We have seen famous attack ads that have all but decided presidential elections in the past. George H.W. Bush ran ads that attacked Michael Dukakis' performance as Governor on issues relevant to crime with the "Willie Horton" and "Revolving Door" ads. Could the 2004 presidential election be decided based on ads referencing 9/11? Historical evidence seems to point us in that direction, as we will see.
The real question here is: has 9/11 made it impossible for a candidate, especially a candidate for high public office, to run ads that attack someone else, incumbent or not? Areas principally affected by the terrorist attacks, such as the New York City metro area, obviously have a different stance on ads with references to 9/11 as we have seen this past week. However, will the rest of the country see those ads in the same light? Both candidates, undoubtedly, will have a tough time appeasing those who feel such mention is improper with their necessary efforts to play on their strengths.
Tavis Smiley, appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher in February, said that Bush has to run based on his national security record because he has nothing else to run on. He brings up a good point because Bush may be able to play this in his favor. Perhaps the best thing for Bush to do now might be to publicly state that 9/11 affected every other major American issue so negatively that he could not fight back the aftermath the attacks left on domestic issues. He might win support if he contends that things might have been much worse and perhaps 9/11 could have led to a global depression instead of an economic pause or other euphemism for depression lite. He may be able to play the perception that he was a lucky guy in the right place into a positive increase in support.
John Kerry will want to maintain his attack on the Bush record, which should be easy because there is not much of a Bush record. His shifting between liberal and conservative Democrat may play into Bush's hands because it might alienate Democrats not quite ready to support Kerry. Bush may be well served to run an ad attacking Kerry's record in key areas such as education, jobs, and other social areas but he will have to step here carefully lest he make reference to his own domestic social agenda.
The real question here is: has 9/11 made it impossible for a candidate, especially a candidate for high public office, to run ads that attack someone else, incumbent or not? Areas principally affected by the terrorist attacks, such as the New York City metro area, obviously have a different stance on ads with references to 9/11 as we have seen this past week. However, will the rest of the country see those ads in the same light? Both candidates, undoubtedly, will have a tough time appeasing those who feel such mention is improper with their necessary efforts to play on their strengths.
Tavis Smiley, appearing on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher in February, said that Bush has to run based on his national security record because he has nothing else to run on. He brings up a good point because Bush may be able to play this in his favor. Perhaps the best thing for Bush to do now might be to publicly state that 9/11 affected every other major American issue so negatively that he could not fight back the aftermath the attacks left on domestic issues. He might win support if he contends that things might have been much worse and perhaps 9/11 could have led to a global depression instead of an economic pause or other euphemism for depression lite. He may be able to play the perception that he was a lucky guy in the right place into a positive increase in support.
John Kerry will want to maintain his attack on the Bush record, which should be easy because there is not much of a Bush record. His shifting between liberal and conservative Democrat may play into Bush's hands because it might alienate Democrats not quite ready to support Kerry. Bush may be well served to run an ad attacking Kerry's record in key areas such as education, jobs, and other social areas but he will have to step here carefully lest he make reference to his own domestic social agenda.
Go To Page: 1 2
The copyright of the article Attack Ads in 2004 in U.S. Presidential Elections is owned by . Permission to republish Attack Ads in 2004 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
