RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Actually, this one helped him quite a bit.

It didn't help Kerry for sure.

this probably ended up helping president bush, but i thought the ads were kind of sleazy.

Something which should not be a factor, but will be. A few voters will turn away from Bush for not de-crying this program strongly and specifically enough, but most Americans give a guy the leeway to attack back in kind when he has been attacked. Kerry's convention made this not only possible, but inevitable. Didn't a 527 from the left call GWB a deserter and demand the ANG attendance records from the early 70's? Didn't they call him a draft-dodger? Didn't the Chairman of the DNC? But, whoa, an ad that uses Kerry's own Senate testimony, that's over the line! You can't use his own testimony, whether or not it's in the public domain! That's over the line. Look at the 5's and 1's on this list. Look who is decrying this and were so silent when our sitting president was attacked, because he didn't have a D after his name. Yep, there certainly is outrage now. UPDATE TO scarlet: Maureen Dowd is a left-wing opinion writer on the NY Times Editorial staff. She knows that those operatives exist (on both campaign staffs) and have since the 1940's, and before). To think that only one party has them, and the other party boasts the likes of Bill Clinton, James Carville and Terry McAuliffe is almost funny.

This isn't damaging. Have you seen the polls? It's actually HELPED Bush. In fact, this has been the only ad that really has helped Bush. Why do you think Kerry and Edwards were so set on getting it taken away? Why do you think Bush wasn't as outspoken about it as McCain? There might be a few to change their minds based on this example of dirty politics, but other than this won't do much to hurt Bush.

Magellan, I couldn't agree with you more. The Swift Boaters are a cadre of jealous, disgruntled, losers likely in the pay of the Republican party. Maybe they're not actually on the payroll, but I'm sure these sleazeballs are getting some kind of reward for their efforts. Which brings me to an interesting article I read this morning by New York Times writer Maureen Dowd. In a recent column she stated that the Bushes have a long history of delegating their dirty work. There are always third-party political assassins, ostensibly independent, to do the dynasty's wet work. Lee Atwater, W's old pal and running partner set up the modus operandi: Lay in the weeds while craftily planting plausibly deniable surrogates to slice up your rival. (Karl Rove, is of course the Atwater of the 2004 presidential campaign). Then the candidate, can stand piously above the fray, denying any connection to the smears and dirty tricks. Unfortunately, Kerry was a little sluggish in responding to the attacks, but he at last seems to have realized how truly damaging they are. Maybe he didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to believe the Swift Boaters lies. Unfortunately, to quote P.T. Barnum, You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. UPDATE TO LINCOLNSCADDY: Glad you're enjoying the spate of negative ads. I bet you make sure your subscription to the National Enquirer never lapses either.

I can't imagine Bush getting more hurt by this than Kerry. Polls already show that Americans have doubts about Kerry becoming an effective leader and that people now view Bush as being more trustworthy than Kerry. Negative ads can be cruel and unfair and voters dislike them, but they do work. And it's true that you usually learn more about a candidate by negative ads than positive ones.

Not really damaging to Bush's campaign, just like the Democratic smear ads don't hurt Kerry. Yes, these ads can be tied to the GOP but not Bush himself. And Democratic smear ads can be tied into the Democratic Party. As for damage, polls have showed Kerry weaker in key states since these ads came out. Here's what makes no sense to me. Kerry asked Bush to denounce these ads. Then Bush did denounce them. But then Kerry and Edwards began blaming Bush for not stopping these ads. Please! These are independant ads partially funded by the GOP, but not fully. The Democrats started the smear campain years ago. If Kerry wants to talk about his Vietnam service, I want to hear from the guys who were actually there. How does John Edwards know what happened in Vietnam? Kerry opened himself up for this. Its his own stupidity. Runs his whole election campaign on 4 months in Vietnam. Then he wants legitimate independant advertising stopped just because they question his service. I like what W Bush said- Veitnam has nothing to do with the election. Maybe these ads will convince Kerry that he's not fighting the Vietnam War anymore.

I sure hope that this damages GWB's reelection efforts. I find these ads despicable, unamerican, and would bet the farm that they are indirectly funded by the GOP. The same thing was done to McCain four years ago (in fact, managed by the same PR firm), and the fact that GWB won't condemn the ads says a lot. The leader of the Swift Boat 'movement' never even met Kerry, didn't serve under him, and wasn't on Kerry's boat. Somehow this makes him 'fit' to write a book called 'unfit to lead? These guys should call themselves 'prostitutes against John Kerry' for selling their integrity to the GOP. Update: PB, I think that equivalent mudslinging would be for the Kerry campaign to dig up folks that did cocaine with GWB, or the cop that pulled him over for DUI. It's not happening (nor should it). These Swift boat ads cross the line.