Why Bush can't run effective ads

[ButterflyBlood]

new campaign finance laws require ads from the candidate's campaign to have the candidate appear onscreen and announce that they approve the message of the ad. Kerry has already ran ads attacking Bush for his job losses that are effective and despite the approving part at the end he doesn't look like a cheap partisan hack throwing mud but rather someone with legitimate complaints and solutions. Bush however can't do this. Mainly because he looks like a total moron every time he opens his mouth, and running childish ads will only improve that. Imagine an ad saying "Kerry is a Massachussetts liberal. Kerry sat close to Jane Fonda. Vote Bush/Cheney" with the monkey boy appearing and saying he approves the message. We'd all be laughing like mad. Bush is going to have to look like a fool in all his ads, and this works to our advantage.

[TlalocW]

1. I was wondering...

Why all the candidates ads had that at the end.

Thanks.

TlalocW

[Clark4Prez]

19. Its the law

part of campaign finance reform, it is supposed to keep the attack ads to a minimum and the candidates have to say their name and that they support the message (yes, Dubya will still need a cue card to remember his name).

They don't have to do it on web ads, only TV. Which is why Bush puts his on his web page and the media reports it, thereby putting it on TV for free and without having to attach his name directly too it (yes, Rove is brilliantly evil, he is Dr. Evil, actually!)

[barbaraann]

2. How about...

I can model all sorts of outfits and pose in settings designed to make me look manly, compassionate, patriotic, or however Uncle Karl or Uncle Dick wants me to look to fool the totally gullible GOP base. I can also put on the different facial expressions and use the tone of voice Uncle Karl or Uncle Dick tells me to to make my photo ops more believable. I practice a lot and get pretzels and near beer when I am especially good.

I am George W. Bush and I approved this message. :-)

[LeftCoast]

3. Cheney could do it...

It wouldn't harm B*sh as much since everyone already thinks Cheney is an asshole.

[ButterflyBlood]

4. is that legal?

can either of them do it or does * have to be it?

While that's right, it also brings Cheney to the forefront, and if everyone thinks he's an asshole, it drags the ticket down more.

[LeftCoast]

5. From what I understand

it is legal...but I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me. You may be right about them wanting to continue keeping Cheney in the WH basement. :)

[Kathleen04]

13. You're right..It's technically legal

it's a loophole that they found in the new campaign laws.

They were discussing it on CNN not too long ago.

I have no problem with them having Cheney do it cause having Cheney do it harms Bush's credibility (to those who think he might possibly have credibility).

[jeter]

18. It would be stupid if Bush allowed Cheney to do it

It would look like Cheney was in charge.

"I'm Dick Cheney, and I approved this message."

How would that look? So Dick Cheney approves messages huh? So Dick Cheney decides when to go to war? So Dick Cheney, etc.

It would be worse than if Bush did it himself.

[salin]

6. random reaction thought... too bad there isn't this requirement of

push polling.

Can you imagine in 2000, SC

Phone call:
Would you vote for John McCain if you knew that he had a biracial daughter?

Would you support John McCain if you knew his wife was a drug addict?

I am G W Bush, and I want your vote.


LOL just the thought makes me silly with laughter.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. that's why I think there should be a requirement

that all polls be required to state who the poll is being done by. that would end push polling.

[salin]

9. indeed it would.

[Kathleen04]

14. Seems like that would be difficult to enforce...

since it would be occuring over the phone.

[MessiahRp]

16. That's a terrific idea!

I totally agree with that. I made calls for the Kerry camp here in WI and always started off telling the callers whom I was calling on behalf of. Of course while I was calling to take a short unscientific poll of who was going to vote for whom, I preferred personally to use the upcoming events and apperances as the way to go about it so I invited them all to attend and gave them dates, times, and venues. I have always hated telemarketers so phone polling is not the highest thing on my list, and I figure if I am going to bug someone at home, I am going to offer them a chance to go to something in return.

Push polling sucks though. What I did never really counted as such because I never pushed hard to see who was voting what way. Let's face it, I believe that each person's vote is personal and while I would explain issues they have with candidates if they were looking for information, I wasn't going to push to divulge their votes and rip into their privacy. Call me weak but that's me.

I have two issues in life that make for the hardest parts of campaigning for myself or others.

1. I hate bugging people who don't want to be bugged. Telemarketing in any form is evil and wrong.

2. I hate asking anyone for money.

If I run for Congress down the road (and I have contemplated such) I am going to have to find some help that don't have those issues. :)

Rp

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Why Did He Bother To Play Dress Up On The Aircraft Carrier?

You know it's burning them that they can't use an A-1 photo op for that. After making the soldiers wait off-shore and turn the ship in such a direction that you couldn't see the coastline behind the "Mission Accomplished" sign, it sucks for them to have to put it in the drawer.

[salin]

10. so many things come to mind with that image... yep

they can use it to fundraise among the blindly adoring.. but that's about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. True, but can't interest groups run anti Kerry ads by themselves?

I mean, Kerry sure as hell doesn't have to give his seal of approval to the moveon.org ads.

[jansu]

12. What about "Truth in Advertising" laws! When he says we had to invade

Iraq to keep us safe....sue him! The economy is recovering....sue him! If every American who viewed those ads, would sue him in court....it might take care of him....also the bonus would be that maybe all the rest of the Politicans would have to clean up their acts!

Don't know if it would work.....but would certainly love to do it!

What's the difference between someone saying "Vote for me and I will solve your problem" and a diet pill which claims to make me slim without diet and exercise?

[LSdemocrat]

15. They'll just use shadow organizations to run them

That's what they did in 1988. The Willie Horton ads weren't actually officially run by the Bush/Quayle campaign but by a "third party" that had close ties to Bush campaign advisors. Sort of a similar setup to how Rove set up the push polling against McCain in South Carolina.

[Killarney]

17. Exactly. Other organizations will do the negative ads

like the Heritage Foundation or whatever.

[Clark4Prez]

20. No issue ads within 60 days of election

I think is the new law, it is supposed to keep that shit to a minimum. We'll see how well it works.

[LSdemocrat]

21. Weren't groups still running ads in Iowa and NH within 60 days?

I heard this, but I may have got it wrong.

I really don't think that will stop them, they'll run the ads anyway and pay the fine later.