Matt,
You know the rules - pointing out what Democrats want to do is "negative campaigning"; while Democrats doing the same to Republicans is "spirited campaigning".
Typical double-standard of the old-line media; the American people, though, see right through the scam.
Posted by Mark Noonan at June 2, 2004 01:33 PM
Hmmm ... if the post wants some "unprecedented negativity," maybe they ought to look into this story:
I haven't seen this bit of "unprecedented negativity" either corroborated or disproved anywhere. Anyone else seen coverage (nothing against NewsMax, but it would be nice to see it in a bit more "popular" outlets).
Posted by GarnetGirl at June 2, 2004 02:29 PM
"You know the rules - pointing out what Democrats want to do is 'negative campaigning'; while Democrats doing the same to Republicans is 'spirited campaigning'."
How many negative ads has Kerry run, compared to Bush?
Posted by Josh at June 2, 2004 02:55 PM
How many negative ads has Kerry run,
the comment was "while Democrats doing the same to Republicans is 'spirited campaigning'." That's the Democrats in general, not just Kerry.
Have you seen the ads the left wing 527's and the AFL-CIO have been running? Can you watch them and honestly say the Dems don't use negativity on a consistent basis?
Posted by Brian B at June 2, 2004 03:03 PM
Leftist 527s do use a lot of negativity, as their main goal is not to push any agenda, but to kick Bush out of office. However, I have yet to see more than one or two negative ads from Kerry; most of his talk about himself, his war record, his various plans, etc. Most of the Bush ads I've seen are negative--with the exception of the one talking about his strong leadership after 9/11 that showed a flag-drapped stretcher containing presumably a dead body.
Posted by Josh at June 2, 2004 03:19 PM
Most of the Bush ads I've seen are negative
So you think "my candidate's ads are less negative than yours" is a winning meme? Statistics show that negative ads work. That's why they are used. Besides, how can the Bush campaign talk about Kerry and not be negative? Kerry is all negatives.
Posted by Scaramonga at June 2, 2004 03:24 PM
Leftist 527s do use a lot of negativity
Which would seem to support the original point, which was Democrats doing the same to Republicans. Right?
However, I have yet to see more than one or two negative ads from Kerry;
Which, again, is beside the point. Go look up the phrase non sequitur. Get back to me when you're willing to avoid it.
Posted by Brian B at June 2, 2004 03:27 PM
"Besides, how can the Bush campaign talk about Kerry and not be negative? Kerry is all negatives."
Why isn't the Bush campagin talking about its policies and accomplishments? Oh, wait, I see.
Posted by Josh at June 2, 2004 03:28 PM
I've noticed a lot of negative blogs about Kerry on blogsforbush, too. All the posts from May 28 were negative about Kerry, Gore, or the Democrats--not a single post touted the virtues of Bush, except secondarily. Many, if not most, posts in the weeks prior to May 28 also focused like a laser beam on Kerry or other Democrats, although some balance has been regained since then.
Scaramonga is right--negative ads work. They work best when a candidate is trailing--they're a signal that the candidate wants to keep the vote home.
Posted by Dave at June 2, 2004 03:35 PM
All the posts from May 28 were negative
And as you all know, one day's worth of entries is a very thorough statistical sampling.
(/sarcasm)
Posted by Brian B at June 2, 2004 03:41 PM
Why isn't the Bush campagin talking about its policies and accomplishments?
You mean like this?
http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
Posted by Brian B at June 2, 2004 03:47 PM
No, I mean in its TV ads.
Posted by Josh at June 2, 2004 03:47 PM
No, I mean in its TV ads.
Wow, and that's your basis for judging the tone of the entire campign? See my reply to Dave.
Posted by Brian B at June 2, 2004 04:00 PM
No, I mean in its TV ads.
Use the same advice you libs give us when you're defending "free speech" for filth on TV and radio - just don't watch it. Do you donks ever stop whining?
Posted by Scaramonga at June 2, 2004 04:05 PM
All posts from May 28th were negative? Heck, I didn't even mention Kerry or Bush in my post on May 28th. Obviously, you didn't really read all of them after all, now did you?
As to the article. I felt at the time and feel again that both sides are splitting hairs here. Bush has leaped a little to make their case, but the Washington Post did as well. As usual, the truth lies in the middle. Closer to the Repubs, but not completely in the Bush camp.
Posted by Carstairs at June 2, 2004 04:55 PM
[Deleted - Trolling]
Posted by diogenes at June 2, 2004 04:58 PM
I find it a little disingenious and convenient that these liberals seem to forget Kerry's comments when he thought the microphone was off, you know: "These guys are the most crooked lieing bunch of people I've ever seen" NOOOO, that's not negative. Or how about at every rally, speech he gives, it's just constant Bush is bad this is wrong, that's wrong etc. NOOOO, that's not negative.
You said Bush has released nothing but negative Ads...Hrmmmm Let's see:
1: "Safer, Stronger"
2: "Tested"
3: "Lead"
4: "100 Days"
5: "Forward"
6: "21st Century"
7: "Key to Success" (There's the spanish version too but I left that out as it is a duplicate)
All of those are positive agenda/Policy type ads. Here's the link to go view them:
http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/
Looks like your argument doesn't stand up to the facts, but then when have you liberals ever cared about facts, especially when they get in the way of your propaganda
Posted by Litning at June 2, 2004 06:59 PM
Facts are inconvenient for Democrats...
Posted by Matt at June 2, 2004 10:14 PM
Slightly off subject, but an intensely liberal friend of my wife's gave her a well-worn copy of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" to read.
After I got finished sputtering my outrage at having such filth in my house, my wife started reading some of it. She does NOT follow politics, but she would passage after passage and say each time, "But that's not true!" and "That makes absolutely no sense!"
If someone who doesn't follow politics - and rolls her eyes when her husband pontificates on matters of great importance - can easily refute the lies of the left by just using her head, I am encouraged that enough people like her will see through the bilge spewing from the leftmedia/Democrat alliance to return Bush to office in a resounding victory.
Posted by SBK at June 3, 2004 12:27 AM
Why isn't the Bush campagin talking about its policies and accomplishments? Oh, wait, I see.
Josh at June 2, 2004 03:28 PM
You mean like the TV spot where he touted his leadership in the aftermath of 9/11? I seem to recall the dems making a sound akin to giving birth to broken glass (not my phrase, but I like it, so I borrowed it) and whining about "exploiting 9/11 and politicizing a national tragedy" Even when GWB accentuates the most positive aspect of his presidency--his leadership during dark times--he's accused of a form of negativity. Gimme a break.
Posted by darth bubba at June 3, 2004 10:34 AM
The dems cry foul whenever Bush touts his own success. They hate it when he looks good for doing something. Everything good he does they stop at nothing to demonize it.. from the aircraft carrier landing, to the thanksgiving in baghdad, even capturing Saddam.
Posted by Matt at June 3, 2004 05:04 PM
I'm tired of Kerry's incessant whining that the other kid in the school yard is beating him up unfairly.
The truth is *not* a smear campaign.
If it were "unprecedented negativity," the best way to counter it is with facts--and they don't have the record to run on.
http://www.conservativeblogger.com/archive/20040602.htm
Posted by William at June 3, 2004 11:30 PM