The Effectiveness of Attack Ads

In a new article in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne argues that the key reason President Bush won reelection was his relentless attack ads against John Kerry. There are two major things wrong with this assertion:

1. Attack Ads don't work unless they are valid. Democrats argued the same thing following the '88 election, saying that Bush Sr. won because he went so negative on Gov. Dukakis, citing the infamous Willie Horton Ad as an example. But the reason the Horton Ad hurt Dukakis is because it was valid and went to how Dukakis governed. The same is true for ads criticizing Sen. Kerry. Charges of flip-flopping resonated because it was backed up by the senator's record, summed up by his infamous quote, "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it."
2. For the left to claim victim status in this matter is totally duplicitous. Senator Kerry was only able to overtake Dean in the primaries because he sank to criticizing the president as much as Dean was, and this went on straight through to election day. This doesn't take into account the millions that were spent by liberal 527's to slander the president, or all the lies that were put forth by Michael Moore and Hollywood, or the fact that the MSM was the most negative towards President Bush than any other presidential candidate in history. The fact is, the left went much more negative than the Bush Campaign or Republicans did.