ACCUSERS ALL
Going Negative: When It Works
By JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 22, 2004
THIS was supposed to be the positive campaign. Late last fall, Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that a new campaign rule requiring candidates to appear in their own advertisements and take credit for them would discourage them from making negative ads.
Yet it's not even Labor Day and President Bush has spent the majority of the more than $100 million he has spent on television advertisements attacking his Democratic opponent, Senator John Kerry. Mr. Kerry and the other Democratic primary contenders seemed to spend the fall and early winter in a contest to see who could jibe Mr. Bush the most.
A host of outside liberal groups have spent more than $60 million bashing Mr. Bush on his march to war, his economic stewardship and his health care policies. And in the latest volley, a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is pledging to spend $1.1 million by the end of the month on advertisements that scorch Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam and his statements about the war after he returned home.
Every campaign cycle, in fact, seems to begin with the promise of an uplifting, mutually respectful debate of the issues, only to devolve into character attacks and distortions, and for good reason: negative ads work. Voters may say they want candidates to stay positive, but in truth, they respond more readily, more viscerally, to attack ads.
"People like a fight," said Roger Stone, a Republican strategist. "Put up an ad about the intricacies of the federal budget and people will turn the channel. Put up an ad like the Swift boat one, that creates an indelible image in the voter's mind."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/weekinreview/22zern2.html