In Campaign Ads for Democrats, Bush Is the Star

[USA11B]

The Ad Campaign: Is the Incumbent Too Close to Bush? Or Not Close Enough? (September 17, 2006)

A review of dozens of campaign commercials finds that Mr. Bush has become the star of the Democrats’ advertisement war this fall. He is pictured standing alone and next to Republican senators and members of Congress, his name intoned by ominous-sounding announcers. Republican candidates are damned in the advertisements by the number of times they have voted with Mr. Bush in Congress.

Not surprisingly, given that Mr. Bush’s job approval rating continues to hover around 40 percent, it is hard to spot the president in any of the Republican advertisements that were reviewed. In what may be taken as an indication of changing Republican tastes, Senator John McCain of Arizona is popping up everywhere.

There is Mr. Bush on television screens in Colorado, in an advertisement urging the election of Angie Paccione, a Democrat, leaning over to plant a big kiss on the forehead of Representative Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican.

There is Mr. Bush on the television screens in New Mexico, standing on a stage shoulder-to-shoulder with Representative Heather A. Wilson, a Republican struggling to keep her seat. “Heather Wilson supports George Bush on the war in Iraq with no questions asked,” the announcer says, in an advertisement for Patricia Madrid, the Democrat.

The White House has entered this campaign season looking to seize control of the political dialogue by moving the debate away from issues like Iraq and to Mr. Bush’s role in the campaign against terrorism. The decision by Democrats to invest in advertising directly attacking the war in Iraq, the administration’s war on terrorism and the once overwhelmingly popular president is a marked turn from how they handled these issues in 2002 and 2004.

The emergence of this recurrent theme in Democratic advertising is not a coordinated push by the legions of consultants, party leaders, campaign managers and candidates. Democrats said using advertisements involving Mr. Bush was almost an obvious thing to do, given his lack of popularity, and reflects the effort by many in the party to turn this election into a national referendum on Mr. Bush.

“In certain districts he’s exactly who we want to pivot off,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat leading the effort to win the House. “I tell all the candidates: Him and his agenda are on the ballot this year.”

Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a firm based in Virginia that tracks advertising, said Saturday that candidates and independent issue groups had already spent $900 million on statewide and national campaigns this year. Mr. Tracey said he expected that by Election Day, the spending would be $1.6 billion, a new record. At a minimum, millions are being spent by the Democrats on ads featuring Mr. Bush.

The strategy has risks. In part, the goal of the Democrats’ advertisements is to rile up their base. But Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, said that the constant attacks on Mr. Bush appeared to be accomplishing something Republicans had been unable to do: riling up Republican base voters.

“One thing we are seeing in our polling is that the Democratic campaign is helping to jazz up Republican voters,” Mr. Bolger said. “There are two concerns among Republicans: Is our base going to turn out, and how are we going to get out swing voters. The Democrats are taking care of our first concern.”

Many Republicans, and some Democrats, say it will be hard for Democrats to win unless they go beyond attacking Republicans and offer a program of their own. And Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, said the Republicans’ own experience in politics suggested that running against someone who is not on the ballot is challenging. “The last time this kind of morph ad was tried was in ’98 when we tried to nationalize the races against Clinton and it didn’t work,” he said.

Kenneth M. Goldstein, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin who studies campaign advertisements, said the focus by Democrats on Iraq and security was a sharp shift from what he had observed in the last two election cycles. Then, Mr. Bush was far more popular and public opinion on the war had not changed, but Mr. Goldstein argued that the Democrats still might have made a mistake in not trying to at least challenge Republicans on the war.
SOURCE

[KBay84]

Once again, Democrats choose to fight with negetivity instead of showing what they will do differently in a positive way.

They will lose by using their current tactics.

[JohnRN]

The Grand Assumption - that voting for either party actually makes a difference....


cheers,
Democrats and Republicans - same nonsense, different name

[KBay84]

And you propose.....what?

Hey John, in a few years, maybe the Taliban will make all our desicions for us, if we don't get our act together.

[JohnRN]

Originally Posted by KBay84

And you propose.....what?

A reduction of government power - across the boards. Elimination of the welfare state and return to the gold standard. A economic policy commited to elimination of debt. Abolishing "free trade agreements" like NAFTA. Withdrawl from the UN. Consistent foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations.

Originally Posted by KBay84

Hey John, in a few years, maybe the Taliban will make all our desicions for us, if we don't get our act together.

Sorry Gunny, that is not a very convincing argument. People said the same thing before we got ourselves into Korea and Vietnam - guess what, the Domino Theory proved false.

If you want to scare someone into choosing the "lesser of the two evils", look else where, I ain't buyin'.