My, my. And the campaign against President Bush by the press? Is that a model of positivity?

Posted by: Limpet at June 1, 2004 11:01 AM

That is typical liberal whining. When Kerry quotes Bush out of context or Moore blatanly makes stuff up it is ok because the characterization is true, even if the facts are not. But if Bush uses Kerry’s own statements and figures to highlight Kerry’s gaping policy holes, then Bush is “negative”.

Posted by: Brian at June 1, 2004 11:18 AM

What makes this “ferocious Bush assault” an “unprecedented” thing is that it is happening in the spring, not in the fall. But that is because the Democrats geared up for early candidate selection and early campaigning.

Plus, Kerry is such a “nuanced” fence-sitter that he makes it easy.

MG

Posted by: MG at June 1, 2004 11:42 AM

Ah yes, the Washington Post exposing the mean-spirited “Bush Machine”, which seems especially meanspirited after the bi-partisan love-fest that was the Democratic Primary. And they wonder why their readership continues to decline? Whining liberal/progressive/faux-moderate B.S.

Posted by: TL at June 1, 2004 12:33 PM

interesting.
it appears that washpo is saying that a platform is negative when it is identified by the bush campaign as not in alignment with theirs.

that is, if kerry had those things as part of his platform (raise income and sales tax to offset the deficit, refocus the war on terror, etc.), would bush still be exhibiting unprecendented negativity by stating kerry’s position?

Posted by: wafflestomper at June 1, 2004 01:53 PM

Despite all the cries of “unprecedented negativity” and “questioning his partiotism”, all anti-Kerry statements I’ve heard made by the Bush machine or its surrogates seem focused on Kerry’s policies, positions, statements or claims. Contrast this, if you will, with the words “failure”, “liar”, and others that are commonly used by Kerry and his surrogates to attack Bush personally. And yet, where are the articles on this “unprecedented negativity”?

I can’t help but think I can’t be the only one noticing this double standars in coverage.

Posted by: submandave at June 1, 2004 01:55 PM

i’m getting weighed down in trying to figure out if the bush campaign is true or false when saying that kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001 when apparently kerry continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications

so he modified the changes that he continues to support?

is he allowed to do that?

Posted by: wafflestomper at June 1, 2004 01:59 PM

I’ve been alive plent long enough to know that the alleged “Bush Negativity” is actually about the tamest stuff I’ve seen in a long time.

Posted by: eric at June 1, 2004 03:15 PM

When outlining winning campaign strategies, wasn’t it Newt Gingrich who said, “Go negative early. Stay negative always.”?

Negative ads are a well-worn tactic used by everyone. Why? Because the technique is highly effective of course. The dems use’em too (witness the attacks on Howard Dean before his fall from grace.) But it’s those Republicans (darn them), who “go negative” with the greatest panache.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at June 1, 2004 05:23 PM

The Tory’s in the UK believed that the ‘Negative’ campaign was the way to go in 1997 and were whitewashed by Labour.

Its generally the tactics of an arrogant or scared party and relies on the gullability of the swingng few to tip a close call.

Unfortunately with the lack of a strong oposition these tactics may by Bush’s best policy, not very pretty but can be effective.

Posted by: symptomless at June 2, 2004 08:01 AM