adamist wrote:
] Separated by 16 years, two of the most famous and
] controversial TV ads in presidential campaign history share a
] remarkable set of traits. Both were launched by nominally
] independent groups, not by the candidates themselves. Both
] aired in just a few small markets, gaining widespread exposure
] only through news media coverage. Both were denounced as
] inaccurate and unfair.

Both were very accurate. John Kerry had a rich boy's tour of duty. Willie Horton was freed to rape and kill again. Sorry that the dems are such pussies. I wish they had backbones as well. Then they may actually pick up one of my votes, one day.
]
] And both the "Willie Horton" spot of 1988 and the 2004
] campaign's initial commercial by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
] slammed a Democrat from Massachusetts and helped a Republican
] candidate named George Bush.

Ooooh? I wonder if this is a coincidence? The Willie Horton ad was far more effective than the swift boat ad seeing as it allowed women to see how raped they will get when a soft-on-crime democrat allows rapists to go free. All the swift boat ad shows is one man's solitary ambition to be the next JFK. If he gets elected, it might be nice if he continued to follow in JFK's footsteps all the way.
]
] In both the Horton and Swift boat cases, the respective Bush
] campaigns disclaimed responsibility, saying the ads were the
] work of unaffiliated groups. But in both instances, news media
] reports subsequently exposed ties between the official
] campaigns and the independent groups.

Gee, who woulda thunk it? I was under the impression that the democrats had come up with the swift boat ads. After all, airing an ad like that would fall in line with their other effective forms of running a campaign. They have no message, John Kerry is a family killing vietnam vet, and the whole party is so far up the ass of special interest that they have no cohesive message. Oh, and let's not forget the freaks and losers who wear obscenity laden T-shirts as a way to elect their latest choice for national figurehead. They do a great deal of image-boosting for their party. Dems, heal thyselves. Who needs the swift boat ad when the party speaks for itself (and makes itself look foolish).
]
] ...And neither of the Bush campaigns specifically repudiated
] the controversial spots...

Why should they? The spots are true in their assessments. It's up to Bush to run a good campaign on behalf of his party. IT's up to Kerry to do the same. Possibly the fact that Kerry has no plans and nothing to say has made the Swift Boat ad his BEST PRESS yet. Not impressive.

RE: Two Political Ads Share More Than Fame and Controversy (washingtonpost.com)