From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity

[Nym90]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity
Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks
By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01


It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

 
 
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates -- all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and "flip-flopped" on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.

"There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent."

Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."

In terms of the magnitude of the distortions, those who study political discourse say Bush's are no worse than those that have been done since, as Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar put it, "the beginning of time."

Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.

But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity



Attacks Get Early Start

The attacks have started unusually early -- even considering the accelerated primary calendar -- in part because Bush was responding to a slew of attacks on his record during the Democratic primaries, in which the rivals criticized him more than one another. And because the Bush campaign has spent an unprecedented sum on advertising at this early stage of the campaign, "the average voter is getting a much more negative impression," said Ken Goldstein, who tracks political advertising at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

 
 
From the president and Cheney down to media aides stationed in every battleground state and volunteers who dress up like Flipper the flip-flopping dolphin at rallies, the Bush campaign relentlessly portrays Kerry as elitist, untrustworthy, liberal and a flip-flopper on major issues. This campaign is persistent and methodical, and it often revs up on Monday mornings with the strategically timed release of ads or damaging attacks on Kerry, including questioning medical and service records in Vietnam and his involvement in the peace movement afterward. Often, they knock Kerry off message and force him to deflect personal questions.

Sometimes the charges ring true. Last week, Kerry told NBC: "I'm for the Patriot Act, but I'm not for the Patriot Act the way they abuse the Constitution." That brought to mind Kerry's much-mocked contention in March on Iraq spending: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

But often they distort Kerry's record and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce negative perceptions of him.

One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.

Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

Stretching the Truth

Incumbent presidents often prefer to run on their records in office, juxtaposing upbeat messages with negative shots at their opponents, as Bill Clinton did in 1996.

Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.

"The Bush campaign is faced with the hard, true fact that they have to keep their boot on his neck and define him on their terms," Reed said. That might risk alienating some moderate voters or depressing turnout, "but they don't have a choice," he said.

The strategy was in full operation last week, beginning Monday in Arkansas. "Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.


The Article was too long to fit in one post, second part in next post...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ouch!

[agcatter]

Negativity?  Geez, anyone listened to the Democratic attacks on the Bush administration over the last 18 months?  Oh wait a minute, that's different.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Liberal Spin from a liberal rag.

[Nym90]

What exactly was spin? Do you dispute that 75% of Bush's commercials have been negative, or that 27% of Kerry's have been? The article did point out misstatements that Kerry has made, as well. What exactly was distorted?

I've seen many ads from both sides here, and it's been a long time since I saw a positive Bush ad. There's nothing inherently wrong with negative ads necessarily, but I don't think anyone would dispute that Bush's campaign ads have attacked Kerry a lot more than they have been positive towards his own accomplishments.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Kerry is trying to introduce himself in his ads while Bush is trying to define Kerry early.  That is why Kerry's ads are mostly upbeat and Bush's are mostly negative.

What is unprecedent is that the opposition party sees the party in power as more of a threat than those who attacked us on 9/11.  

[12th Doctor]

What exactly was spin? Do you dispute that 75% of Bush's commercials have been negative, or that 27% of Kerry's have been? The article did point out misstatements that Kerry has made, as well. What exactly was distorted?

I've seen many ads from both sides here, and it's been a long time since I saw a positive Bush ad. There's nothing inherently wrong with negative ads necessarily, but I don't think anyone would dispute that Bush's campaign ads have attacked Kerry a lot more than they have been positive towards his own accomplishments.

Who gives a sh**t about ads.  Kerry has yet to prove to me that he can say a single sentence without the words "George Bush".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The contrast of personalities between Bush and Kerry is extremely apparent.

Bush:  sows to the wind, reaps the whirlwind.  Can be totally summed up in a single example of eating his own words, "I want a vote, no matter what the whip count".

Kerry:  Loose cannon, unloyal, extremist and whiner at every turn - convinced by the real JFK to become a gung-ho democratic evangelist, then did a 180 and turned on his comrades-in-arms and became extremely anti-establishment.  Convinced by Clinton is the 90's that Saddam possessed WMD and is on record supporting action against Saddam, now accuses Bush lying about WMD and being too quick to go to war.  

A picture of Kerry pointing his finger best describes his view of personal responsibility:  "problems are caused by other people, not me".

[emergingDmajority1]

Bush is the dirtiest campaigner I've ever seen, he preaches Christian values but behind the scenes is a vengeful person and tireless mud-slinger. Just ask John McCain.

the fact that Kerry has been able to withstand this barrage and continue rising in the polls against Bush is a testament to his tenacity and the Democrats party unity. I'm really impressed with his campaign and the way Kerry has handled himself. He's hitting all the right notes.

[TeePee4Prez]

Bush is the dirtiest campaigner I've ever seen, he preaches Christian values but behind the scenes is a vengeful person and tireless mud-slinger. Just ask John McCain.

the fact that Kerry has been able to withstand this barrage and continue rising in the polls against Bush is a testament to his tenacity and the Democrats party unity. I'm really impressed with his campaign and the way Kerry has handled himself. He's hitting all the right notes.

Kerry has 5 months to take care of that nitwit.  He'll be full throttle after Labor Day and emerge.  Bush will not get a single state north of the Potomac or Ohio Rivers except Indiana.  Bush will be running scared in teh South after Edwards gets nominated.  Be patient, Bush will lose.

[Nym90]

Hehe, it's funny Jmfc, because I was thinking it was very apparent also, but in almost the opposite fashion.

I see Bush as a loose cannon, untrustworthy, in the hip pocket of the oil companies and big business, doesn't care about the average person, refuses to budge on his positions at all even in light of overwhelming evidence unless doing so will give him a political advantage.

I see Kerry as contemplative, willing to listen to both sides of an issue, able to be convinced to change his position as new and better evidence comes out (often cited by pscyhologists as a key to sanity, BTW, the ability to change one's mind when presented with reasonable and logical arguments, whereas the insane refuse to ever change their views no matter what). I trust Kerry to stand up for the common man, not the special interests. I feel that he is of great moral character, in stark contrast to Bush.

I suppose it all just depends on what side of the spectrum you come from, how you view these two men.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I feel that he is of great moral character, in stark contrast to Bush.

Aside from my personal belief in the defiinition of morality, Kerry has some major moral self-contradictions:

1) He himself concluded Saddam had WMD and urged Clinton to talke action.  Now he claims that Bush "deceived the American public".  If he now believes Saddam had no WMD, wouldn't the moral thing to say be "We were wrong, from the President on down to members of Congress, including myself"?

2) He "personally" believes abortion is immoral, yet thinks women should have the right to abortion....Isn't it true the *ONLY* reason to believe abortion is immoral is to believe it is the taking of a life?  And if Kerry believes abortion is the taking of a life, then how in the world does he believe women should have the right to take away the lives of their babies?

---

willing to listen to both sides of an issue, able to be convinced to change his position as new and better evidence comes out (often cited by pscyhologists as a key to sanity, BTW, the ability to change one's mind when presented with reasonable and logical arguments, whereas the insane refuse to ever change their views no matter what).

Friendly observation - It's funny you should make such a general comment when I was able to find fault with both Kerry and Bush, yet you posted only bad (late correction of typo) things about Bush and only good things about Kerry.

I'm able to see the flaws of Bush.  The question is: are you able to see the flaws of Kerry?  Can you honestly and logically say that Kerry has not made morally contradictory statements on WMD and abortion?

[Lunar]

Kerry is trying to introduce himself in his ads while Bush is trying to define Kerry early.  That is why Kerry's ads are mostly upbeat and Bush's are mostly negative.

What is unprecedent is that the opposition party sees the party in power as more of a threat than those who attacked us on 9/11.  

First off, you still have to explain how it is liberal spin.

Next, I find your "unprecedent" completely false.  Just because Kerry talks more about Bush than he does terrorism doesn't mean he thinks Bush is a bigger threat.  In fact, just today he gave a speech on how terrorists with nuclear weapons are the gravest threat to our society and explained what he would do to stop them.

Bush doesn't have to define Kerry, he could be focusing on his own accomplishments.  You must remember that elections with an incumbant are a referendum on the incumbant.  Kerry could easily be doing most of the negative ads if he wanted to.

And John Kerry HAS to compare himself to George Bush and explain what George Bush has done wrong on whatever issue he is speaking about.  How can he not against an incumbant?

I started skipping posts after they just started complaining about personality.

[Nym90]

Yes, Jmfc, I am bothered by these statements too. I'll admit that Kerry tends to take both sides of an issue sometimes, though I think all politicans tend to do that.

I never said Kerry was perfect, or my ideal candidate. I just see him as a lot better than Bush on these counts. A lot of his statements have been taken grossly out of context.

[emergingDmajority1]

Most people see that this war put Democrats between a rock and a hard place. The GOP wants to share the blame by bringing up past statements by Kerry and others. True, kerry saw the same faulty evidence, but the Bush regime planned and orchestrated this war, not Kerry.

This is Bush's war, it's all on him. You can't pass the buck.

[agcatter]

Would be a lot more concerned about what the Washington Post and NY Times had to say about the Bush campaign if this was 1968 and they were the only game in town.  They are not anymore so their liberal spin is not taken by the masses as the final word.  Just a couple of liberal rags with a transparent agenda to elect Senator flipflop.  It's not that they are exactly neutral and everyone understands that....

[zachman]

Would be a lot more concerned about what the Washington Post and NY Times had to say about the Bush campaign if this was 1968 and they were the only game in town.  They are not anymore so their liberal spin is not taken by the masses as the final word.  Just a couple of liberal rags with a transparent agenda to elect Senator flipflop.  It's not that they are exactly neutral and everyone understands that....

You honestly don't believe that the Bush campaign has been negative!

[agcatter]

Of course they have.  What galls me is that this article tries to leave the impression that the Kerry campaign has not engaged in negativity.  Good Lord, anyone, anyone at all who has followed Kerry since the months before New Hampshire knows he and his people have bashed Bush relentlessly.  Partisan Washington Post using a one sided news story to make partisan points.  Unfortunately, that's par for the course with the Washington Post as well as the NY Times.  

The total lack of any effort to even try to look objectively at the campaign is ridiculous.  Slanted as hell and any objective observor who has followed the campaign knows it.

[Nym90]

Well, there was this...

Kerry, too, has made his own misleading statements and exaggerations. For example, he said in a speech last week about Iraq: "They have gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team." That is not true. There are about 25,000 allied troops from several nations, particularly Britain, in Iraq. Likewise, Kerry said several times last week that Bush has spent $80 million on negative and misleading ads -- a significant overstatement. Kerry also suggested several times last week that Bush opposed increasing spending on several homeland defense programs; in fact, Bush has proposed big increases in homeland security but opposed some Democratic attempts to increase spending even more in some areas. Kerry's rhetoric at rallies is also often much harsher and more personal than Bush's.

[agcatter]

Again, I have no problem with Dana whatshisname reporting the negativity of the Bush campaign, but to act like Bush has been anymore negative than the Kerry people is absurd.

[Nym90]

Do you dispute the 75% negative for Bush and 27% figures for Kerry that they cited? According to the article, both campaigns agreed that those figures were accurate.

Now, those were only counting commercials from the candidates, it's true, but the article clearly pointed that out.

[agcatter]

Yes I do because the article fails to point out that Kerry was running ads for three months in primary states before the NH Primary almost every one bashing Bush.

Aside from that, the CLEAR implication of the article was that Bush had gone negative and Kerry has essentially not.  Kerry hasn't had a campaign event yet covered by the press that didn't bash Bush and bash him hard on every conceivable issue.  This includes the Memorial Day event where he apparently couldn't help himself.

The article is harmless however since everyone knows the source is the Washington Post.  Voters aren't stupid.  They are well aware of where the NY Times and Washington Post are coming from.  That's the problem the liberal outlets have.  They've gone so over the top on their constant campaigns against Bush that they've lost the bulk of their credibility. No one thinks they are in the least objective anymore.  

[Smash255]

Kerry is trying to introduce himself in his ads while Bush is trying to define Kerry early.  That is why Kerry's ads are mostly upbeat and Bush's are mostly negative.

What is unprecedent is that the opposition party sees the party in power as more of a threat than those who attacked us on 9/11.  

Umm it was Bush that took the war AWAY from those that attacked us to those that DID NOT.  It was Bush who befriends a terrorist nation like Saudi Arabia who according to the Hoint Intelligence Committee's report had highly involved indviduals in the Saudi Givt & Royal Family (information which Bush forced black outs on before it went public)

[agcatter]

Come on.  You trying to say we any cozier with the Saudis than we were under Clinton.  I don't remember the Clinton administration doing a damned thing to get Saudi Arabia to do anything about their support for terrorists.  If they did, please refresh my memory.

[ilikeverin]

The article is harmless however since everyone knows the source is the Washington Post.  Voters aren't stupid.  They are well aware of where the NY Times and Washington Post are coming from.  That's the problem the liberal outlets have.  They've gone so over the top on their constant campaigns against Bush that they've lost the bulk of their credibility. No one thinks they are in the least objective anymore.  

You could say the same for Fox News.

Anyway, Bush has been airing ads about Kerry here for months, most of which are negative.  The fact is, Bush has had more negative ads than Kerry.