Dean,

First let me say that after reading the poll I'm mighty impressed with the acumen of my fellow Americans...with 39% saying that the military of China is a large threat over the next ten years, it shows a growing maturity in Americans view of the world. This is good; and so much for the theory that Americans pay no attention to world affairs.

It is, however, that 82% identifying international terrorism which will wag the American political dog this year - and probably in 2008 as well, unless we really crush the life out of all terrorism over the next four years (possible, but not likely - I think its more of a ten year process). Oh, sure, there will be a lot of fire and smoke over other issues (gay marriage and protectionism being two large one's - but both, in the end, red-herrings vis a vis how the votes turn out); in the end, the levers will be pulled after people give their answer to this question: if there's another 9/11 (or worse) attack between January 20th, 2005 and January 20th, 2009, who do I want in charge of the store - President Bush, or Senator Kerry? There's only one actual answer to the question.

While our politicians talk as if its true, and commentators comment on the political talk as if its true, and the people - when polled - profess to say its also true...its not true; people really don't think that the President has a job-making machine at his desk - in short, except in disasterous economic times (1980, 1932, eg) the people don't blame (or praise, in reality) the President for the exact state of the economy. Good economy means one less thing for the incumbant to worry about, thats all.

Fifty different things go into the decision on whom to vote for in a Presidential contest - public perception of the candidates temperment is the most vital. This is wise - it seems a human reaction; in our leaders, we don't necessarily want wonkish brainery; we want a man (or, eventually, a woman) whom we believe will be ice-cold in a crisis and get the job done. Kerry may be such a man - but we know that President Bush is such a man. No contest.

Bush's tendancy to 'stay above it' is not an example of strong moral character ( nor the converse), but an explict campaign strategy to let his surrogates do the necessary mud slinging. I point to the first campaign advertisment which was posted on the internet which did not feature Bush but stated that Kerry was the no.1 recipient of special interest money in the Senate - a verifiable false allegation. Already inserted into the storyline are 'Kerry has voted against every (or almost every) major military project and he cut 1.5 billion from intelligence services; there's factual basis for these claims but important qualifiers are uniformly left out by the media which reports the allegations and fails to check them out. So his oppo research team digs where it may, leaks it to conservative publications from where it makes its way to mainstream publications such as the WP, Nytime, and cable. Bush's campaigns have a long history of extremly dirty tactics (usually with plausible deniability), and if you really think a Morning in America style advertisment campaign is de facto evidence of a comparitively clean and positive campain, you're badly mistaken and in for some surprises during the next eight months.

That said, I am less than enamoured with some of the disingenous themes being pushed by Kerry (Benedict Arnold, attacking my patriotism etc...) and the fact that he doesn't seem to realise the primaries are over and he can stop out-Deaning Howard Dean now.

So its a pick from a sorry lot;

Also this: In an election with an incumbant, the campaign is biased towards analysis of the incumbant's record. The incumbants runs a positive campaing saying 'I've got a good record' and the non-incumbant says 'No, you don't'. Positive campaigns are more likely to win, Bill Clinton for example, but it need to be pointed out that its a lot easier for Bush to run a positive campaign than it is for John Kerry - he'd need a lot more political nous than he appears to have.

Max: You'll have to show me how the ad on Kerry was "verifiably false." You could argue that Bush himself has taken more "special interest money" than Kerry, but that wasn't the claim of the Bush ad. In fact, the ad was very well done, I thought, showing both how Kerry claimed to be above special interests, and to have accepted more special interest money than any of the other Democratic candidates, and to have taken quite a bit of it.

Again, this is using a candidate's own words and record against him, and it's not dirty tactics at all. Nor do I see any dishonsty there.

Bush's record of "extremely dirty tactics" is pratically nonexistant. The only thing I can remember at all, in fact, is from 2000, when some group that was loosely affiliated with Bush claimed that McCain was bad on air quality issues. But what else is there? Unless we're going to go back to that old canard about Max Cleland having his "patriotism" questioned because he was accused of not taking his oath of office seriously, which I suppose you could indirectly somehow blame on Bush.

By the way, that bit about Bush "leaking" stuff to conservative publications isn't dirty tactics either. Politicians of both parties have been doing that forever, and I do mean forever. In fact, one of the things that's long amused me is that the poltiical left acts so virginal about this, gets shocked, SHOCKED when they discover that conservative publications have a back-and-forth relationship with conservative politicians. The fact of the matter is that this is a two-way relationship and is done all over the political spectrum.

All throughout the 1970s and 1980s, left-wing publications like The Nation and The New Republic and Mother Jones and Ramparts and others maintained relationships with prominent Democrats (and a few Republicans), and conservative publications like the National Review and The American Spectator maintained relationships with prominent Republicans (and a few Democrats). Sometimes, a candidate's campaign would leak info to those publications, and just as often, those publications would come up with stuff that they'd send to their favorite politicans that they'd find useful.

In short, Max, this has been going on for longer than either of us has been alive. It's not illegitimate, it's not dirty, it's not even unusual. The only thing that's odd is that, at least until the 1980s, there really only WAS one conservative political journal, and that was the National Review, whereas there were a score of them on the left. Now there are more on both sides. When the pols feed something to a publication, it's almost invariably along the lines of, "Something smells funny here but we can't chase it down. You might want to investigate it and see what you can find out."

Nothing wrong there, man. Unless, of course, the publications wind up fabricating stuff based on those leads they get.

You might want to read this article I wrote in late 2002 on the subject: Tinkers to Evers to Chance: How Political News (and Nooz) Are Often Made.

It's not dirty, it's not scurrilous, it's not dishonest, and it's not shady. It's not new, it's not secret, and it's not unusual. It's completely normal, and completely legitimate--unless, of course, they outright lie or spread outrageous slanders (like the Clinton-Mena nonsense, or the Cheney-Halliburton crap that keeps floating around today).

But by the way: Bush's campaign was almost entirely positive and almost completely lacking in negative attacks in 2000, aside from the everyday sniping that always goes on--"Bush is stupid and can't tie his shoes" vs. "Gore is wacky and keeps exaggerating and can't tell the truth without embellishing." That's minor stuff, and to be expected, and it's not what I object to when it comes to negative campaigning.

The two worst things about Bush in 2000 were the McCain ad on pollution, and his claim in South Carolina that he would never hire "a known homosexual" to work in his administration and his pledge not to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. But on the latter point, a few months later, he met with the LCR, came out and said he'd had a change of heart and had learned a lot, and now the White House has any number of gays working for it and invites the LCR to every poltical strategy meeting and consults them regularly. (Although things are obviously strained now over the FMA issue.)

I don't remember a hell of a lot of negativity out of Gore in 2000 either, by the way. Just a lot of "Bush is stupid and Bush is incompetent." Which is also fine. Although that horrific NAACP lynching ad was by far the worst ad of the year, it can't be tied directly to Gore either.

This year the meanness level out of Democrats is more ferocious than anything I can ever recall seeing. Dole wasn't this mean to Clinton, Mondale wasn't this mean to Bush. Of course, Dole and Mondale lost, so, I dunno, maybe they thing being particularly nasty is the way to win this time? It turns me off, but maybe not everybody?

Max: You'll have to show me how the ad on Kerry was "verifiably false."

Well, its simple really. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, he's 92nd out of 100 senators for all special interest money. The ad referred to a WaPo article which referenced a CRP review which showed Kerry raised more money from 'paid lobbyists' than any other senator but it said 'special interest' money. False and completely misleading.

In the last 15 years agribusiness contributed $311m, the healthcare sector $460m, communications/electronics $417m, financial/insurance/real estate 1.2b. Paid lobbyist contributed $76m. And John Kerry doesn't accept money from PACs.

False, misleading, mudslinging negativity which has been widely reported without pointing any of these salient points out (i.e. its a lie). And it came from Bush's campaign, and its been push by his friends in the media and those too lazy to do a bit of research.

Two other things: a)Only 33 senators have been in the senate for 15 years; Massachutes is the 13th most populous state with one of the most expensive media markets; he led the 'paid lobbyist' category only once, in 1990. b)The CPR added $226,450 raised in his presidential campaign - not many senators have run for president.

Which isn't to say that John Kerry is pure as driven snow or anything; there are other categories of special interest money that he helps himself to and I would be very surprised if he hasn't engaged in his share of influence-peddling - comparatively speaking he's not the biggest of sinners though. The PAC claim is slightly questionable - but his is near the bottom in PAC donations. And you're right about it not comparing Kerry to Bush - he got more lobbyist money this year than Kerry has in his entire life and his industry (pharma, electric, oil&gas etc) contributions are mind-boggling.

The only thing I can remember at all, in fact, is from 2000, when some group that was loosely affiliated with Bush claimed that McCain was bad on air quality issues.

There's a lot more to it than that. I ain't got much time so I'll just leave ya with two quotes from John McCain (who wasn't faultless himself) bearing in mind Bush denied involvement in many of the capers going in in Carolina.

"Its clear now that their (Bush's) strategy is to tear me down. I mean, that's what all their surrogates are doing ... So we have to be fully
prepared to respond,"

`I'm calling on my good friend George Bush to stop this now. Stop this now. He comes from a better family. He knows better than this. He should stop it. I'll pull down every negative ad that I have. I want this thing stopped.'

And this tantalising quote from the Washington Times:

After that loss, Mr. Bush went on the attack against the centrist Mr. McCain. The strategy was revealed when Republican state Sen. Mike Fairs of South Carolina told Mr. Bush that he "hasn't even hit [McCain´s] soft spots."

"I'm going to," said Mr. Bush, apparently unaware that his conversation was being picked up by overhead boom microphones. "But I'm not going to do it on TV."

And some very, very nasty attacks were made on McCain, Atwater-style nasty.

“Unless we're going to go back to that old canard about Max Cleland having his "patriotism" questioned because he was accused of not taking his oath of office seriously, which I suppose you could indirectly somehow blame on Bush.”

Would that oath thing include have Max’s picture juxtaposed with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s? That because he voted to protect the rights of workers in the soon-to-be Department of Homeland Security – a department Bush didn’t even want to set up until pushed to do so by the Democrats. Not surprising that Bush partisan would want to run away from that disgusting campaign for the White House picked challenger.

“When we manage to get off of personalities and onto ideas, those are probably going to be the main ideas we debate.”

That sounds like another RNC meme to me, Dean. Tell me where the Democratic candidates and office holders have been being “mean” to Bush and running on his personality. Seems to me, almost all of the discussion has been about Bush’s POLICIES, ACTIONS and STATEMENTS and why they’re wrong for the country.

“It's not dirty, it's not scurrilous, it's not dishonest, and it's not shady. It's not new, it's not secret, and it's not unusual. It's completely normal, and completely legitimate--unless, of course, they outright lie or spread outrageous slanders (like the Clinton-Mena nonsense, or the Cheney-Halliburton crap that keeps floating around today).”

Correction: it is frequently dishonest, at least according to the definition I was taught. Example: comparing a completely base and baseless smear, perpetrated by a vile and (very rich) partisan miscreant and his hired thug with legitimate questions concerning the (factually true) long and deep connections between the Vice President and Haliburton, which is benefiting mightily from the administration’s Iraq war policy via highly questionable no-bid contracting that has already been shown to have ripped-off American taxpayers as if they were, in some way, comparable.

You might be right about Halliburton shep, although it's all conjecture at the moment. And it's not like Kerry has based his campain on Halliburton.
What about Kerry blaming the 6% unemployment problem on Bush? Do you think raising spending and lowering taxes is a cause of unemployment in the short term? Or is a business cycle more likely to be at fault? Kerry doesn't say how exactly Bush is responsible. (He doesn't say anything "exactly", but that's not the point.) Isn't that somewhat dishonest, a "baseless smear" (but perfectly normal in politics)?

My point is that you take only ONE thing Kerry associates say which you feel is true, and compare it with ONE thing Bush associates have said which you feel is false. Even if you are right, it doesn't prove much.

maor,
Just making a point about dishonesty in politics (public life, for that matter). I think we’ve lowered the bar to the floor and choose the dishonesty we see based mostly upon partisanship. Of course it’s dishonest to blame Bush for the unemployment rate. He can affect it, mostly with the bully pulpit, but he doesn’t control it. But one sound’s like a fool or a partisan (or both) when making a quantitative statement about this or that politician’s dishonesty or spin. They all do it; the important question is what are they spinning and why.