Asymmetrical Information

Interestingly, Jane,you don't seem to note a couple of facts. One is that Kerry has NOTHING to do with the ad and two, Bush is running ads which portray Kerry in a negative light. So can it truly be said that there was a ceasefire?

Um, John?

Jane never said Kerry had anything to do with the ad - she stated her belief that it will hurt his campaign. This seems a reasonable viewpoint, for the reason that she states.

Also, it can be reasonably asserted that any anti-Bush ad inherently has something to do with Senator Kerry - the dots to be connected are rather close together, after all.

Finally, a substantive reference to currently running anti-Kerry ads would bolster your final assertion.

Uhh Parker,
A few points. I never said that Jane claimed that Kerry had anything to do with the ads, so drop the straw man. What I said is that Jane dishonestly reported the content of the article, implying that there was some "ceasefire", even though the Bush campaign is running negative ads as we speak and Kerry is not.
Second point, Got any evidence that the Kerry campaign is involved in the 527 ads? I know this might be hard for you to conceive, but there are many people besides John Kerry who don't want Bush to be reelected and want to run ads against
him, like Soros, for example.
Third point, the the anti Kerry ads are referenced quite nicely in the article supplied by Jane. Read it.

“...but as the Wellstone debacle illustrates, Democratic campaign strategists don't always seem to have their fingers on the pulse of the nation.”

Members of the far left never seem able to chill out. They apparently believe that everybody is on the same page. It is the inevitable result when one lives out much of their life within an echo chamber. Most of us, for instance, who earn a living rarely talk about politics during working hours. This is a taboo which is rigorously enforced. Radical leftists, however, seem to socialize and work among those who fully share their political views. How can we forget the late Pauline Kael of the New York Times who was flabbergasted by Nixon’s victory over McGovern. All of her friends voted for the latter gentleman. How can you be offending others if they presumably are true believers like yourself?

I don't think you can frame that as an "attack ad", Mr Mugabi, especially as you seem to have missed that all-important "mainly" modifier. From what I understand, the ads that are running are pretty similar in tone and content, as the campaigns have something of a tit-for-tat strategy.

But this wasn't an attack on Kerry. I'm just saying that all-out attacks on Bush right now are probably politically ill-advised. And the 527s, while nominally separate, are of course part of the Democratic political machine. Voters, sheep though they may be, will recognize that an ad smearing Mr Cheney is probably intended to help the Kerry campagin, and react accordingly. Mondale didn't participate in the Wellstone fiasco either, but it hurt him just the same.

But hey, it's your party, so y'all should do whatever you think the voters will like best.

Thanks Jane, I always appreciate advice on electability from Libertarians. Kind of like advice on Electrical wiring from the Amish.

Ok, John, another try:

I think you are defending where I am not accusing.

I don't maintain, or have any reason to believe, that John Kerry or his official campaign have had anything to do with the release of the anti-Bush ads in question.

That said, there is a LOGICAL relationship between any anti-Bush ad, regardless of source, and Kerry, who is the opposing nominee.

In the public mind, anti-Bush ads are going to be associated with Kerry, even if there are some where he would not want this to happen. This is the point I was trying to make.

Jane seems to be pointing out that this may have a negative effect on the Kerry campaign - whether or not these ads have any official association with Kerry is rather beside the point (and struck me as a straw man that you were raising, though I suppose different people could view that differently).

I did follow the links in the article - one took me to a blank page, and the other to a NYT article filed on the 4th of June - before Reagan's death, which would put the ads mentioned before any presumptive 'cease fire'.

Also, the ad did not seem vicious, although I would certainly characterize it as negative with regard to Senator Kerry.

Not trying to pick a fight - I simply thought you were misreading Jane's intent, and that her point was valid regardless of the origin of the ads in question.

I believe the same possibility for backlash exists for the Bush campaign, especially if they go strongly negative during this time of national mourning.

Thank you for the opportunity to work on my writing skills - I will seek to be clearer in my thoughts and their expression in the future.

I'm not offering advice, Mr Mugabi; I'm attempting to make predictions. I'm a journalist; that's what we do. It might be wiser to evaluate my predictions in light of my political acumen, rather than my political persuasion. Which may, of course, be wanting as well, but has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a libertarian. I'd offer exactly the same "advice" to Bush if Mr Clinton had suddenly died of a coronary.

“Mondale didn't participate in the Wellstone fiasco either, but it hurt him just the same.”

The typical American voter doesn’t give a fat damn about distinguishing between a so-called independent 527 group and the official campaign. Such legalistic distinctions are appreciated only by lawyers and political junkies. They essentially---and usually rightfully so---lump them all together. That is why Walter Mondale got hurt, and the same will likely hold true for John Kerry.

Ms. Galt, I can't evaluate your prediction in light of any purported political acumen, since I dont' have a basis for seeing any of your prior predictions and evaluating them in light of what actually transpired. I also think you are trying to do far more than make a prediction here, you are acting as a Bush flak, IMHO. You call the ads against Cheney (not Bush per se) a "smear", even though you give no indication of having seen them or being able to verify the underlying facts. You also seem to be perpetuating the Wellstone "Funeral" myth that the righties exploited to great effect in 02. You also equate the Bush and Kerry ads as being "basically the same", upon some "understanding, even though your apparent source states that this is not the case.

Mr Mugabi, it's no myth that Paul Wellstone's funeral cost Democrats that election. Your quarrel is with the facts, not me.

“You also seem to be perpetuating the Wellstone "Funeral" myth that the righties exploited to great effect in 02. “

Oh my God, you really live in a liberal dream world. The Republicans virtually had to do nothing to exploit this issue. In many respects, they merely stepped back and let the Democrats self-destruct. Did a Republican point a gun at the heads of Wellstone’s supporters who uttered political diatribes during the funeral service?

I am a little late to this debate but here are a few observations:

1. I do think that the ads should be held off for a bit, but I doubt that there is anything that anyone except the people running them can do about them. I have a bit of experience with working on Congressional campaigns and it's my experience that you can't stop an activist group even if you have the same goals. People tend to go over the top sometimes.
2. I agree with Jane that there is potential for a backlash, but I dont think it will be very significant, if it happens at all. The main reason is that these are simply ads which most of us won't see, whereas the Wellstone Memorial Service was televised. I think the public would react much more strongly to behavior at a Memorial than a political ad. Also, the ad attacks Cheney, who doesn't seem to share the same level of political support that Bush does. People tend to really dislike the guy personally, with some good reasons, I might add.
3. It's also a lot farther out from Election Day than the Wellstone Memorial was. That was what, six or seven days out? This is in the dolldrums of June, plenty of time for outrage, if any, to dissipate. In short, I think this is a non issue.

The facts are, it was not a funeral at all, that is the myth that I was referring to. Maybe Journalists should spend more time reporting facts and less time making predictions. The

On the question of whether the public will distinguish between ads run by Kerry and ads run by a 527, I think we have some history that indicates the public will not make such a distinction. Remember the "Willie Horton ad" ran by Papa Bush's campaign? Of course, the campaign did not run the ad -- an independent group supporting Bush did -- but that did not prevent the Democrats from pointing to the ad as evidence of Bush's racism for "allowing" the ad to run. Just to be fair, another example comes from the last presidential election where the NAACP ran an ad that, again, tarred the Republican as a racist. The fact the NAACP ran the ad, not the Gore campaign, did not prevent the Bush campaign from trying to link the ad to Gore.

I think the same thing will work this time around. Ads run by 527s will reflect on the candidate the 527 supports almost as much as if the candidate ran the ad himself. This may be only because the public will rationalize along the lines of, "If that's the kind of people who support Bush/Kerry...."

The typical American voter doesn’t give a fat damn about distinguishing between a so-called independent 527 group and the official campaign. Such legalistic distinctions are appreciated only by lawyers and political junkies.

I agree, most people when they see or hear a political advertisement probably don’t pay any attention to who it is that sponsors it. If it appears to be geared towards helping (or hurting) a candidate, they will probably assume that it comes from the candidate’s campaign (or their opponent).

"I think the same thing will work this time around. Ads run by 527s will reflect on the candidate the 527 supports almost as much as if the candidate ran the ad himself."

Which is why it is so funny that Congress designed a system which has them losing control of their campaign messages.

The facts are, it was not a funeral at all, that is the myth that I was referring to.

Just out of curiosity, what is the big deal with referring to a “memorial service” as a “funeral service”? Is the distinction between the two terms really that important of a point or are you unaware that you might be losing the larger argument (e.g. the level of politicization of the event) by quibbling?

It's not trivial at all, in fact it's quite signifcant. A funeral is where they actually get ready to put the guy in the ground. It's usually teary, everyone dresses in dark clothes, etc. A memorial serive need not be so somber. Among non-religious people like Wellstone, they often tend to be a touch jovial, in fact. Often they are referred to as "celebrations of life" or some such thing. It was certainly politicized, but not as badly as GOP spinmeisters claimed. Peggny Noonan, never one big on facts, claimed that 20,000 people booed Lott, rather than the couple of hundred max. By incorrectly calling it a "funeral" sleazebags like Peggy Noonan were able to take what the Dems handed them and make it much, much worse than it was, while a compliant media swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

“It's not trivial at all, in fact it's quite signifcant. A funeral is where they actually get ready to put the guy in the ground. It's usually teary, everyone dresses in dark clothes, etc. A memorial serive need not be so somber. “

You simply don’t get it. The general public overwhelmingly believes that partisan politics should be avoided during the process of saying goodbye to the deceased. End of story. They don’t distinguish between a memorial service and the actual funeral. Furthermore, these radical leftists were so oblivious to the feelings of the majority that they blew a great opportunity to help the Democrat replacement candidate. I’m convinced that Norm Coleman would have lost the election had the leftists been more subdued in their rhetoric. Once again, I would bet all the money in my checking account that these left wing zealots spend most of their time interacting with others sharing their vision of the world.

The fact is, what was supposed to be a bipartisan memorial service turned into a partisan bash-the-other-side fest. It was carried on television in the state, and reported nationwide. The polls showed a definite drop in support for the Dems overall the day after the memorial debacle. Had they taken the high road, they probably could have picked up a number of sympathy votes. Instead, the partisan bickering and booing and all the rest left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths.

As for 527s, it's possible that some people will make the distintion, due to the lack of the "I'm X and I approved this ad" bit. But most people won't make that distinction. They'll just assume that it's affiliated with the candidate. And since the Media Fund is chock-full of Democratic bigwigs, they'd be pretty close to right. If the Media Fund were smart, they'd hold off on the ads until a couple days after Reagan is in the ground, and the same for both campaigns. If Ted Kennedy can bring himself to say nice things about Reagan, everyone else can at least hold off on the attacks for a week.

What really offends me is the outrage about the outrage about the negative ads.

Had they taken the high road, they probably could have picked up a number of sympathy votes.

Yes, but they couldn't have taken the high road, because they're leftists, and as one famous leftist once said, "EVERYTHING is political". What the left needs to do is ban video cameras at such events.

A political memorial service should be an occasion where you do not feel alienated if you disagreed with the person but still respected them. To me thats the line that was crossed with Wellstone and thats the line the republicans should take care not to cross with Reagan. If your ideas are strong enough then you don't need to make a devil out of the person you are arguing with. I didn't agree with wellstone on anything but I respected him enough that I tuned into his memorial service. Perhaps wellstone would have wanted a rock concert style political rally for a memorial service but that simply isn't what I excpected to see when I tuned in and it seriously rubbed me the wrong way.

Kind of like advice on Electrical wiring from the Amish.

Offhand, the only relevant link I could make between the modern Amish and electrical wiring was the manufacturing industries of the Amana Colonies, which produce products of excellent quality, as anyone who has ever owned an Amana refrigeration device can attest. Which kind of destroys the analogy, eh? :-)

That's cute, anony, but the analogy is intact.

The Amana Colonies are not and never were related to the Amish. Adding to confusion between the two groups is an Old Order Amish community about 50 miles from the Amanas in Iowa. (I live about 30 miles from the Amanas).

Both groups are/were religious separatists, ethnically German (though from different regions of Europe), and practiced an austere lifestyle. Among other differences, however, the Amish never practiced true communal living, as the Amana Colonies did. The Amana Colonists never shunned modern technology, as the Amish do, leading to the creation of Amana Refrigeration (now a part of the Maytag company).

A description of the differences between the Amanas and the Amish, from the website for the Kalona, IA Amish community

But it's tasteful and apolitical for the Bush folks to have an "In Memoriam" page as the front page of their campaign website, right?

It's OK.

Kerry remains ahead and every bomb in Iraq is another step towards Bush losing in November.

The Bush Cheney campaign is so desperate they simply replaced their website with a homage to Reagan.

I don't understand where the parallel with the Wellstone story is supposed to lie. What annoyed the voting public, then, was not the Democrats' failure to put the entire political life of the country on hold for a suitable length of time; it was the way they exploited the funeral orgies themselves for political purposes. The only people in a position to make the same mistake with Reagan are the Republicans, who seem to be smart enough not to do it.

The fella getting buried this week figured something out decades ago that most of the genuises populating D.C. and other political environs have yet to grasp; never appear to be a jerk unecessarily. Yes, it might have been only 200 people booing at Wellstone's memorial service, but in the age of television, that's all it takes, because most folks think you have to be real jerk to boo somebody at a memorial service, and people tend to make inferences, fair or not, from the appearance of 200 jerks. Similarly, I'm sure that everybody at the 92' GOP convention wasn't an unattractive grumbling malcontent, but enough were for outsiders to make inferences regarding the group as a whole. If these people had any brains they'd understand that one can say just about anything, if one projects an effective persona while saying it.

Jane loses the debate on one word, and that word is "understandably". Backtrack as she might, the implication she makes is painfully obvious.

Understandably is the correct word to use. The 527 money has been an integral part of the democratic strategy for this election. Look at how worried they were when the FEC actually made some indications they were going to treat the 527 groups like every other PAC in the world. As much as the democrats like to say they are against rich people influencing elections they fought tooth and nail to keep that 527 loophole inplace for this election. It is understandable for Bush to be upset when he is getting attacked by Democrats this week.

I agree, Damon.

Its actually quite brilliant. Kerry can take the high road, and look golden by taking the week off from the campaign. Afterall, some things are more important that politics.

In the meantime, the 527's keep right on keepin' on since they have nothing to do with the Kerry campaign (wink, wink). Kerry looks great, but the dirty work continues. Situations like this just give me one more reason to have a cynical attitude towards all politics and politicians.

And maybe what Jane was trying to get at is that there are alot of folks that are insightful enough to see through the veil of bullshit current campaign laws create. And those people don't appreciate the crass use of someone's death to score political points.

Damnon, Why is it understandable for Bush to whine about being attacked when he himself is attacking Kerry with ads?

Besides the fact that Damon and Bennett are both wrong from both a factual and legal position, their points are irrelevant to the one that I'm making. Damon and Bennett are arguing why it's okay to argue that Kerry is responsible for the decision of the 527s. The problem is that Jane, who knows that such a statement is laughably wrong, is arguing that she didn't make that statement in the first place. So the fact that Damon and Bennett are arguing that Jane would be right if she said what she says she didn't say is irrelevant to whether or not she actually said it.

Eamon, if Bush actually were running negative ads right now it would be big news.

Justin- Kerry will be held accountable for the ads that the 527 groups are running because the soft money from the 527 groups has been a large part of his strategy to even the money gap. If he had been calling for no soft money in the race the republicans would have been more than happy to oblige him since republicans are much less dependant on large donors. Perhaps you missed the part where democrats tried to remove one of their FEC members who was willing to close the 527 loophle? Kerry is going to benefit from the large money donations and at times like this he could get hurt by them as well. Jane doesnt' need me to defend her, I am standing by my own statement that because Kerry wanted the 527 money in the race he can't exactly complain if it bites him in the ass.

It is news that Bush is running negative ads. The article that Jane cites as her source says as much. It's not really "understandable" for Bush to complain about being the recipient of attacks from the 527s, when the Bush campaign itself is attacking Kerry directly.

let me clarify- if Bush were running ads that voters thought were attacks on Kerry then it would be big news. One line in a newspaper article does not qualify. People always think these issues are caused by the media. In most cases the media is just there to report on it after people have gotten upset.

Damon, so because someone is found in only one news source and not plastered on the headlines all over it is not happening? The 527 ads aren't all over the news either, I guess those attacks aren't happening either, by your logic.

You are right- I don't think that the 527 thing is a big deal at this point. And just as Kerry would be right to complain about any negative attacks pointed his way, Bush should complain about any negative attacks he gets. The people are the ones that will decide whether the ads are too negative for this time. I simply don't think that Kerry should get a free pass on negative ads run by 527's just as Bush shouldn't get a free pass if a republican group ran a negative 527 ad right now. Publicize any ad you think unfairly attacks you all you want to, its the people who will decide whether a line has been crossed, not the press.

Comments are Closed.