The most undignified reelection campaign by an incumbent President. EVER.

[MallRat]

I feel that this has been a severely underplayed storyline of this election year. The Washington Post reported a few months ago that 3 out of 4 ads run by the Bush-Cheney campaign were negative ads: an unprecedented number for a sitting President.

Since then (and especially after yesterday's venom-fest), the Bush campaign has gone even more negative... to the point where it seems the President's sole campaign strategy is to berate and belittle Kerry, and not much else.

This is beneath the office of the President. Incumbency comes with a certain veneer of gravitas and dignity. Bush obviously doesn't give a shit about either of these- he's running a campaign devoid of real issues, and based on smears, lies, and ridicule.

In other words, he's not campaigning like a President. He's lashing out like a challenger who's down 15 points in the polls. At this rate, it won't be long before Bush starts namecalling like his father did in '92: remember "Ozone Man?"

[skylarmae]

1. You're so right. It reminds me of a shark feeding frenzy!

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. No argument here...

"my opponent" will surely turn to something else soon. :hi:

[Terran]

3. LOL, "gravitas and dignity"??

Are you surprised by any of this? Bush has never had either of those things, ever. This campaign has actually been less negative than I thought it would be. But then, it ain't over yet, give 'em time.

[pmbryant]

4. Similar to Bush Senior, as you mention.

When an incumbent resorts to such over-the-top negative tactics, it is a sure sign of desperation. Bush Senior in 1992 is the most recent example, but Bush Junior is much much worse.

Peter

[Syncronaut Seven]

19. They will roll out the "Big Smear"

Oct 31 - Nov 2. Should have seen Cali in 2000, wall to wall fear & threats of the "consequences" of voting wrong. It was like a blanket, dark, sinister, laced with every Primal fear trigger known to man.

It was dirty, lies, distortions, but in the critical hours before the election there just wasn't time to debunk them all.

This is war.
These people kill for fun and profit.
Expect the worst.

FEAR fear FEAR fear FEAR fear FEAR fear FEAR fear FEAR fear FEAR fear

[AP]

5. Can you say, "nothing to run on."

They have to run against Kerry because they have nothing that they can run on, and the things the stand for are values that are repulsive to all but a handful of Americans.

[Ishoutandscream]

12. Yes I can, and you are so correct

They have to go negative. THEY HAVE NOTHING!!

[Skittles]

6. well, the GOP cannot POSSIBLY run on its RECORD

negative ads and personal attacks are really their only game plan

[wellstone_democrat]

7. What else has he got? Even in Red Red Texas

in a profoundly conservative portion of west Texas, they are playing anti Kerry ads. What the hell is the point? To get all six Democrats in this city to turn? Hardly. They have a boatload of money so they can burn it feeding redmeat to their "base"----I've yet to see a Kerry/Edwards ad (though, I finally did see a bumpersticker for the first time yesterday---the car had New Mexico plates though....) but I see expensive 30 and 60 second spots in a place where there is no need to campaign whatsoever.

He can strangle kittens live on TV and this area will still go over 90% Bush*

[coloradodem2005]

8. Kerry has shown the Gravitias for incumbency.

Hence he acts more like a President. Elect him.

[dogtag]

9. Shrub is not only not running as the incumbent,

he's running as the agent of CHANGE. When will he slip and say that he'll do better than the guy who's been in charge for the last four years? Oooops, that's me!

[Stephanie]

10. He's already namecalling. Remember "Kerry is Orange"?

Bush said it himself. Then Cheney set Lynne up for the punchline. Brilliant Republican humor. They have sunk so low they are reduced to the ridiculous. Because they have NOTHING ELSE. They are SCREWED.

[terrya]

11. I agree. This is even worse than Nixon in 1972.

This campaign by this President is the lowest, most unethical political campaign I've ever seen.

[No2W2004]

13. not too surprising

since they can't run on their record, but it isn't unheard of for the incumbent to go exceedingly negative...LBJ's campaign against Barry Goldwater will always be a stand-out, but the one I will always recall is the campaign between JQ Adams and Andrew Jackson in 1828.

Adams campaign portraied Jackson as being a blood-thirsty savage, and accused Jackson and his wife of adultery and bigamy because his wife Rachel's divorce wasn't legal yet at the time they were married. (They were confused on a legal point, and even though they thought Rachel was divorced, she wasn't legally yet.) Rachel's morality was called into question as the Whigs increased the attacks. Rachel died shortly before Jackson's inaguration, and Jackson always blammed Adams and his campaign for her death. On her tombstone, Jackson had ingraved: "A being so gentle and so virtuous slander might wound, but could not dishonor".

[Sparkly]

16. Damn Whigs!

(Well, not really, I just like saying "Damn Whigs.")

Thanks for that story. Weren't there some other parallels between the Adams presidencies with Poppy and Chimpy? And JQ didn't win the popular vote?

What's horrible is how BushCo is willing to divide and infuriate the country, dredge up old wounds and battles, and exploit fear, anger, religion, bigotry, and anything else -- they do what's BAD for the COUNTRY without limits.

[No2W2004]

17. Yeah, the parallels between JA and JQA

and Poppy and Chimpy are pretty eerie.
Jackson always considered the election of 1824 as "stolen" from him because while Jackson won the popular vote hands down, he did not have enough electoral votes to automatically win the presidency. Therefore the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives.

Jackson's opponents were Henry Clay of Kentucky, John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, and William H. Crawford of Georgia who were respectively speaker of the house, secretary of state, and secretary of the treasury. Adams was horrified at the thought of Jackson becoming president. He thought Jackson was a badly educated bumpkin with little preparation for high office. Because Clay's opinion of Jackson was similar, the Kentuckian threw his support to Adams on the first ballot and Adams was elected. Jackson never forgave either one of them, especially after Adams named Clay his secretary of state in what seemed to be a payoff for Clay's votes. This lead to one of Jackson's more memerable quotes: When he was leaving office, someone asked Jackson if he had any regrets. Jackson replied that he had only 2...That he hadn't shot Clay and hung Adams.

[progressivebydesign]

14. This is the NASTIEST I can remember...

.. and the fucked up part? The other two nasty campaigns I remmeber are BOTH Bush campaigns! What assholes they are. Competitive, mean, spiteful, untruthful, and just plain ugly.

The media, because they are GOP lapdogs, make it sound as if BOTH campaigns have been this way. Fuck them. Kerry and Edwards conducted the Convention with the theme that we are going to be POSITIVE, and not bash Bush.. but instead show that America needed change. The Bush campaign responded by getting meaner, uglier, and nastier. The Kerry Campaign, sadly, had to go for jugular in response just to satisfy the bloodlust that has apparently gripped the voters!

What happened to Ilana Wexler of Kids For Kerry's calls for National No Name-Calling Day on September 21st?? Sheesh.

[leftofthedial]

15. the little bushturd is an amoral, sociopathic slimeball

he doesn't care about America or the Constitution or anyone or anything except himself.

expecting to get dignity and gravitas from him is like expecting to get peach sherbet from an elephant's asshole.

[skygazer]

18. You're right

And technically, as the incumbent, he is morally obligated to defend his administration, rather than put down his opponent. It makes sense for the challenger to run somewhat negative because he/she has to prove to the electorate why a change is needed.

The incumbent, on the other hand, should be trying to prove that no change is needed, that the right person for the job is already in place. By going so completely negative, it gives the impression that there IS no defense of the administration and that the only reason to vote for the incumbent is because the challenger is a worse choice.

This really makes for a lack of substance on the part of the incumbent and, normally, would make him/her look desparate. Unfortunately, there are so many idiots out there and the media is so sycophantic that the truth gets lost among the rhetoric.