Why didn't the Kerry campaign have attack ads from the begining?

[fujiyama]

I remember the Kerry ads. They were very good and very optimistic and positive, but that shouldn't have meant that the campaign wouldn't be airing some hard hitting ads over the war and the Bush relationship with the SAUDis.

Otherwise, why the hell did it take so long for the 527s to come out attacking the family's relationship with the Saudi Royals?

IMO, the economy was always secondary. This election IS completely about national security. People would rather have a shitty job or no job than be dead. Remember when dems tried running from the issue in '02? The strategy was so inept that they did one of two things - avoided the issue altogether and make it about prescription drugs, or completely agree with the president's agenda.

This election was always about the war. This is Bush's pet project. It IS what defines him more than anything. Every terrible quality in the man - his arrogance, ineptitude, and outright stubborness and not listen to others - is displayed by the run up to this war.

While I've found the Move On ads pretty good overall, I have only seen or two ads that have gone after the Bush/Saudi relations, the disaster in Iraq - AND Afghanistan for that matter.

This shouldn't have been conceded for a second.

[krkaufman]

1. Because they lose their effectiveness after a while.

Remember the damage done to the Bush Admin back in April by the onslaught of books (Suskind/O'Neill, Clarke, Woodward,...) and the 9/11 Commission "investigations"?

The media stopped covering those issues, even though they remained true and relevant, and should be sufficient reason to throw the Chimp out of office.

[fujiyama]

2. Wasn't it April or May

when Kerry also had a shitty month? I remember when the books came out, Bush still wasn't hurt very much.

Plus, that's when their campaign launched a barrage of ads claiming Kerry was the flip flopper. I think the 87 billion dollar ads started then (the "I voted before voting against" bs).

Negative ads are effective. It's foolish to believe otherwise. I think the campaign and the 527s should have started right then. No time should have been wasted in reminding the people of this administration's failures.

[krkaufman]

3. The books, 9/11 Commission, and Democratic primaries...

... were *very* effective in tearing down Bush's "popularity." Kerry wisely sat back and allowed the media, 9/11 Commission, and surrogates to rip into Bush during that period.

However, I *would* say that Kerry should have been more rapid in responding to and countering direct attacks.

Please note that I didn't say that negative ads are ineffective. I said that the ads *lose* their effectiveness. And one must be clueless to not see this. ;) Further, the longer a negative ad runs, the greater the possibility that it may backfire.