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 2)

Daiwa

on Sep 08, 2004

Messy -

Best exposition of the tactics of the left I have seen to date. Absolutely dead on, straight out of Mikey Moore's scripting guide.

10 out of 10 (maybe eliven, if you use the Spinal Tap scale). I hereby nominate that post for the WBA (World Blogging Association) Post of the Year.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bungy32

on Sep 08, 2004

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

Yeah, we're pretty much polarized on this topic, aren't we? Messy Blau goes straight to my "jab," ignoring everything else I've said as well as his/her own jabs that I was responding to. And I slip into the fallacy of "tu quoque" ("you also") in pointing that out.

Daiwa essentializes me by negative association with Michael Moore, someone many of you have decided (group think!) is simply and only bad -- so bad that you can dismiss someone by saying he is just like Moore. And I resist the temptation (but not really) to essentialize Daiwa by comparison to someone like oh let's say Rush Limbaugh. It's okay. Daiwa's probably no more insulted by that comparison than I am being compared to Moore. Of course, he is no more like Limbaugh than I am like Moore, but the dismissive comparison spares us the onerous task of debating/discussing with others who disagree. *Yawn* It's just so much easier for both sides to read and spout the talking points, don't you think?

And so, in our microcosmic way, we've demonstrated why there are so many smear ads on TV today. We can't really debate substantive issues any more, can we? We can only throw short bursts of vitriol at each other and berate the other side for ruining the substance of debate. Messy Blau wonders if there is any point in discussing anything with me. I wonder the same thing about Messy. The point could be to persuade the lurking undecideds, I suppose. Or maybe testing our arguments (including jabs) against each other, searching for the weakness in others' positions -- and secretly (but oh no, never admit weakness) in our own. Maybe it is to understand how the other side thinks, how they can possibly support who they do or the policies that they do. Of course, the only way to see that thinking in action is to stir up the hornets nests of their minds -- "jabbing" it with a stick, so to speak, and enduring the whizzing stingers that follow.

But if the point is to find resolution, to understand each other, to reach compromise, to find common ground or maybe even consensus...yeah, Messy, it seems pretty pointless. Which means that come November some half of us (maybe more) are going to be seriously pissed off. Many feel that the biggest threat to this country right now is our vulnerability to terrorism. A country divided against itself is a vulnerable country. It isn't simply a matter of getting rid of the dissentors -- there's too many of you/us. And personally, I think it isn't a matter of giving up on the discussion, no matter how heated or pointless it seems.

Daiwa

on Sep 08, 2004

Bungy32 -

Sorry to disappoint, but my reply had nothing to do with you.

I was giving Messy props for having captured the essence of the left's tactics in a concise, tight example.

But as long as we're on the subject -

I suppose because Kerry's lawyers haven't admitted advising on a specific ad, they haven't? Is that what you're saying? SInce lawyer/client communications are privileged, where did your information come from that Ginsberg consulted on a specific ad, or that Kerry's haven't? Did Ginsberg divulge that he had done so? And, for that matter, if they're not advising on specific ads, what else would they be advising on?

I respect your right to differing opinions and to express them here, Bungy32. And the "smear ads" are a big reason we are having this discussion at all. That they have stimulated discussion in forums like this is a good thing, whichever side of the divide one comes down on. I hope you have some specific info to contribute in reply.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Sep 09, 2004

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?"

what's different--and ginsberg wouldnt have resigned if this wasnt the case--is this: lawyers on the kerry side are operating openly; ginsberg wasnt--in fact, the campaign repeatedly denied there was any overlap. if theyd been truthful in the first place, there wouldnt have been a problem. to the best of my understanding, the number of ads involved isnt relevant.

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!