Choices

31 May, 2004
Posted at 12.56 PDT

From the Washington Post concerning the campaign against democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry:

Excuse me? They don’t have a choice? I’m not sure I follow the reasoning. The statement suggests our President is incapable of winning a fair contest. The fact of the matter is, they do have a choice. They could choose not to run negative ads, and instead campaign on their accomplishments. What a novel idea!

I have had it with negative ad campaigns—from both sides, mind you. I know I can’t be the only one, but when I see a negative ad, I now assume the candidate is lying unless I personally know the facts against which the claims are being made. The implication of that, naturally, is that the candidate being attacked either A) did no such thing, or B) the exact opposite.

Negative campaign ads, especially from the incumbent, have a definite feeling of desperation. I would think the Bush campaign, already suffering from a perception of inciting fear in the American populace for personal gain, would be chary of focusing so strongly on advertising that uses even more fear as motivation.

Just a thought.

Ramblings/Politics | Permanent Link

Another Revolution

31 May, 2004
Posted at 12.07 PDT

How odd. I don’t feel a year older.

Ramblings | Permanent Link