For several years now George W. Bush has attempted to wrap himself in Ronald Reagan’s cloak. Undoubtedly, Bush and his mouthpieces will now turn up such rhetoric now that the former president is gone.
But just how similar are the two? In his column yesterday, Paul Krugman noted a difference between the two when it comes to tax cuts (Reagan at least conceded that the government could dig itself too deep in the tax cut hole).
Another compare and contrast: how does this compare with Reagan’s “Morning in America” reelection theme:
Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.
The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates — all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and “flip-flopped” on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.
“There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you’ve historically had in the general-election period against either candidate,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. “This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent.”
Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush’s level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, “I’m anticipating it’s going to be the most negative campaign ever,” eclipsing 1988, West said. “If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in ’88.”
Let’s see: Bush has had how many years to amass his “accomplishments,” and this his best shot at getting people to vote for him?
Interesting.