Bush campaign accents the negative: Scholars say volume of attacks is unprecedented

[Kilmer17]

And on the other side we have a guy who's only campaign theme thus far as been "I'm not like Bush, except when I am".

[@DCGoldPants]

the key part is "I'm not Bush"

Why give him a second chance?....or is it that we're so afraid of the other guy......that's why he gets his second chance?

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

the key part is "I'm not Bush"

Why give him a second chance?....or is it that we're so afraid of the other guy......that's why he gets his second chance?

bingo

if it wasn't kerry i might vote different

and my family is from mass

[@DCGoldPants]

I hear you. If it were McCain v Kerry. That would be an easy choice.

But its not. I see Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

I hear you. If it were McCain v Kerry. That would be an easy choice.

But its not. I see Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

i don't because I have seen what he has done to my fathers state, and it isn't pretty

[@DCGoldPants]

understood.

I still think that Bush does not deserve a 2nd chance.

Its unfortunate that you can't get excited for a guy............that its just voting for the guy who you think is not as bad as the other.

so............Kerry gets my vote in a state that Dems usually win. Its still for my state of mind though.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Rock-Bufford

understood.

I still think that Bush does not deserve a 2nd chance.

i think it still to early, lets see what happens the next couple of months, i think that is what the most of america is waiting for anyway

[@DCGoldPants]

yep.

To be Continued...........

[chomerics]

Originally posted by jbooma

i don't because I have seen what he has done to my fathers state, and it isn't pretty

So Booma, living in Mass myself, I'm curious to know what he's done to ruin my state?

So tell me what's not pretty?

[Glenn X]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114578,00.html

Unprecedented Negativity From Bush?

The Washington Post has reported that the Bush re-election campaign is using -- "unprecedented negativity" against John Kerry. The Post says Kerry has so far aired only 13,300 negative ads in major media markets, while Bush-Cheney has aired more than 49,000.

But the Post is only counting ads from the period since March 4, when Bush-Cheney 04 began its ad campaign. The Post fails to note the more than 15,300 negative ads that Kerry ran during the primary season, which means Kerry ran nearly 29,000 negative ads -- more than twice as many as the Post reported.

[Kilmer17]

They also fail to count the ads by Dem support groups like MoveOn.org. They are handling the attack portion of Kerry's ad campaign.

[Glenn X]

Indeed. George Soros has only pumped about a gajillion bucks into MoveOn.org to create anti-Bush ads till the cows come home.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Glenn X

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114578,00.html

Unprecedented Negativity From Bush?

The Washington Post has reported that the Bush re-election campaign is using -- "unprecedented negativity" against John Kerry. The Post says Kerry has so far aired only 13,300 negative ads in major media markets, while Bush-Cheney has aired more than 49,000.

But the Post is only counting ads from the period since March 4, when Bush-Cheney 04 began its ad campaign. The Post fails to note the more than 15,300 negative ads that Kerry ran during the primary season, which means Kerry ran nearly 29,000 negative ads -- more than twice as many as the Post reported.

#1: The White House has already pointed this out, and there's been a (expert, well-reasoned, definitive) response to their response. (By me.)

The Washington Post's Misstatement 10 (Kerry Negative Ads)

The Washington Post's Misstatement On Kerry Negative Ads. "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."

Bush's response:

From last September through March 4th, John Kerry spent $7.9 million on media buys and during that time 80% ($6.3 million) of those ad dollars funded negative attacks against the President. These negative spots ran more than 15,327 times. During that time John Kerry ran 29 different ads, 16 (55%) of which directly attacked the President and/or his policies.

Since March 4th, Kerry has spent $61.1 million on media buys and during that time 26% ($15.9 million) of those ad dollars have attacked the President. Kerry's negative spots have aired more than 13,336 times. Since the close of the primary season, John Kerry has released 10 ads and 5 (50%) have been negative.

In total, John Kerry has spent more than $69 million on media buys since last September. Of that $69 million, 41% ($28.3 million) of those ad dollars funded an attack on the President or his policies. Kerry's negative spots have aired more than 28,663 times over the past eight months. Since September, John Kerry has run 39 different ads, 21 (54%) of which have directly attacked the President and/or his policies.

Bush has chosen to break down the number as dollars, rather than the number of ads.

Let's be equal, and assume that both sources had both sets of numbers, and chose the ones that looked best for their side.

Bush's number don't add up.

If you total the numbers in the first two paragraphs, then you get a "total negative dollars" of 22.2, not the 28.3 used in the 'response'. (Which works out to a percentage of 32%).

Perhaps the difference is due to the phrase "an attack on the President or his policies".

Curious, I wonder why Bush didn't even attempt to refute the statement that 75% of his advertising so far had been attack ads? I guess they must've forgot that part.

Didn't mention it at all. Even though Bush negative campaign ads were the entire point of the article they were 'refuting'.

And wouldn't you know, between the White House and Fox, the number of negative ads run pre-September has retoractively grown some more, from 13K to 15K.

I guess the Fox number is more "fair and ballanced" than the one put out by the Bush campaign's web site.

[Larry]

Yeah, good thing the GOP is above all that using soft money through "outside" organizations to do negative campaigning.

Just FWIW, I've only seen four campaign ads on TV.

One is from Bush. It's the one showing the list of "vanishing weapons" Kerry (and Cheney, but who's counting) voted against.

One is from Kerry. It's a bunch of folks, including his wife, talking about what a great guy he is.

The other two are all about what a wonderfull thing the new medicaire (except, it's really insurance companies, but we don't mention that) drug benefit (that you pay for, but we don't mention that, either). One if paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce (I wonder who they're supporting in the election). The other is paid for by the Social Security Administration. (But, I'm certain our government wouldn't be spending tax dollars advertising an insurance package that private companies are making money on, merely because they're trying to make an incumbent political candidate who's up for re-election look good, or anything.)

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Larry

Yeah, good thing the GOP is above all that using soft money through "outside" organizations to do negative campaigning.

Just FWIW, I've only seen four campaign ads on TV.

One is from Bush. It's the one showing the list of "vanishing weapons" Kerry (and Cheney, but who's counting) voted against.

One is from Kerry. It's a bunch of folks, including his wife, talking about what a great guy he is.

The other two are all about what a wonderfull thing the new medicaire (except, it's really insurance companies, but we don't mention that) drug benefit (that you pay for, but we don't mention that, either). One if paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce (I wonder who they're supporting in the election). The other is paid for by the Social Security Administration. (But, I'm certain our government wouldn't be spending tax dollars advertising an insurance package that private companies are making money on, merely because they're trying to make an incumbent political candidate who's up for re-election look good, or anything.)

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Great bunch of posts Larry!!! Good facts and research!!!

[Larry]

Originally posted by chomerics

Great bunch of posts Larry!!! Good facts and research!!!

What research? Every piece of information I've given that refutes Bush's 'response' came from the 'response', itself.

If you're going to spin numbers, you should at least see if the numbers, after spinning, add up.