Should John Kerry start running negative ads?

[tom_paine]

Ok, I know where I stand. What my vote is.

YESYESYESFORTHELOVEOFGODYESSTARTYESTERDAYGO!GO!GO!

My rationale: They are unafraid to say ANYTHING about us, half-truths or outright falsities mean nothing to them. They have a Lie-Laundry that is unparalleled in human history to rewrite history or blow vast clouds of confusing, conflicting chaff in the air.

Because of that very large stick they have constructed to whomp us with, the Democratic Leadership has over the years shrunk like a turtle in it's shell from the repeated 24/7 orchestarted media floggings.

Of course, with the Goebbels v2.0 trumpets poised to blast at anything, anytime, if the 'Pugs are actually caught doing something, all they need to do is turn up the volume and scream "persecution by Liberal Media" and it goes away...

But I am going off-topic here. The whole issue is that it seems as if, in general and certainly on TV, which like it or not is THE BATTLEGROUND FOR SHIFTING OPINION, the Kerry campaign refuses to fight back! It's not so terribly negative if you are simply running his own words such as the "elite, my base" comment. And damn it, we need to HIT BACK and HARD! Never have we had so much AMMO! NEVER in my life have we been so silent on so much...

I mean, does Skull & Bones have plants in the Kerry Campaign, the DLC??? Are they saying, "No John, I think of we do exactly what Gore did in 2000 (with some minor verbal upgrades but no significant change in media strategy) we'll be OK???"

I am confused and pissed as hell at this! Now that the media is PRAVDA TV ADS BECOME DOUBLY IMPORTANT!

</rant off>

Whew! So you know where I stand. But this is a question that needs to be asked by someone and NOW!

Please keep this KICKED if you think it's an important question. I'd like to see a DU consensus, which is why I tried my hardest to put a positive spin on the choice I disagree with.

DUer's, go to it!

:kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem:

[trumad]

1. No...

He's kicking ass without having to run them... Let Bush run the Negs for now... In MHOP it's hurting the Bush team.

[tom_paine]

4. You think that outweighs the need to get out what Pravda has suppressed

Not to mention countering the stiff offense (as usual) that Goebbels v2.0 puts up with co-ordinated attacks, fabrications, or blowing up extremely minor issues (or themselves fabricated by abused of the system, like that archive guy who didn't IMMEDIATELY REPORT THIS!

NOT to MENTION the propaganda "spin points" their network has already cemented (AGAIN) as "conevtional wisdom about Kerry (flipflopperflipflopperflopiityflipfloopityflopflipflopperflipflopper)!

That counts for NOTHING? Bullshit, I say. I've already had too many people repeat it to me to think it's had no effect.

You were military. Think militarily. We have already been pushed so far across the field we are now refighting WWII, IMHO (with the Busheviks as the Kinder and Gentler Nazis).

Is it wise to pursue an identical startegy to the one in 2000 which exposed all your weaknesses? To run with almost identical caution (especially on TV), to cede EVERYTHING the Busheviks have said without even a counter strike.

Is that smart strategy?

What say you, trumad?

The only way I think I would approve of this strategy if he recoils and unleashes in Sept-Oct. Even then, what about the series of October Surprise the Bushies have planned to take up the media cycles? This is a lull between them, when Kerry could be scoring effectively.

Anyway, have I caused you to reconsider, sir?

[trumad]

9. .

[tom_paine]

10. ha ha very effing funny!

Perhaps an answer, smarty?

[trumad]

Check your inbox....

I thought I'd keep my answer private so I don't embarrass your Bolshevik loving ass..;-)

[LiberalPersona]

2. No

He doesn't need to. This election is already leaning far in Kerry's favor, and doing that might cast a slightly negative light on him.

[trotsky]

3. Argh, it's tough.

Poll after poll shows that people hate negative campaigning.

But survey after survey shows that it is EXTREMELY effective.

Could the Kerry campaign be the one that turns it all around? Stays positive throughout, and shines while all Bush can do is sling mud?

I'd like to think it could work (it's worked pretty well so far) but I just don't trust the American voters to see through the dirty tricks of the Bush campaign. We're going to see attacks unparalleled in the history of American politics from August through October. They're desperate to win.

[tom_paine]

5. Tried in '80. Tried in '88. Tried in '00. Any success there?

:silly: :silly: :crazy: :silly: :crazy:

[trotsky]

17. I see your point. But what about '92 and '96?

Clinton kept his campaigns pretty positive, and it worked - well - for him.

[tom_paine]

22. But he and Carville did more than their share of fighting back and

if I recall, they did more than a few negative ads.

Considering the Bush Campiagn is 100% negative ads, aren't we justified in running a few?

[NicRic]

6. No !

At least not yet ! Even though Iam bias ,being a strong Kerry supporter , to me it appears that bush is acting very unpresidential with his negative remarks against Kerry ,who no one can deny is a war hero,that admitted the war was wrong ! It shows he is a deep thinker ,unlike bush ,who is a non thinker ! Now later on as it gets closer to the election and the repugs get more and more desperate ,I say anythnig goes ,as long as its done in the name of truth, unlike the made up lies of the rightwing ! So far Kerry's responding to every negative the bushes put out ,is working well and the American people will appreciate Kerry showing more class then the squatter in the White House !

[tom_paine]

8. Your post does not make sense. Try again. Sorry.

[trumad]

19. Here let me try for the guy...

At least not yet ! Even though Iam bias ,being a strong Kerry supporter , to me it appears that Bushevik is acting very unpresidential with his Goebbels type negative remarks against Kerry ,who no one can deny is a war hero,that admitted the war was wrong ! It shows he is a deep thinker ,unlike Bushevik ,who is a non thinker ! Now later on as it gets closer to the election and the Nazi's get more and more desperate ,I say anythnig goes ,as long as its done in the name of truth, unlike the made up lies of the Goebbel type Busheviks ! So far Kerry's responding to every propaganda the Busheviks put out ,is working well and the American people will appreciate Kerry showing more class then the Nazi Busheviks in the White House !

[tom_paine]

57. You're on a roll, guy!

:toast:

I guess I make a good straight man for you.

Always pictured myself as Curly, not Larry or Moe...

"Spead out! Oh, a wiseguy!"

[TeacherCreature]

20. Your post makes perfect sense and I agree with you

Even though Kerry's poll numbers are not rising as high as we might want at this time, currently bush is beating himself. Kerry going negative might have the opposite effect from what is hoped for.

[Ravy]

7. I think not yet, if at all.

There are already plenty of negative ads about Bush from moveon.org and others. Actually, any objective look at the current situation of Iraq or state of the union is a negative Bush ad.

I would think that some direct rebuttal ads (to the Bush negative ads) are in order, but not to instigate new ones.

[Jose Diablo]

11. No

It would be better, to let others do the slamming of Bu$h. I admire a candidate that uses positive messages on solutions to problems rather than not offer solutions with negative ads.

Kerry should be the solution rather than part of the problem. Right now I see the biggest problem as the extreme partisanship fostered by the reich wing.

Bu$h should have been impeached long ago, and would have if Congress would have done what it constitutionally is charged with doing. Bu$h is a crook, they all know it.

Others can take-up the job of torching Bu$h without having Kerry 'get his hands dirty'.

IMO, Americans are sick of negative campaigns. Kerry would lose respect if he stoops to Bu$h/Rove's level.

[porphyrian]

12. Yes, and here's how...

Make fun of them. Laugh at how stupid they are, or how blatantly they lie. Point at them and laugh out loud.

[tom_paine]

13. Another thread makes my point nicely, I think. Go look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2047138

[TOhioLiberal]

14. in my opinion,

it is not yet time. IIRC,the swing voters, don't make up their minds about who to vote for until almost the last minute. Running attack ads now will only waste money, as the 'swingers' are not yet paying attention. I think that mid-October, Kerry should start hiiting Bush hard.

only my .02

[Toronto Ron]

15. Let MoveOn and others go negative

What must be emphasized, to the general public, is that the bush-fuckyou ads are all negative, which is particularly notable because presumably an incumbent should have something positive to say about accomplishments and future plans.

[Cocoa]

18. the DNC is planning an ad blitz

they can go negative too, and McAuliffe has already shown a willingness to bring up AWOL, so we'll see...

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/9194494.htm

[OpSomBlood]

16. No, Kerry needs ads pointing out Bush's negative ads.

We have to keep it positive and optimistic. I think that the TV ad campaign has been one of the few real strengths of what Kerry has done so far.

I really like that Kerry's ads feature Kerry himself talking to the camera, not a voiceover of "I approved this message" followed by dramatic music and annoying voice actors like Bush uses. Kerry is keeping it personal and direct, and isn't stooping to the negatives. I like it a lot.

If anything, Kerry needs to emphasize how negative Bush is campaigning and simply say, "America is better than that." Keep it positive...it's working.

[nolabels]

34. "America is better than that."

The logic of being illogical is the trumpet anti-intellectual crowd and a Quote

"Don't think. Thinking is the enemy of creativity. It's self-conscious, and anything self-conscious is lousy. You can't try to do things. You simply must do things."
-- Ray Douglas Bradbury (b. 1920), American writer of science fiction
http://www.quoteworld.org/browse.php?thetext=creativ,original&page=2

(In other words good teachers supply the best and simplest tools for the person needing to learn, so that learner can learn it on their own)


War on terror: False advertising
posted 5/16/02


Andrew Lander
Is the War over yet, daddy? On our TV screens, President George W. Bush, the man whose grandfather reportedly helped fund Adolph Hitler, stands as the protector of all that is wholesome and good. Paraphrasing Jesus, he says those who aren't with him and his allies are against them, but omits the second half of the thought.

It's War, and the perfect one at that; no specific goal besides the eradication of all opposition, and no time limit. The enemy is terrorism, an amazingly amorphous movement, devoid of boundaries, whose members can allegedly be your next door neighbors.

What is terrorism? Webster's New World College Dictionary defines it in part as "the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, or subjugate."

The US government never does any of that. And if it does, it only does it against The Bad Guys.

Such terms are open to arbitrary application. Palestinian militants who blow themselves up in order to kill innocent Israelis are condemned, and rightly so. But when the Israeli army crushes the Jenin refugee camp, the US media makes hardly a peep, and there is no uproar over their refusal to allow the United Nations to investigate. When Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevich does that, it's because they have something to hide. When Ariel Sharon does it, it's because he's just participating in the War on Terrorism and for some reason should be exempt from scrutiny, even after the fact.
(snip)
http://vikingnews.lbcc.edu/20020516/waronterror.html

Description or describing what something is, and the process of contemplation on deduction of what that something is, is like the difference of knowing (even if false) and thinking. Let go of what someone told you it was, and describe it for yourself.

[aden_nak]

21. Yes, but with a clarification.

I suggest that the negative ads be comprised of clips of the President speaking. And then saying the exact opposite thing a year later. They could run one of these per day from now until November 2nd and not repeat themselves.

[tom_paine]

23. I like it. No commentary, just him speaking lies and reversing

Fade to black...

Vote Kerry/Edwards 2004.

You are correct they could easily do one a week with no repeats and the footage is out there!

[aden_nak]

24. I'd like to see it cut in with what his minions say, as well.

Bush: The world is a safer place
Ridge: New warnings of a terror threat
Bush: Without Saddam Hussein
Ridge: We have no details at this time
Bush: We're bringing Democracy to Iraq
Ridge: An effort to disrupt the Democratic Process
Bush: I mean, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad

[nolabels]

41. I like that bumper sticker and blog

(tell them to click on the bumper sticker for the link) :hi:

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Yes.

I'm tired of playing nice. The repukes have the media doing their shilling, they have their talking heads out in full force, they have their RW radio bashers, they have their RNC negative ads and the Dems are trying to take the high road? WHY? I keep trying to remind people of the mid-term election. What happened? The Rwers...."If you're not with us, you're against us." The Dems, "Oh, OK...we're with you. Let us sign on to your illegal war." The RWers..."If you're not supporting our war, you're not supporting our troops." The Dems....."Oh, you're right. Let us sign on to your illegal war." The RWers...."You hate America if you don't support our war." The Dems...."Oh, OK....let us sign onto you're illegal war." The RWers..."The flag belongs to us because WE support our troops and the war on terror." The Dems...."Oh, OK. Let us sign on to the Patriot Act and take away our citizens civil rights."

HELLO! The people sent a message to the Dems in 2002. BE A DEMOCRAT. Stand up for what you believe. Stop kowtowing to the repukes. Tell the assholes what they're doing wrong. Tell the sheeple what the repukes have done to our country. Let the sheeple know just how EVIL this administration is. When the RWers dish it out, DISH IT BACK! Don't do a repeat of 2002. WHY would we? We LOST!

IMCPO

[tom_paine]

29. THANK YOU! And yet, history repeats as surely as in 2002, 2000 and 1933

:evilfrown:

[Demeter]

26. Just Getting Specific Truths Out There Would Be Helpful

Truth is the Universal solvent. We need it to start the cleanup process.

If the 9/11 Commission had not waffled all over the truth, the election would be a done deal.

The Farenheit 9/11 movie is the greatest strength we have to build on.
GO FOR IT!

[Nimrod]

32. Sorry to restate myself

I said this in another thread, but it's relevant. I have yet to see one single ad that's actually FOR Bush. Every Rep campaign ad I've seen so far could have come straight out of the Free Republic flame Kerry threads. They say absolutely *nothing* about Bush, they're just blowing raspberries.

If Kerry stays positive, that will make him the only candidate who's actually saying "Here's who I am" and has something to say about what he'll do as President.

I'll admit, I do NOT vote along straight party lines. But even if I had ever approved of Bush, his "neener neener neener thpppttt!" ad campaign strategy would have swung me to the Kerry camp anyway.

[Demeter]

40. In Bush's Case, Truth IS A Negative Ad!

It's just that too many people find it too hard to swallow, after all the junk fact they've been force-fed (and gulped willingly).

[tom_paine]

44. Well said, oh Goddess Demeter!

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/demeter.html

See, to all you who though I was sucking up? It's true!

[tom_paine]

27. Looks like I'm whomped in the court of Public Opinion

Further timidity and fear it is then...

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19292

What's wrong with this picture? I'm a moderate who distrusts the extreme left and I am arguing for the Democratic Party to be true to it's leftist principles! I don't want the party to be to the right of me! That's what the Republicans were for before they went Imperial! I WANT the Democrats to be the Left of me, so if I oppose them I could (or would, back during the Days of the Old Republic) support the other side on certain things!

But now it seems like we are the Party of Tepid Caution and the Republicans the Kinder and gentler Nazis who are doing to us rhetorically what the originals did to the Jews rhetorically and physically.

That's how I feel and not just me.

[Nimrod]

33. I don't see it as timidity

I just don't want to see more of the "I know you are, but what am I?" campaigns. The official campaign should present Kerry as the man that he is rather than going down the "Vote for me, I suck less ass" path.

[tom_paine]

45. It should do both. And how can you look at the last 20 years

and NOT call it timidity!

The time to hit back hard, rhetorically speaking, has passed.

We will have to agree to disagree, Nimrod.

[funkybutt]

28. DNC, moveon, and other 527s will take care of the negative stuff

they won't have the "I'm John Kerry and I approve of this Message" at the end..but it'll still be a Kerry ad, even if it doesn't even mention Kerry.

[Raven]

30. I'm in NH...a battleground state, and

the Bush/Kerry ads come about once every 5 minutes! It is striking to me how good Kerry's ads look next to Bush's. I think Kerry being positive really resonates here!

[Orangepeel]

43. Same here in central florida

it's really striking how positive Kerry's ads are and how negative bush's ads are. And, it's working!

[proud patriot]

31. No IMO

We activists have that job .

It is up to us (Activists) to spread the
word about the negative things bush has done to
this country .

It is Up To Kerry to offer Americans Hope ,
to Bush's Despair.

[GoneOffShore]

35. No, But

I just voted no, but I want to qualify it.
Let's leave the really negative ads to the Internet and 527's. If Kerry stays positive, ie. 'Vision for the Future', 'Restoring Alliances', 'Healthcare', 'American Jobs' - * looks like the idiot he is.

[snippy]

36. I think four types of ads are needed.

One ad should show Bush and other republicans lying. This ad should be run by Moveon or some other group. It should show video clips of simple, blatant, indisputable lies like Bush saying that the White House did not create the "Mission Accomplished" banner and Racicot saying that Bush volunteered to go to Viet Nam. Lies about the invasion of Iraq and WMDs should not be included in this ad as that would only allow republicans to muddy those waters with additional lies and most voters have already either accepted or rejected these lies. Following the video clips a voice over should say: "These were all lies." The ad should end with video of Bush saying this:

"fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Another ad should show Bush flip-flops. This ad also should be run by a group other than the Kerry campaign. It should include video of Bush saying he would veto McCain-Feingold followed by video of Bush signing it, and of Bush opposing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security followed by video of Bush signing the bill creating it, and of Bush opposing the creation of the 9/11 Commission followed by video of Bush signing the bill creating it. This ad also should end with Bush trying to say the "fool me once" adage.

Another ad should focus on the fact that republicans have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress while spending and deficits have exploded. It should point out that while your income is your money, the federal debt is also your debt. I think this ad also should be run by a group separate from the campaign.

The final ad should focus on the "war on terror" and use Rumsfeld's statements that we lack an overall strategy for fighting terrorism and that we may be creating more terrorists than we are capturing or killing. Kerry should run this ad.

[tom_paine]

38. Excellent ideas. Shame the Kerry Campaign doesn't seem to want them

We will see. What I'd like to see is Kerry unleash, as long as he unleashes.

Perhaps this thread is premature.

[mumon]

37. YES- but not just yet.

Kerry should hold his fire until around the Repugnant convention - either a week before or during or 1 week after.

Right now, it buys them nothing in the polls.

And THEN go on a "follow the money" riff, with the Pakistan and Saudi things left out on 9/11...!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. NO. When you are ahead, stay postive. nt

[Sirveri]

42. I think we can have attack ads that aren't negative.

Yes it confusing and contradictory, but we can certainly attack without being negative. Look at BushCo's hitler hate ad they posted on their website. A ad basically saying, hey are you better off now than you were four years ago, if not why would you vote for this guy is definately a attack, but it could probably be done in a not so negative way.

[ElementaryPenguin]

46. Kerry needs to remain charming, positive AND blast the f*ck out of chimpy!

And SOON!!!!!! His ads should have the War Chimp saying "bring 'em on" and joking about the phantom WMD's - it should be produced like a trailer for F 9-11 - and nothing less!!! We're in a fistfight with these fascist f*cks - and we can't bar ourselves from throwing a punch in a bloody in knockdown drag out fight - unless you're Tommy Daschle - and determined to lose with "dignity." This is a fight we CAN'T afford to lose! These monsters intend to launch war after war!!

[West Coast Democrat]

47. No. Let MoveOn do it

Their ads have been very effective.

[Merlin]

48. He's established an admirable pattern. It seems to be working.

Let others tear this admin to pieces with the truth. Let Kerry point to a bright, uplifting future, free from the nightmare of this retched mis-administration.

[lagniappe]

49. No. Instead we need to unleash our attack dogs Daschle and Lieberman.

They can give Bush a serious ass kissing. That'll show him.

[BillZBubb]

51. LOL!

Why do the Democrats always end up with attack poodles?

[genius]

50. Yes. Or he might as well concede

The Dems always try to be the nice guys and they generally finish last. It was a miracle that Gore won in 2000. Davis was nice and the Dems were very nice to Arnold. Bush will get an Arnold-sized victory if Kerry doesn't attack. I want a fighter not a doormat.

[senseandsensibility]

52. Negative ads will work

(look at F9-11), as long as they're done in a truthful manner. My preference would be for light, amusing jabs at * to begin with. Of course those are more difficult to do. But I believe that a stark contrast should be drawn. Back in the Spring, JFK said that he would not use his wife's $ to fight back unless * launched negaive attacks against him. By this, I assumed he meant he would finance negative ads of his own. The THREAT should be there. It will slow Karl Rove down, if nothing else. That's why I didn't like the way Edwards seemed to totally take it off the table during his interview with Larry King.

[BillZBubb]

53. Kerry must run negative ads.

I think those we say wait have a good point. Given the public financing limitations, maybe waiting until just after the Repug convention makes sense.

But, Kerry must run some very tough negative ads. Why do I say this? Because failure to attack your opponent will be viewed as weakness by male voters, especially in the swing states. If Kerry allows himself to be kicked around and doesn't respond in kind, many males will subconsciously ask "well if he wouldn't even stand up for himself, how can I trust him to stand up for the country?"

This has LONG been a problem for the image of Democrats and is partially responsible for why Repugs always poll higher on protecting the country.

Show some fight! It doesn't have to be the dominant portion of the campaign, just a noticable part.

[tom_paine]

55. I agree.

[Still_Loves_John]

54. Hmm...well I wouldn't say "negative ads"

But my personal defintion of a negative ad isn't just an attack ad, but something more like Bush's ads, where you distort your opponent's record in an attack.

Some issue ads would probably be a good thing, but I have to say that I like the image Kerry is presenting in his ads. They project a very positive image of Kerry, while still taking issue with Bush's policy. I don't know if I can articulate what I'm trying to say here very well, but I think the course he is taking now is presenting this nice, warm, fluffly image in his ads, while attacking Bush in his speeches.

And then you have to take into account that the 527's are pretty much running Kerry's attack ads for him. If, like me, you live in a non-battleground state, you probably haven't seen them, but they're out there.

[IndianaGreen]

56. Bush's record and Michael Moore's F911 is plenty enough

Kerry is doing fine as he is. If he starts going negative, he won't be convincing any voters to vote for him, but he might make some independents that were inclined to vote for him, to sit the election out.

[Speed8098]

58. You're 100% correct

We are not the attack party. We are the intellectual party.

We are the thinkers, they are the followers.

We are the majority.

Kerry can paint * in a negative light in the debates. All he has to do is let * speak.

Jon Stewart did a montage last year with * the campaigner saying one thing and * the pResident saying another. If activists like Moveon.org would run ads like that, with Kerry running positive ads, we can win this thing.

* is his own worst enemy and he doesn't even know it.

Let the debates begin. :bounce:

[Darranar]

59. Yes, certainly...

Bush is extremely vulnerable, while Kerry will not be seen by voters as anything close to perfect.