The Bush Family History of Benefitting from Smear Ads

Two Political Ads Share More Than Fame and Controversy

Published on September 7, 2004 By blogic In Politics

Two Political Ads Share More Than Fame and Controversy

Separated by 16 years, two of the most famous and controversial TV ads in presidential campaign history share a remarkable set of traits. Both were launched by nominally independent groups, not by the candidates themselves. Both aired in just a few small markets, gaining widespread exposure only through news media coverage. Both were denounced as inaccurate and unfair.

And both the "Willie Horton" spot of 1988 and the 2004 campaign's initial commercial by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth slammed a Democrat from Massachusetts and helped a Republican candidate named George Bush.

In both the Horton and Swift boat cases, the respective Bush campaigns disclaimed responsibility, saying the ads were the work of unaffiliated groups. But in both instances, news media reports subsequently exposed ties between the official campaigns and the independent groups.

...And neither of the Bush campaigns specifically repudiated the controversial spots...

The angry speakers of the Republican Convention contorted to avoid mentioning Dubya Bush's dismal record during the last year, and Osama Bin Laden was no more present in their words than in our jails.

At least the Bush campaign is successful at one thing: spreading nasty lies about its opponent.

Comments (Page 1)

Daiwa

on Sep 07, 2004

And your point would be?

It boggles the mind to see how blind the left is to what Kerry & his "unaffiliated supporters" have been doing for the past year. This is getting really old, and it's not working.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ShoZan

on Sep 07, 2004

Smear tactics are on both sides, except the left likes to make it a double standard issue, heck I hear the left throwing conniption fits when asked over their political record, stating that you should not question someone who gave this and this to the country, since when should a person not question another, especially when it comes to a political record that is PUBLIC knowledge.

As for smear tactics being used by both sides you can thank the campaigners that come out every four years, they use tactics to win, and don't even care if it is smear or not, just that it works, James Carville was a good example, so are others.

At least the Bush campaign is successful at one thing: spreading nasty lies about its opponent.

Don't underestimate Kerry's side if you do you do an insult and injury to their effectiveness, after all he attacks free speech but does not answer the questions posed by the SECOND AD by the Swift Vets, only seems to be denouncing and calling the first ad to be pulled off the air...Free Speech baby, if Mike Moore gets to do his stuff on the left, should not the Swift Vets be able to do their stuff on the right, what is up with this double standard.

I thought the first ad was W...Wrong and F...F'ed Up, but than those guys do and have earned their freedom of speech, but the second ad is dead on, and I have yet to hear Kerry answer or guarantee he wouldn't betray soldiers again.

Take a step back from your excessive party spirit and look into both sides before just blasting one side, that's all I ask for.

Bungy32

on Sep 07, 2004

Except, well, his "unaffiliated supporters" weren't supporting him until he emerged as front runner from the primaries. That doesn't mean he doesn't benefit from them now, of course. But there is a significant difference between, say, "MoveOn.org" and "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth." One has been committed for a while to defeating Bush and getting the country to "move on" from his policies. When Kerry emerged from the primaries as the most likely candidate to do that, they began doing advocacy work for him. "SBVftT," on the other hand, emerged only relatively recently to specificaly and ONLY challenge Kerry's candidacy. The worst ad so far in MoveOn's history was a private entry into a grass roots web contest that they quickly disqualified, removing it from their web site (Ironic that for the longest time the only place you could see the Hitler analogy ad was on the GOP web site -- who really benefitted from keeping THAT controversy going?). "SBVftT," on the other hand, makes its own ads with the input of a Bush staff lawyer and campaign adviser. Are YOU blind to these significant differences? Or is it just myopically convenient to dismiss the significant and relevant observations of the Left?

Sorry my cheerful Daiwa, but we're not nearly as blind as you think.

ShoZan

on Sep 07, 2004

Don't tell me Six Degrees of Seperation is viable proof to prove that someone is connected to something, if so we can play that all day long with all sorts of things on both sides.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 07, 2004

smear tactics are as old as politics. While I don't like the Bush administration, they're no more (or less) dirty than the rest of 'em

messybuu

on Sep 07, 2004

To me, Swift Boat seems as pro-Busy/anti-Kerry as MoveOn.org seems pro-Kerry/anti-Bush. Of course, one could argue (unsuccessfully) that Swift Boat would still making ads if Kerry wasn't running.

Aren't there real reasons for disliking Bush? Why not focus on those instead of pretending that Kerry doesn't benefit from the negative ads of MoveOn.org and isn't in any way connected to them.

ggibas

on Sep 07, 2004

Oh yeah, its so terrible the Swift Boat vets got funded by these "rich republican donors" , like their largest single donor Perry who gave $100,000. It's a mockery of campaign finance! Smear tactics! Republican Attack Machine!

But George Soros giving $15 million dollars to MoveOn.Org that launched ads comparing Bush to Hitler, and Soros who himself said "Bush reminded him of the Germans", that's okay, it's his free speech!

Lousy hipocrites.

ggibas

on Sep 07, 2004

Oh yeah, and the Horton ad was made by an independent group, not endorsed by the 88 Bush campaign, and it was accurate. The Charge it made against Dukakis was factual and true.

Stop acting like its not fair to point out the shortcomings or bad parts about a candidate. As long as the attacks are true - which they are in the Horton case - its not a bad thing. People should know who their president is.

Daiwa

on Sep 07, 2004

Except, well, his "unaffiliated supporters" weren't supporting him until he emerged as front runner from the primaries.

Correct. They could give a rip who their candidate is/was. But to suggest that that matters is silly. The left has known who the Republican candidate was going to be for 3 and a half years, for cryin' out loud. To suggest that Anybody-but-Bush is somehow more noble than Not-Kerry is a crock.

"SBVftT," on the other hand, emerged only relatively recently to specificaly and ONLY challenge Kerry's candidacy.

When else, exactly, and why else, would they do that? You expected them to bother before he became the candidate?

When Kerry emerged from the primaries as the most likely candidate to do that, they began doing advocacy work for him.

So MoveOn is NOT specifically and only challenging Bush's candidacy? Last I checked, that was illegal.

"SBVftT," on the other hand, makes its own ads with the input of a Bush staff lawyer and campaign adviser.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The left's 527's have attorneys from Kerry's campaign advising them in exactly the same way, they just haven't had the nads to resign when identified. Advising 527's is perfectly legal, BTW, even a campaign staff lawyer, so they don't have to resign. The left just screams bloody murder and calls for the head of someone who dares do what they do. To say they're being hypocritical is being kind.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bungy32

on Sep 08, 2004

Thank-you, Daiwa. You have effectively demonstrated that you disagree with the differences I have suggested between "MoveOn" and "SBVftT" as organizations. In doing so, I think you implicitly grant that liberals (at least this liberal) have not been blind to the connection between Kerry and "unaffiliated groups" (as you originally asserted) but, rather, see that connection as different from Bush's connection to a group like "SBVftT." You do not see it as different and that is our primary point of disagreement (on this point, at least). I primarily map that as a difference of degree rather than kind, but a significant degree nonetheless. But at least I see it and you, apparently, see that I see it. This is probably as close as you are likely to come to conceding a point, so thank-you.

The connection between Bush and "SBVftT" has been regularly dismissed by Bush supporters in multiple venues as a game of "six degrees of separation," most recently by ShoZan above. Except that, as Jon Stewart so effectively and humorously demonstrated on The Daily Show, that separation is rarely more than two degrees and often less than 1. So....drink up, fellas!

So then if a Kevin Bacon drinking game won't help your case, why not turn the the playground tried and true tactic of "I know you are but what am I?" Unfortunately, there is also a difference between the advising lawyers connections. (Again, this may be difference in degree rather than kind, but significant nonetheless). Ginsberg was a Bush campaign lawyer who helped "SBVftT" not only as an organization but specifically with the advertisement in question. Kerry doesn't have lawyers assisting MoveOn with their advertisements (although the DNC does have advising lawyers who consult for MoveOn). Kerry does have a lawyer, Robert Bauer, who consults for his campaign and also America Coming Together. Yes, ACT has been critical of the President, but they have yet to produce advertisements that have raised any serious concerns or outcries from the President's campaign.

The other difference worth mentioning I will quote from the LA Times: "In both cases, the candidates are the reason the [527] groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false."

You say: "The left has known who the Republican candidate was going to be for 3 and a half years, for cryin' out loud. To suggest that Anybody-but-Bush is somehow more noble than Not-Kerry is a crock."

Your failure to recognize the difference here is truly amazing, although "noble" is your word, not mine. Let me see if I can clue you into the difference. Bush is the incumbent. In a re-election campaign that gives him both advantages and disadvantages. While Bush was busy using his incumbency in the last few years to build an unprecedented campaign war chest, progressive 527s were gearing up to counter that financial advantage (among others). Now, instead of following McCain's lead and requests from both sides of the political fence to condemn a reprehensible ad, Bush instead calls for mid-campaign censure of all of the 527s. Given the fundrasing differentials between the 527 groups on the left and right (by some estimates $145M to $9M), now Bush wants to curb their affect. So let me get this straight: You let (possibly instruct) your 527 group make an ad that significantly bears false witness against the other guy and then you use that to argue that all 527 groups should go (but don't disavow the false witnessing in the process). Riiiight....that doesn't seem disingenuous in the least (snicker).

Getting rid of the 527s mid-election (much like passing a the Federal Marriage Ammendment Act anytime soon) is a pipe dream. No body, including President Bush (who I KNOW is not stupid, thereby shattering another myth about liberal opinions), thinks that is possible. The FMA keeps some conservatives happy and, while it may alienate some moderates in the GOP, it is doubtful they will shift their support for the President in this election. Similarly, the 527 bash seems like taking the high moral ground, but it isn't. Not when the best you can come up with is "you do it too!"

MoveOn has been dedicated to a (legal!) regime change in the US from its inception. Contrary to popular belief, that is not illegal. If it were, more than a few Right wing groups would have been imprisoned in the Clinton years. The GOP controls the House, the Senate (arguably), the Exectuive branch, the majority of governors, and (arguably) the Supreme Court. The GOP is in power. The GOP is in power because the majority of US voting citizens (with one exception) put them there, directly or indirectly. Gloat about that -- you get to. But don't gloat too much, because the advantage is not that great nor is there assurance that it will last much longer. And in the meantime, the left gets to enjoy the time-honored tradition of campaigning on the very visible flaws of the incumbent and the "guys in charge." Given how relatively recently (just a decade or so ago) the shoe was on the other foot, I'd think the GOP (and their advocates) could remember that and not be so shocked at the effectiveness of the anti-Bush rhetoric. But then, maybe that's why they are willing to say anything to keep attention off of their guys and their record.

messybuu

on Sep 08, 2004

The connection between Bush and "SBVftT" has been regularly dismissed by Bush supporters in multiple venues as a game of "six degrees of separation," most recently by ShoZan above. Except that, as Jon Stewart so effectively and humorously demonstrated on The Daily Show, that separation is rarely more than two degrees and often less than 1. So....drink up, fellas!

Since when is the Daily Show known for objectivity and accuracy?

So then if a Kevin Bacon drinking game won't help your case, why not turn the the playground tried and true tactic of "I know you are but what am I?" Unfortunately, there is also a difference between the advising lawyers connections. (Again, this may be difference in degree rather than kind, but significant nonetheless). Ginsberg was a Bush campaign lawyer who helped "SBVftT" not only as an organization but specifically with the advertisement in question. Kerry doesn't have lawyers assisting MoveOn with their advertisements (although the DNC does have advising lawyers who consult for MoveOn). Kerry does have a lawyer, Robert Bauer, who consults for his campaign and also America Coming Together. Yes, ACT has been critical of the President, but they have yet to produce advertisements that have raised any serious concerns or outcries from the President's campaign.

How does Bush end up worse for having a lawyer on his campaign resign when found to be working with a negative 527 group while Kerry still has lawyers from his campaign assisting negative 527 groups?

The other difference worth mentioning I will quote from the LA Times: "In both cases, the candidates are the reason the [527] groups are in business. There is an important difference, though, between the side campaign being run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign is nasty, personal and false."

So, because somebody said that, and because you agree with it, that makes it true?

Your failure to recognize the difference here is truly amazing, although "noble" is your word, not mine. Let me see if I can clue you into the difference. Bush is the incumbent. In a re-election campaign that gives him both advantages and disadvantages. While Bush was busy using his incumbency in the last few years to build an unprecedented campaign war chest, progressive 527s were gearing up to counter that financial advantage (among others). Now, instead of following McCain's lead and requests from both sides of the political fence to condemn a reprehensible ad, Bush instead calls for mid-campaign censure of all of the 527s. Given the fundrasing differentials between the 527 groups on the left and right (by some estimates $145M to $9M), now Bush wants to curb their affect. So let me get this straight: You let (possibly instruct) your 527 group make an ad that significantly bears false witness against the other guy and then you use that to argue that all 527 groups should go (but don't disavow the false witnessing in the process). Riiiight....that doesn't seem disingenuous in the least (snicker).

So, Bush controls what ads the Swift Boat Veterans create? Does that mean Kerry controls the ads MoveOn.org makes as well? If so, then why should anybody believe him when he condemns the MoveOn.org ad?

ShoZan

on Sep 08, 2004

Good point that should be answered.

Bungy32

on Sep 08, 2004

"Since when is the Daily Show known for objectivity and accuracy?"

It isn't, necessarily. But in this particular case, it isn't bending the facts for a funny. It is pointing out, quite accurately, that the links are considerably smaller than 6 degrees, thereby responding to an unsupported dismissal of the connections between "SBVftT" being slight or links on a long chain. It may be a fake news program, but that doesn't mean they make up (all) of the news.

"How does Bush end up worse for having a lawyer on his campaign resign when found to be working with a negative 527 group while Kerry still has lawyers from his campaign assisting negative 527 groups?"

The difference is that lawyers directly working with Kerry have not been shown to have consulted on a particular ACT ad. Ginsberg consulted about the specific ad in question. And that ad has been highly controversial for the serious factual flaws in it.

"So, Bush controls what ads the Swift Boat Veterans create? Does that mean Kerry controls the ads MoveOn.org makes as well? If so, then why should anybody believe him when he condemns the MoveOn.org ad?"

The first question does not lead to the second question, no. The point is that Kerry has distanced himself and even disavowed some pro-Kerry (anti-Bush) 527 ads. If you are cynical, yes that could be disingenuous. But I find that less reprehensible than refusing to disavow an ad but instead trying to wipe the slate of all 527 (especially when you know that isn't going to happen).

"So, because somebody said that, and because you agree with it, that makes it true?"

Well, yeah, I guess I could be guilty of mirroring and matching the tactics of the Right on this one. But if you want a "neutral" analysis (if that is even possible), check out factcheck.org's analysis of the "SBVftT" ads and compare it to their analysis of MoveOn (or more apropos for Kerry, ACT) ads and youll see that they find factual flaws in the "SBVftT" ads while in the MoveOn ads they identify tactics that skew but don't falsify facts. This is a non-partisan site that has been pretty thorough at equally challenging the claims in stump speeches from both sides. So yeah, I stand by what the LA Times said, although I checked other sources as well.

messybuu

on Sep 08, 2004

Well, yeah, I guess I could be guilty of mirroring and matching the tactics of the Right on this one.

Nice jab to the right. There's really no point in discussing anything with you, is there?

messybuu

on Sep 08, 2004

By the way, I'll take a number from the honest MoveOn.org anti-Bush ads and quote Kerry: "I... hate... Jews..." I'm not falsifying anything, so there's nothing wrong with it.

Remember everybody. Kerry hates Jews. He said so himself: "I... hate... Jews..." - John Kerry

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!