Well I spent all weekend watching campaign commercials, and boy that John Kerry guy sure is popular.

One thing that I notice is that in Bush's ads, he spends 98% of his paid time talking about John Kerry. I would expect that large amount of time talking about you competition if Bush was not the incumbent. "This is the way the current President is doing things, and I think it is wrong." An outsider to our political process would be shocked to find out that Bush was our current president based on the ads, as he rarely mentions any of his own actions while in office, which IS what I expect a sitting President to run on. (Yes, a majority of Kerry's ads mention the President more than Kerry, but as I mentioned, I expect that from the challenger, and Kerry's most recent ad does NOT mention the current president.)

Why is Bush spending so much time on the actions of Kerry rather than his own actions while in office?

Would you like to see more ads that focus on the Candidate that paid for the ad rather than HIS feelings towards his competition?

Could there be a law put into place that bars one from mentioning his competition, forcing them to focus on their own track record and future agenda?

Simply because he knows he doesnt have much that is good enough to talk about. He knows he looks bad so his only option is to make Kerry look worse then he does.

Why is Bush spending so much time on the actions of Kerry rather than his own actions while in office?

Well, my first thought was - because Kerry is the opposition? It seems the modus operandi is to tear down the other guy. Kerry has been doing it to Bush for almost a year.

Would you like to see more ads that focus on the Candidate that paid for the ad rather than HIS feelings towards his competition?

I think a combination of both is OK. We need to know the good and bad of both candidates.

Could there be a law put into place that bars one from mentioning his competition, forcing them to focus on their own track record and future agenda?

I sure hope not. Freedom of speech and all that, ya know.

Why is Bush spending so much time on the actions of Kerry rather than his own actions while in office?
To my recollection, Bush's campaign strategies even dating back to his run for governor never spent much time on his own merits. This isn't a knock on him, its just noting the consistency. Karl Rove, I suspect, may have something to do with this. I will admit to possibly having selective memory on this but I couldn't find anything to prove or disprove it upon some cursory research.

Would you like to see more ads that focus on the Candidate that paid for the ad rather than HIS feelings towards his competition?
That is always my preference in political discourse. I would much rather hear what Kerry stands FOR as opposed to complaining about Bush. And vice-versa.

Could there be a law put into place that bars one from mentioning his competition, forcing them to focus on their own track record and future agenda?
No, it wouldn't hold up in court, that sticky first amendment thing and all. And I actually like it as one method of judging a candidate, when the rare one takes this approach. That was one reason I liked John McCain. He spent more time pitching himself and less time bashing his opponents. The uglier a candidate gets, the less likely I am to vote for them. Not exactly a science but it adds to the art of my voting process

Doc

The idea is to define your opposition to the electorate as you want the electorate to see the opposition. Bush wants voters to think of Kerry as a flip-flopper on issues, a minor war hero, and an anti-American for protesting. The only thing that seems to have stuck so far is flip-flopping, or in a less biased way of putting this, mutable views on issues. By contrast, Bush could be termed bull-headed -- or fixed views on issues (in the less biased manner).



Don't really care because I hardly see any of the ads. I think I'd prefer no ads whatsoever.



There could be but it'd be unconsitutional. I'd rather see candidates restricted from all television though. Could the FCC rule that all political ads on television are against the interests of the community? I think perhaps so. This would likely help reduce the role money plays in elections. Meanwhile, do the debates as the free speech opportunities.

The precedents for this are tobacco and hard alcohol advertising.

Political advertising would then go to print media, just like in the old days!

Why is Bush spending so much time on the actions of Kerry rather than his own actions while in office?

Bush's strategy at this point is to "define" Kerry, since Kerry has not taken the opportunity to define himself. The objective is to portray Kerry as indecisive or as making the wrong decisions. It seems to have been effective, considering Kerry's lack of "traction".

Would you like to see more ads that focus on the Candidate that paid for the ad rather than HIS feelings towards his competition?
I am always in favor of "what I would do" type ads. Candidates should give the electorate a solid idea of where their philosophy is, and what to expect from them when they are in office.

In Bush's case, I think the American public has a good idea where he stands on the issues, which is why Bush is using his money to portray Kerry in a negative light.

Could there be a law put into place that bars one from mentioning his competition, forcing them to focus on their own track record and future agenda?
Um...no. Both sides need to be looked at: what the candidate is for, and WHY the candidate is better than the alternative. Both are in bounds, but there needs to be a balance. Bush has already run his ads touting his record, and his philosophy. There will be more in the future. Kerry just started running his ad to define himself. There is a balance, but you need to look closely to find the positive ads (from both sides).

Duh. That is the easiest question in the world to answer. If I had the same track record that Bush has I would never mention what I had done in the previous 3 years and 4 months.

Why?? Because you never accent the negative, which is all his adminstration has amounted to. That would be the same thing as committing re-election suicide.

Just for laughs lets listen to a 30 second spot describing what he has done in his current adminstration.

American I have led us into a war with Iraq with false premises which has led to 875 American soliders deaths and approximately 4,000 serious injuries. I also expected the Iraqis to greet us as liberators but all the polls (conducted by the military command)show that 80% of Iraqis regard us as occupiers. I also don't have a exit strategy so I will just leave our soliders in Iraq for at least 10 or more years.

But never fear America, God has put me in the office of President and whatever I do will be the right thing. Thanks for obeying God and re-electing me again.


After that 30 second ad, I am almost fired up enough to vote for the man, myself.

Why is Bush spending so much time on the actions of Kerry rather than his own actions while in office?
You can give a thumbs-up, say things are good and getting better all the time, but there is no way people are going to talk about it. It's a pretty boring subject.

Pointing out your opponents weaknesses seems to work well because people like poking fun at the shortcomings of others.

Would you like to see more ads that focus on the Candidate that paid for the ad rather than HIS feelings towards his competition?

Actually, no. I kind of like the negative ads. They're good entertainment. The positive ads have little substance, and should definitely not be used to pick a candidate.

Could there be a law put into place that bars one from mentioning his competition, forcing them to focus on their own track record and future agenda?
Not without seriously abridging the right to free speech. But hey, they've done it before.

Mike

Such a blatant lie could never be boring, in fact I think it would be the laugh of the year! The press would have a field day.

Actually I believe Reagan ran on this. It was something like ' are things better now than four years ago?'

Of course Bush cannot say such if not to expect a huge 'Gafaw' all around. Bush cannot run on a things getting better stand point, since he would be expected to come up with a 'how' , which he cannot, since they are not.

I expect at this point there is little that Bush can run on, so his best bet is to make Kerry lesser than himself. (Tough job, to set the bar for american presidency even lower) Kerry has had trouble finding anything to run on either. Once again (sadly) we are stuck with two non-viable entities, to vote for or against.

Negative Ads
OPINION: Kerry Claims He Hasn’t Run Negative Ads. “I never ran one negative advertisement against my opponents in the primaries. And I have not run negative advertisements yet. My advertisements in this race are positive.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks To American Society of Newspaper Editors 2004 Convention, 4/23/04)

FACT: Study Says Kerry Waged “Most Negative” Ad Campaign In Primary, Focused On Bush. A study released yesterday by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin found “Kerry ran ‘the most negative television advertising campaign’ of all the Democratic primary candidates, focusing his critiques on the Bush administration. The ad-tracking project found that all of Kerry’s general election ads have criticized Bush.” (Julia Malone, “Independent Activists’ Ads Help Kerry,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/26/04)
Kerry Began Negative Campaign Against Bush In His First Ads. One of Kerry’s first two ads, released in Iowa at the start of September, 2003 attacked President Bush. (“Kerry’s First Ads Use Announcement Speech,” National Journal’s Ad Spotlight Webpage, www.nationaljournal.com/members/adspotlight/09/0904jk1.htm, Accessed 3/26/04)
posted @ 5:02 PM
Tuesday, April 20, 2004

See the highlights. Seems consistent to me. What's your point? That Kerry hasn't publicly attacked Bush and his policies? Absolutely he did. And will again. If you get hung up on their use of the term "general election", that's not quite right, since at the time of the study, the primaries were still going on.

Right now, though, he really doesn't need to do much negative advertising, since Bush is doing such a fantastic job shooting himself in the foot.

There's a two-part answer to the question as to why Bush is spending so much time dissing Kerry instead of trumpeting his own accomplishments as President.

1. Going negative works. Every election year you see the same black and white pictures of one candidate with a five o' clock shadow and bags under their eyes and they look terrible contrasted with that of a color shot of a smiling, well-rested candidate who has a healthy glow. And every election year people say they don't like negative campaigns, but it's a lot easier to remember the negative ads than the positive ones isn't it?

If one candidate doesn't define his or her self the other side will and usually in the most negative way. Bush going negative has hurt Kerry and the polls have shown it. However, as a substained policy, it can backfire because eventually people will start asking, "Well, Kerry's bad on the issues, but what has Bush done to make anything better?"

2. Bush faced no primary challenge and no pesky independent like a Ross Perot to siphon votes from his base of supporters. He can't spend all his money on commercials telling Americans how good they have it. He sure can't ask as Ronald Reagan did, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" A lot of Americans aren't and gas wasn't over $2 bucks a gallon either.

Everything I've read says the election will turn on the independent and undecided voters in a few battleground states. Most of the voters have already made up their minds whether they are voting for Bush or against him. The country is extremely polarized along ideological lines (as is this board) and there is very little ambivalence about what kind of job Bush has done as President.

He needs to spend money convincing independent and undecided that staying the course with him is a smarter move than turning over the keys of the White House to Kerry. To do so, talking about all the wonderful things he's done over the last four years isn't going to be enough.

I'm sure the leader of the free world only spends 2% of his time doing his job .


He has other campaign ads. I encourage you to go and watch them on George W. Bush's campaign website.



No, Personally I like it when the campaigns get dirty .



No, a law like that would be against a little something called The Bill of Rights.

I think that the people who feel George W. Bush has nothing better to say in his ads then "Kerry is Evil" should go and watch the rest of them. He records several commercials and his campaign committee decides which ones are the most effective for that point in time.

I have to go with the opinion that there aren't a whole lot of positives that Bush can run on right now, so his campaign is dwelling on negativism toward Kerry.

Case in point: Bush's position on outsourcing, although it is popular with major corporate leaders, does not play as well to middle class, hourly workers. Now THE DAILY MIS-LEAD comes up with this story:

Bush Outsourced Fundraising & Voter Operations


Whether that plays well in Peoria or not largely depends on how many people there are unemployed. If the economy, specifically jobs, weren't an issue it wouldn't be a big deal.

If Karl Rove is wise, he is going to focus on a wholesome George and Laura Bush: Main Street U.S.A. image. The negativity being aired to discredit Kerry could well backfire when a large portion of Bush's supporters like to think of themselves as decent people who would rather not get down and dirty with the opposition in this election. Plus--there are plenty of people in the Kerry campaign, still smarting from the years of Clinton-bashing, who are all too willing to respond in kind.

And I for one would rather not see the negatives. I am not as dispassionate as some posters here when I see unfair campaign ads.

Edited to add:

In a Friday, May 14 article in The Washington Post (you have to register to get on, so I'll quote parts of it instead) entitled Bad Signs For Bush in History, Numbers: