kerry’s website currently mentions George Bush once: in the middle of a statement by Nobel prize winners who say that George Bush is “compromising our future.” Otherwise, the website is devoted to Kerry’s plans and issues, upbeat things like “Celebrating the Spirit of America” and so forth.
Meanwhile, George Bush’s website is dominated by an anti-Kerry theme. They’ve taken down the laughably dishonest “Hitler and Kerry, separated at birth?” travesty, but Kerry is still by far the most prominent feature: no less than 6 large sections are devoted to attacking him.
But the real kicker is this: the GW campaign claims that Kerry is negative, pessimistic, and has no plans on the issues (of course, there is nothing on the Bush frontpage that’s as prominent or as detailed Kerry’s prominent section explaining where Kerry stands on all the major issues: just a tiny menu with 7 issues, one of which isn’t even an issue but a buzzword).
Is someone putting me on here? Which one is the challenger, which one is the incumbent? Which one is negative and gloomy again? GW needs to fire Rove and hire someone that can explain what Bush stands for and deliver a positive message.
Bush can do whatever the hell he wants, his ass his out in NOV.
Kerry on the other hand needs to STFU, and forget about Bush. He may not have much about up on his website, but every time he opens it’s mouth it’s Bush this and Bush that.
It’s really very pathetic. I could run a better campaign, too bad I lack the funds.
Due respect, Apos, you seem pretty stuck on this tea-leaf reading of dynamically changing websites (see the .aspx extensions on Bush’s site, for example.) If you were differently biased, you might be here making the argument that Kerry has his head in the sand and is not even aware that he isn’t running unopposed. While you’re at it, you might as well give us your assessment of Ms. Bush’s cookie recipe versus Ms. Kerry’s.
In keeping with this theme, how about the “John Kerry: Wrong then, wrong now” ads? They show a clip of Kerry (I think it’s from his testimony before Congress in 1971) where he says something like “We can’t fight communism all over the world”. Then you see Reagan saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” making the point, I suppose, that Kerry’s “pessimistic” view was proven wrong by the fall of the Soviet Union.
Except it doesn’t make that point at all, since it turned out we really couldn’t “fight communism all over the world” the way Kerry was talking about. China is still communist. Cuba is still communist. North Korea is still horrifyingly communist. And, perhaps most pointedly, Vietnam is still communist!!! Boy, that Kerry sure is a dumbass, huh?
Don’t forget the people who got their current jump-start on violence were used in our little cold war against communism. So yay for fighting communism! Sure worked out!
Whaddaya talking “didn’t suceed”? The vast, monolithic Communist conspiracy was certainly stopped in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua! There are mass graves of committed Marxist indios to prove it! Not to mention the occassional dead Commie Archbishop!
Except I couldn’t, because that observation would be silly no matter what my bias. That’s grasping at straws.
I don’t see how this is tea leaf reading: this has been the basic format of both these websites for months, dynamically changing content is irrelevant if all the dynamic content is of the same stripe. Even in the case where the Bush site had three different random sections in one area, two of them were still big anti-Kerry splashes, and the third non-anti-Kerry bit was only on for a few days in response to a recent event.
Why is it noteworthy? Not just because of the comparison, but also because of the constant theme that Kerry’s message is pessimistic, negative, and he doesn’t have any position on the issues. But at least in the case of the campaign’s web face, this is a pretty clear case of “Physician, heal thyself.”
It’s also noteworthy because it’s the opposite of what you might expect from this sort of campaign: the incumbent runs on his record and visibility, the challenger has to go negative to hurt him.
[…shrug…] I’m an old man, and I’ve seen plenty of negativity from both sides over the decades. I seem to recall that the last time you opened one of these threads, by the time I checked it out, the situation was reversed and Kerry had more Bush than Bush had Kerry. I also recall a far greater number of inside articles from Kerry mentioning Bush than the other way around. Maybe that means that with Kerry, what you see is not what you get. Anyway, I’ve lived long enough to know that whichever evil wins, I’ll be here pointing out his tyrannies.
Ok. Maybe you thought you were reading a thread called “Kerry is more negative,” fair mistake. But the key here is that Bush’s campaign message currently seems to consist of insisting that Kerry is negative. A claim that seems singularly silly at least considering the setup of their websites. Any fairminded observer could agree that the most prominent theme of both websites is Kerry.
You remember that? Because the last time I opened one of these threads, it was about a Washington Post article that noted that statistically, Bush’s negative ads by far overwhlemed Kerry’s. I mentioned the website thing later on as an afterthought.
No, you checked it out and the situation I described above occured (three random splashes, two of which were Kerry=bad man, one of which was a temporary story which you got). The situation wasn’t “reversed” at all: even ignoring the splash, the point still stood. And it’s even more overwhelmingly the case now.
And I remember other people noting that this was likely because the Kerry site has much much more text and is much bigger.
Maybe if you threw your coffee mug upwards as hard as you can, it would go right through the ceiling and fly all the way to the moon. I don’t see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.