I think the ads had an effect, but I think that the presence of a same-sex marriage proposal and the resultant (and but most measures illegal) campaigning by church folk had a larger effect.

* Disclaimer - I'm just a semi-interested observer from CA, so I cede to anyone that lives in OH...;-)

Is there any doubt that the Swift Boat ads that ran virtually nonstop in Ohio managed to switch at least a hundred thousand votes and thus swing the state — and the election — to George Bush?

The ads and other public efforts to win the election provided a smokescreen for what the crooks really did. The Ohio vote was stolen, not won.

Rove himself confessed that the '06 midterms were lost because the GOP didn't go negative enough.

"I invented the Internet", Swift-boat'ing, Willie Horton, etc... all examples of high-impact negative attacks.

James Joyner agrees with Dave Weigel that Republicans need to do more than haul out the Hillary Clinton boogey man if they want to win next November.

No, actually that's the ONLY way they can win. So get ready for it

Insofar as one has - explicitly or implicitly - something positive to back one up, one can effectively go negative.

In 2004, Bush appeared to have such items as "9/11," "Support the Troops," "Stay the Course," and "Family Values" on his side.

NOTE: of course much of Bush's position was insubstantial and - insofar as it did have substance - was meretricious. Still, this was a product which he could sell and was, therefore, in that limited sense, "positive."

None of the current Republicans have the same foundation with which to attack. By now, it has become apparent that their policies do not work. And it will be even more apparent by next fall.

The best thing the Republicans have going for them are the Democrats. It should be obvious to everyone that the Democrats do the Republicans' bidding. I anticipate that will continue even past 2008.

So there is no way the Republicans can really loose the 2008 election.

Bush v. Dukakis. 1988.

Dukakis 'won't salute the flag'
Dukakis 'card carrying member of ACLU'
Dukakis 'his wife mentally ill'.
Dukakis 'wants Willie Horton to kill you'.

Oh, yeah. It must have been the "thousand points of light" catchphrase, and not Lee Atwater, that did the trick.

Bush v. Gore. 2000.
Bush v. Kerry. 2004.

Unless this guy is 2 years old, Presidential campaigns have been defined and won negatively in his lifetime.

I agree with Duncan, that and let's not forget that it wasn't Bush going negative. I'm not saying he wasn't involved, but he himself played coy at best.

The ads, the divisive ballot issues, and the blatant vote fraud all had a hand in swinging Ohio. The republicans really do campaign in a holistic way.

"Is there any doubt that the Swift Boat ads that ran virtually nonstop in Ohio managed to switch at least a hundred thousand votes and thus swing the state — and the election — to George Bush?"

What Boolaboola said. All smoke and mirrors for the real election fraud.

"Thousands of executives at hundreds of companies took money from shareholders through deliberate actions that distinguish them from bandits only because they wielded pens instead of pistols." - David Cay Johnston

*...let's not forget that it wasn't Bush going negative. I'm not saying he wasn't involved...*

Eh, crack?

Don't forget that Karl Rove was a Lee Atwater disciple.

It's sad but true that negative campaigning is effective -- often more effective than positive campaigning. The most effective anti Hillary snippet I heard from the last Republican debate was attacking her lack of administrative experience. That seems like a fair point to emphasize, although I don't thing the voting public cares very much about past experience.

The libertarians at Reason would prefer a candidate like Reagan who explicitly focused on the negative aspects of big government. I think that's the subtext of the quote. I feel that way, too. Unfortunately, we're not going to get that candidate.

Is there any doubt that Lee Atwater buried Dukakis with an avalanche of dirty misleading ads? One can make the standard universal argument that if Dukakis (or any other candidate in any race) was a stronger candidate then the ads would not have been so effective, but for many (most?) voters their view of Dukakis was based on what Atwater told them.

He forgets that Hillary's ankles killed Vince Foster and how Osama flew her vagina into the twin towers.

None of the people I knew who voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004 felt they had any positive reasons to vote for Bush. It was all negative.

Yes, Kevin, I agree with that. But I'd also point out that Hillary is no John Kerry.

uh, shouldn't it be "boogey person?"

Two thoughts on this, one is what haven't they said about Hillary? I'm thinking by the time the election rolls around, the right wing will just be punched out. And the voters will lose interest in the latest "Clinton Scandal."

Second, why didn't it work against Bill?

The story I heard was after he sewed up the nomination, Clinton's team sent a package of Bush's dirty laundry to the Bush campaign HQ. Just to let them know what they were up against if he were to go negative.

Bill was willing to go scorched earth, Kerry and Dukakis weren't. Hillary will go nuclear.

Republicans raising the 'Nancy Pelosi' boogeyman in 2006 certainly didn't do any good.

The story I heard was after he sewed up the nomination, Clinton's team sent a package of Bush's dirty laundry to the Bush campaign HQ. Just to let them know what they were up against if he were to go negative.

A more likely exlanation is that Atwater died in 1991.

Remember, in the heart and mind of the true Democrat, no Democrat in American history has ever legitimately lost an election.

Well, Harry - or Tom - glad to see you have returned with your always intelligent and insightful posts.

harry,
HaHa. How old are you? Surely you remember Mondale. I challenge you to find one person who thinks he didn't lose legitimately.

voter suppression had a much bigger impact on the ohio outcome than the swiftboaters.

failure to provide enough voting machines in working order in majority democratic precincts, along with the failure to count all the ballots ensured monkeyboy wasn't going anywhere. to our nation's and the world's great detriment.

Don't forget that Karl Rove was a Lee Atwater disciple.

Hell, the Deserter-in-Chief himself was a minion of the dark lord...who on his deathbed regretted his actions. Too fucking late, dirtbag. You reap what you sow.

One thing to remember about swing voters is that they generally hate politics and politicians. So, to win swing voters you make the election about your opponent.

The genius of Rove and idiocy of Shrum is that they made the 2004 Election all about Kerry even though Bush was the incumbent. In 1996, Clinton made the election all about the poor performance of Congress by constantly linking together the leaders of Congress, who were Dole and Gingrich. This lesson from history may explain why the Democrats in Congress this year have done absolutely nothing to call attention to themselves.

In 2008, the Republicans don't need to have their attacks go unanswered to be effective--they just need to keep everyone's attention away from whatever idiot they nominate.

What Positive Issues Will GOP Have in 2008?

"James Joyner agrees with Dave Weigel that Republicans need to do more than haul out the Hillary Clinton boogey man if they want to win next November."

It is unclear to me what issues the GOP has to run on that will not primarily rely upon making the Democratic nominee worse (at least assuming that Ron Paul has no chance of getting the GOP nomination).

The lead issue for the GOP: Cut taxes.
Bush has pretty much run this into the ground and left the current crop with scare stories about how the Democrats will raise taxes.

Next: Terrorism! Boo!

Again Bush has run this into the ground even to the extent that now the public sees Democrats as having the edge on this historically GOP dominated issue. This issue will also center on how the boogeyman Democrats will bring us all down.

Next: Fiscal Responsibility (We mean it this time).

As above, no one believes republicans anymore, so they are left with attacking democrats which is likely to have more resonance.

Next: Moral Values/Abortion

The leading contenders for the GOP nomination are viewed as suspect by the religious right and are talking about bolting for third party. Probably wont, but largely based upon the boogeyman Hillary is coming.

Next: Iraq War

Stay the course, Democrats are defeatest!

Are there any issues the likely GOP nominee can run on, be believable and not have the campaign dominated by the message the other guy is worse?

wishIwuz2: Don't forget that Karl Rove was a Lee Atwater disciple.

It's worse than that - Rove was kicked off the Bush1 campaign run by Atwater because Rove went too far. That's quite an accomplishment - like being kicked out of a pig sty for poor hygiene.

The major difference between 2004 and 2008...swiftboaters appear to now live in glass houses.

harry,
HaHa. How old are you? Surely you remember Mondale. I challenge you to find one person who thinks he didn't lose legitimately.

Now that was funny.

Poor Tom! He sure is crotchety now that his beautiful dream of a permanent Republican majority has been shattered!

Too fucking late, dirtbag.

That would be an excellent name for a band. They could be called TFLD, sort of like TMBG.

People who argue that Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance won the '88 election kill me. Reagan was at a peak of popularity, the economy was booming, Gorbachev was negotiating treaties that made the world feel safe -- there was no reason on god's green earth why Dukakis should have won that year. Conversely, in '92, Atwater or no Atwater, the GOP ran the same campaign -- "My opponent is unearthly slime" -- and got their asses kicked.

In '04, despite the feeling of Democrats (including myself) that Bush was self-evidently the worst president in history, the environment was respectable for an incumbent: the party was united, the economy was generating jobs (esp. in the Spring/summer, when people decide such things), Iraq had not yet degenerated into an obvious hell-hole. That Bush was held to a miniscule margin of victory was a sign of Democratic strength, not weakness.

Though I don't susbscribe to any election theory as infallible, I recommend looking at Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency. He fairly convincingly argues that presidential elections turn on circumstance, not campaigns, whatever pundits tell you. And the circumstances for Dems next year are simply outstanding; it would take something like a miracle for the GOP to hold onto the White House in such a environment, and "Booga-Booga Hillary!" isn't even in the ballpark.

Strong points demTom,

But as I walked around my rural midwestern community during the fall of '88, the buzz about that "scary black guy Dukakis released" was overwhelming.

Yep - I dunno how he was gonna manage to release murderers who would kill every last white family in Grundy County, MO - but they sure were convinced that would be the results of a Dukakis presidency.

There's a myth about Nixon and Illinois that's apt here in a tangential fashion. The myth has it that Nixon grandly conceded Illinois rather that be a divisive influence. In fact, Nixon had the election results investigated 3 times trying to find dirt. He found almost nothing.

Then, he conceded Illinois.

The Bush-Gore Florida battle has been investigated and this is what they found: Florida election officials created an ad hoc rule about double ballots that swung the election to Bush. Formerly, if ballots were marked twice for the same candidate -- that it, unambiguously -- the ballot was counted for that candidate. Far more Gore voters, anxious to have their ballots count, marked them twice. Republicans finagled those votes out.

Stealing elections is what Republicans do.

Somewhere around 10 years ago, we became a banana republic.

The key thing to remember is that its not going to be a two-candidate election, which will make it much more difficult to run purely against your opponent, be it Hillary or anyone else.

You've got the Unity08 Party, a potential independent or libertarian Ron Paul candidacy, a potential insurgent candidacy from the left if Hillary wins the nomination and refuses to commit to ending the war, and a potential insurgent candidacy from the right if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. All in all, there could be five different candidates running capable of winning 5% of the popular vote, which means that this election is going to be more like 1992, when Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote, and George Bush, the Republican candidate, got only 38% of the vote.

Basically, the Repblicans could run a very effective anti-Hillary campaign and still lose, because people who dislike Hillary will not necessarily vote for the Republican candidate.

Hmm...this is sort of like the debate over whether or not air power can win a war. I think the answer in both cases is about the same--it certainly helps, but it can't provide victory on its own.

Kerry didn't respond effectively to the negative ads, but he didn't really strike too many people as the stuff of which great Presidents are made. The flip-flopping thing was manufactured, but Kerry didn't make his campaign about ideas (because it seemed like his ideas were all either Democratic orthodox or the same as Bush's, but just better implemented). His anemic attempts to define himself, coupled with a not-so-magnetic personality, allowed the Rovian attack ads to have an impact. Had Kerry run on a stronger platform instead of promising generic solutions, he might well have weathered the attacks.

Which is why I'm not sure the same thing will work for Hillary. Bush's theme seemed to be the "you might not agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand" argument, which would sound farcical coming out of Romney's mouth. And I don't think too many people are enticed by a third Bush term with Rudy. If Hillary is able to define herself as being for some concrete, popular policy items, and the GOP provides only anemic alternatives to those items, I don't think "Hillary eavesdropped on some dude's phone conversation" is going to save the GOP.

P.S. All you people who say that Bush stole 2004--please stop. It's more than a bit hypocritical to say that Gore should have won in 2000 because he won the popular vote but ignoring that in 2004 when Bush won it.

At this point, Republicans offer nothing but a lot of false bravado, whining and finger-pointing.

"It’s like going to confession, every time I hear you speak.
You’re makin’ the most of your losin’ streak;
Some call it sick, but I call it weak.
You drag it around like a ball and chain.
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain.
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown,
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin’ everybody down.
You bitch about the present, you blame it on the past;
I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass."
- The Eagles, Get Over It (1994)

I think that the voter suppression tactics had a lot more to do with it than everyone thinks. I lived in a liberal section of Columbus, near OSU campus and I had to wait 3 hours, from 7:00 am - 10:00 am to vote. I saw lots of people just give up and leave, if you had a job to goto at 8 or 9, there is no way you could've voted that day.

Republicans raising the 'Nancy Pelosi' boogeyman in 2006 certainly didn't do any good.

Snark:

Yeah, and the Democrats would have been a lot better off today had they heeded those warnings about Pelosi.

:End_of_snark

Republicans have always relied on negativity. Nixon started out by trashing Helen Gahagan Douglas as communist. That must have been their first widespread smear tactic. Calling people communist. Then they moved on to using race in the 60's. Reagan continued the low-down Republican tradition of using racism. He was so good at disguising his negativity a lot of people didn't even realize they were being appealed to by prejudice. Bush1 repeated it with Willie Horton. Bush2 scapegoated gay people. Republicans cannot win on their "conservative" platform - basically control of the government by the wealthy - so they use scapegoating and negativity.

BTW, apparently Republicans did not go negative on Clinton's sex life in '92 because Clinton would have aired Bush1's dirty laundry with his own mistresses. Maybe if Kerry had threatened to attack Bush2 as a coward and deserter the Swiftboaters would never have appeared. Seems like trying to stand above the dirt and not return negativity doesn't work.

Yep - I dunno how he was gonna manage to release murderers who would kill every last white family in Grundy County, MO - but they sure were convinced that would be the results of a Dukakis presidency.

Those same idjits are now convinced that al Qaeda wants nothing more than to storm the Grundy County courthouse and throw a burqa over the county clerk so that only her support hose and Naturalizer shoes are peeking out.

Applied Memetics for Disillusioned Dems by Nathan F. Piazza of Dead Reckoning

http://www.memes.org/embrace-memes-now-applied-memetics-disillusioned-dems?referer=sphere_related_content

BTW, apparently Republicans did not go negative on Clinton's sex life in '92 because Clinton would have aired Bush1's dirty laundry with his own mistresses.

Hmmmm, I remember 1992 and its non-stop Gennifer Flowers coverage. I also remember the MSM media asking Poppy--who'd brought his aged mama and the rest of the family to the press conference as human shields--if he'd been knocking boots with Jennifer Fitzgerald. When he responded that his very honor had been outraged by such a question, the media went, "Oh, okay," and that was the end of it.

True enough shortstop. But at a certain point in that campaign all talk of Flowers went mute. It probably wasn't because the Bushies and the msm decided to be nice to Dems. (like that would ever happen)

Is there any data supporting the notion that the swiftboating affected 100K votes or is it rank speculation?. I recall a Lutz focus group from Ohio after a debate - I do not recall if it was 2000 or 2004- and it was obvious that the Old Ohioans (sic?) were conservative as they were dimwitted; and they did seem to represent a substantial demographic of the state. I doubt that they needed any swiftboating to vote for W.

Chrissy: But at a certain point in that campaign all talk of Flowers went mute.

That's true; it did. Imagine that sort of thing actually running its course now. In 60 years, today's 30-year-old wingers will be sitting in nursing homes muttering, "Clinton's penis!" as they drool on themselves.

Lev: "All you people who say that Bush stole 2004--please stop. It's more than a bit hypocritical to say that Gore should have won in 2000 because he won the popular vote but ignoring that in 2004 when Bush won it."

That argument is a red herring and thus irrelevant, simply because it is the Electoral College that determines presidential elections on a state-by-state basis, and not the nationwide popular vote.

Rather, it can be proffered reasonably and fairly that George W. Bush indeed "stole" both elections because in the end, the success or failure of both his presidential bids rested solely upon the shameless machinations of two highly partisan Secretaries of State in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004).

In both instances, Florida's Katherine Harris and Ohio's Kenneth Blackwell were ostensibly acting in their official capacities as their respective states' chief elections officers.

In both instances, the actual process of counting the votes was so thoroughly manipulated by Harris and Blackwell that each state's so-called "official count" was rendered highly suspect in the eyes of at least half the country.

And in both instances, such electoral malfeasance ultimately proved the decisive factor in the ultimate outcome.

It can further be argued that George W. Bush has spent nearly his entire adult life on a legal and ethical precipice. Unfortunately, we have now reached the proverbial "tipping point", where one more attempt on his part to push the envelope may well prove fatal to either our country's democratic institutions, or to his own Republican Party.

And that particular outcome is still very much in doubt.

P.S. All you people who say that Bush stole 2004--please stop. It's more than a bit hypocritical to say that Gore should have won in 2000 because he won the popular vote but ignoring that in 2004 when Bush won it.

Bush stole 2000 because he (wait for it) stole it -- Florida suddenly disregarded ballots they'd previously permitted. He didn't steal it because he'd gotten fewer votes. Manipulating Ohio's outcome would also be theft because we elect presidents based on electoral college votes. Not the popular one. There's a guy doing time in Ohio -- or soon will be -- over the Ohio finagle. Which is more than happened in Florida.

Banana republic.

Jeffrey Davis: "Banana republic."

Exactly.

What Boolaboola said!
I think what "switched" so many votes in Ohio was more the kind of "switch" that computer/electronic folks mean, you know ...

shortstop: "In 60 years, today's 30-year-old wingers will be sitting in nursing homes muttering, 'Clinton's penis!' as they drool on themselves."

And won't that be a sorry-assed sight! But being the bleeding heart liberals that we are, we'll tend kindly to their needs anyway. Whoever cares for Rush Limbaugh, however, would be wise to let him have all the oxycontin he desires.

Blue Girl--

I think that Lee Atwater's deathbed recanting of his sins ranks surely in the top 5 most nauseating political moments in my lifetime. It may even be the winner.

Too bad I'm an atheist, I'd love to see him tormented in flames for all eternity. Crap!

Donald from Hawaii: And won't that be a sorry-assed sight! But being the bleeding heart liberals that we are, we'll tend kindly to their needs anyway.

Sure. But would it be a crime to let them sit in their own pee for just a few minutes? Please?

jprichva: I think that Lee Atwater's deathbed recanting of his sins ranks surely in the top 5 most nauseating political moments in my lifetime. It may even be the winner.

A big part of me wants to believe that recantation because I want to believe that people are capable of throwing off great evil, of turning away from the enormous injuries we do to others. Anyone who has gone through recovery; has come out of prison and taken the path of most resistance to start a new, aboveboard life; has done the middle-aged "Is that all there is? No, there's more, and it's about other people, not me" soul search; or has turned away from the Republican party (!) knows that people can and do make immense, painful, terrifying changes in their lives--at great risk and with no assurance of what will happen once they take the leap.

But that stuff is hard. People do change rather miraculously every day, but people who've spent their entire lives on a certain road don't usually turn from it in the very end. And we are quite properly conditioned by now not to believe what people like Lee Atwater say. So a big dose of skepticism is warranted, even as it would be comforting right now to think that perhaps even some of the worst actors of the Bush administration might eventually come to Jesus (and I use this expression in its secular sense).

Republicans attacked, so they would have an explanation of how they won without revealing they stole elections. I think it may have begun in 1988 when Bush I ran against Dukakis. The polls showed Dukakis leading until the last week or so. Then, suddenly a miracle happened. Yeah right. Stolen elections.

Remember, the desktop computers didn't come into being until the early 1980s, so that means only 1984 was a possible earlier election theft and Reagan hardly needed to steal it.

That means 1988 was when it started and they were using massive 'negative' campaigning as a cover. They could always say their negative campaign ads resonated with the voter in ways unnoticed by the polls.

Later they began to say the advent of cell phones somehow skewed poll results. As long as they're providing reasons for results to come out different than everyone expects I'll believe they're stealing votes and saying, "Who could have expected that?" (a la Condi Rice).

Sure. But would it be a crime to let them sit in their own pee for just a few minutes? Please?

Since they don't believe that that is torture, I see no problem with it.

Like Raoul, I wonder if there is any evidence that the swift boat ads actually switched 100,000 votes. Or that any ad can move such a large number of votes. I doubt it, but Kevin seems pretty certain.

I also still do not see much wrong with the Swift Board ads. The first one attached Kerry's honesty with respect to his service, but the rest focused on his claims that American soldiers committed war crimes. The members of the swift board group were veterans who surely had the right to express their opinion. Kerry certaintly was running based on his Vietnam service, so he put the issue in play. And I think Kerry almost certainly gamed the system to secure medals, political strength, and an early trip home from Vietnam. Having said that, I still respect his service in the Navy

I vote that "brian" gets air dropped into the Witch Fire.

an early trip home from Vietnam

Just to correct one of "brian's" many lies, Kerry did not get an early trip home from Vietnam. He served one full tour on the USS Gridley, after which he could have gone home, but instead he volunteered for a second and far more hazardous combat tour, above and beyond his required duty, during the course of which he was wounded.

Now go fuck yourself up your own ass.

shortstop: "But would it be a crime to let [90-year-old wingers] sit in their own pee for just a few minutes? Please?"

Well, since you've asked so nicely ... OK, go ahead. But just be sure you make them clean it up themselves afterward. They really need the exercise.

brian: "I also still do not see much wrong with the Swift Board ads."

Of course, you don't. There are none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not listen, and none so fuckin' stupid as those like you, who consistently manage to do both simultaneously.

You guys are so partisan that you lose all sense of objectivity. The 250 or so veterans who made up the swift boaters had the perfect right to express their opinion about Kerry. It also seemed to me that they were quite reasonable in criticizing him for the war crimes accusations he made as an anti war activities.

As to what Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam, the facts are less clear but why should the swift boat guys have the right to tell their side of it? If they were wrong, then they could have been refuted.

Stefan, I don't think there is any dispute over the fact that Kerry used his three purple hearts to come home early. I have never heard your assertion that his service on the Gridley meant he could have avoided service in Vietnam. If it is true, then he should be respected for volunteering to serve, as he should be respected for his service overall. But the fact that he honorably served does not mean he cannot be criticized for events related to his service or for his anti war activities, especially when he was affirmatively using his service for political advantage.

The reasons David Weigel lists for why the conservatives hate Hillary range from breath-takingly stupid to completely irrelevent.

"OhmyGod, remember when she made fun of staying home and baking cookies?! Remember?!?!" You're telling me this is what's had them hot and bothered about Hillary all these years?? You'd almost think she'd called them un-American, unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers.

Ambassadors of 1960s radicalism and cultural decadence? Was that when Clinton was signing bills authorizing V-Chips and school uniforms, or when he was instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and signing the Defense of Marriage Act? Their greatest evidence seems to be that Hillary did not always use her husband's name.

If this shallow, baseless crap is all they have, I hope she wins the nomination and that they go down in flames. Not that they won't just ramp up their Hate and Conspiracy machine for a second round.

brian: "You guys are so partisan that you lose all sense of objectivity."

You're simply projecting again. We're not the ones constantly coming up with increasingly desperate and far-fetched rationales to excuse the clearly egregious and potentially criminal behavior of those in power.

I mean, really -- "Kerry used his three purple hearts to come home early." That's simply a despicable accusation, especially when presented without any evidence to justify such an outlandish claim. That's a classic textbook definition of a smear.

And that's really fuckin' pathetic, even for a deaf, dumb and blind chickenhawk like you. I truly feel sorry for you.

Aloha, clown.

Is there any doubt that the Swift Boat ads that ran virtually nonstop in Ohio managed to switch at least a hundred thousand votes and thus swing the state — and the election — to George Bush?

I thought the Republicans plain out and out stoled Ohio. There's an abundance of evidence that democrats were kept from voting - ballot shortages, voting machine shortages - there were suspicious vote tallies, and so on. To prove that negative campaigning count Kerry Ohio you first have to prove that the voting there was not rigged, and that can't be done.

Disenfranching minority voters and "caging" also helped the Unelected Asshole from Crawford steal the 2004 election, in mush the same way he stole the 2000 election (minus the SCOTUS).

I think Kevin is missing the point here about negative campaigning. Of course every campaign goes negative - often dishonestly and brutally. But the core essence of Kerry's 2004 campaign was that he was a change from George W. Bush, not that there was anything wonderful about John Kerry himself. And that's the point. Going negative as part of a larger campaign to trump up one's own side works. Believe it or not, a lot of voters really are turned off by negative ads and stay home because of them. So candidates have to offer a reason why voters should choose them other than that they are not the opponent. I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because I like his position on this or that policy question (though I appreciate his lifelong opposition to the death penalty), or that I liked his personality. I voted for him because I hate George W. Bush. But that's not enough to get a majority in most elections.

Bush Sr. in 1988 is the closest campaign I can think of where the candidate offered no compelling reason for his own candidacy - except general continuation of Reaganism (at a fairly low polling ebb in 1988 though not as low as early 1987 during the Iran-Contra scandal).

The ... veterans who made up the swift boaters had the perfect right to express their opinion about Kerry...Posted by: brian at 9:31 PM

brian: I don't think there is any dispute over the fact that Kerry used his three purple hearts to come home early.

so its your position that soldiers with 3-purple hearts don't deserve to go home early?

does your position come from personal experience?

how many purpe hearts did you get?