How about a "no negative ads" challenge to Bush?

[MallRat]

Bush has used more than 75% of his advertising budget on commercials tearing down Kerry because he can't run on his own record.

So why not throw down the gauntlet? Something like,

"Mr. President, we desperately need to change the tenor of political discourse in America, and we, together, can lead by example. That is why I will make a pledge today: for the duration of this Election, I will not run a single negative ad on television, radio, the Internet, or in print media, if you will agree to do the same."

This is lose-lose for Bush. If he agrees, he'll have to run on his record. If he turns down the offer, then it becomes blatantly clear that he's a divider, not a uniter.

What do you think?

-MR

[w13rd0]

1. He'd accept the offer...

...and then let proxies like "Veterans against Kerry" run his shitslinging lies.

[MallRat]

3. Our 527s are better than their 527s.

:-)

[mopinko]

2. i recall this being in the speech.

but who is going to judge? unilateral disarmament in the face of these idiots is foolish.

[MallRat]

4. Not unilateral. BILATERAL. n/t

[mopinko]

5. who is going to make bush keep his word?

you can't trust these guys. come one.

[MallRat]

7. If Bush agrees, and then 2 months from now, he reneges...

...the media will blow the whistle.

And YES FOLKS, EVEN THE CORPORATE MEDIA COULDN'T RESIST A STORY LIKE THAT. It's easy for lazy reporters to research, it's a nice election-year "gotcha" headline, and it'll fuel lots of talk.

"BUSH BREAKS NEGATIVE AD PACT"
"BUSH GOES NEGATIVE, RENEGES ON KERRY"

It's a very digestible story- much easier than trying to follow the intracacies of energy policy or Sibel Edmonds. It would get play.

-MR

[mopinko]

9. sorry but

you are dreaming. it would be handing them a weapon to shoot us with. it's just not that cut and dried. it's a matter of judgement, and they will have a whole new reason to twist and spin.

[mumon]

6. No We should be gong negative all the way...

Or let me put it this way: Moveon.org should go negative with big bucks.

Kerry shouldn't not criticize the Bush junta.

To them, telling the truth about Bush's record is "bashing," so having a "no negative ads" pledge would only backfire anyway.

We need to tell the truth about the Bush dictatorship.

[Technowitch]

8. If Bush's people ran no negative ads

...they'd have nothing to run on at all. ;)

[DaveFL99]

10. We've waited long enough

It's time for us to talk about Bush's record and that is inherently negative.

[sendero]

11. Number one....

... nobody ever actually honors such pledges, and there is a definite gray area in the definition of "negative campaign ads".


Secondly, we need to do some negative ads of our own. I wouldn't make it a centerpiece of the campaign, but the campaign will be foolish if it doesn't employ some negative ads, Bush* has simply left so much on the table to work with it is impossible to be truthful without being "negative".