Monday, May 31, 2004

What A Surprise

From the Washington Post:

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity

Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks

By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei

Washington Post Staff Writers

Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01

It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry “has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all” and said the senator from Massachusetts “promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office.”

On Tuesday, President Bush’s campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious — and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented — both in speeches and in advertising.

You would think that after the carpet-bombing Bush/Cheney did on Al Gore in 2000 the Washington press corps would have learned their lessons. The job the Bush/Cheney ’04 team is doing on Kerry is no different. Which of these is more likely: that the Republicans think they can pull it off, or that the press corps is more than likely to eat it up?

The answer, of course, is both.