Editor's Note: Dirt farming on the campaign trail

Editor's Note: Dirt farming on the campaign trail
The presidential candidates--George W. Bush, John Kerry and, oh, okay, Ralph Nader--will spend somewhere around a quarter of a billion dollars this year on their campaigns, although 90 percent of voters have already decided who they will cast their ballots for on Nov. 2. The remaining 10 percent of "undecided" voters will be the target of aggressive advertisements and campaign tactics intended primarily to make the other guy look bad.

More than seven months before Election Day, the negative campaigns are already in full swing, and these early skirmishes are a harbinger of what could be the dirtiest, nastiest, most revoltingly entertaining presidential race in history. We can expect that every stone will be turned to expose rumors, innuendoes and perhaps some actual relevant information aimed at inflicting damage on the candidates.

The Bush administration and its extensive media allies have the most experience with this sort of thing, and no qualms about engaging in the worst of it. They have a win-at-all-costs attitude that allows wide latitude for dirty tricks. It didn't take long for GOP Nation to deploy Operation PhotoShop, inserting Jane Fonda next to Kerry in an old photo from an anti-war rally. And when that little scheme was quickly exposed as a fraud, it was time for Operation Intern Scandal, with the Drudge Report tossing out the unsubstantiated rumor that Kerry had an affair with one. This also was promptly debunked. Now Bush has hired attack ad guru Alex Castellanos to craft his trademark vicious, misleading broadsides against Kerry.

The Democrats have sought in the past to take the high road, but this year they know that's a path to loserville, so they seem ready to mix it up as well. Kerry has shown that he's in warrior mode. Last week, speaking frankly when he thought the microphones were off, Kerry revealed his assessment of the Bush forces: "These guys are the most crooked...lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." Whether this was a wise thing to say--Kerry rightly did not apologize--it revealed that the presumptive Democratic nominee has the right attitude to play to win.

Bush's negative ads will focus on the "L" word--liberal--and the "W" word--waffle. Bush will label Kerry a liberal--or worse, a "Massachusetts liberal." This charge may hurt Kerry in our fine nation of people who believe in and partake of a vast array of liberal policies and programs, yet would never admit to being liberal. Bush will say that Kerry has waffled on the Iraq war, which is true but probably won't hurt him much, considering that just about everybody in the country has gone back and forth in their mind on whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq, where more than 550 American soldiers have been killed. It's also going to be difficult for Bush to sell the notion that Kerry would be "soft on terrorism," especially if he's basing that contention on legislation proposed or supported during the '90s. Bush himself wanted to curtail military activity overseas before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed everything. And the fact that Kerry opposed the odious PATRIOT Act is a badge of honor that he should wear proudly.

Bush and his cronies probably will try to tarnish Kerry's Vietnam War record, despite Kerry's numerous medals for heroism and Bush's, um, noninvolvement in the war effort. Bush won't focus on those facts, of course, unless it is to suggest that Kerry participated in "atrocities" during the war. Readers of Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, however, will find ample evidence that Kerry spent a lot more time preventing atrocities than engaging in them. Bush is more likely to focus on Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home, including a demonstration at the U.S. Capitol in which veterans threw away their medals in protest. The truth is, Kerry did throw away some of his ribbons in protest, as well as medals of two veterans who did not attend the demonstration, but he did not part with his Silver Star, Bronze Star or three Purple Hearts.

Kerry, meanwhile, will hammer Bush on the economy, especially the president's reliance on tax cuts for the rich to try to lift the nation out of recession. "It's the economy, stupid" was Bill Clinton's successful campaign mantra in 1992, and it should be Kerry's in 2004. He also will pound Bush on health care, the environment and corporate scandals, though these issues probably won't be major factors for those undecided voters. On a nastier track, he likely will blast Bush for going AWOL during Vietnam, and, if he is truly intent on winning, gravely illustrate the hundreds of American deaths and thousands of injuries wrought by Bush's Iraq misadventure.

It bears mentioning that negative advertising is not inherently a bad thing. People tend to get sick of it pretty quickly, but they do pay attention and learn from it, even if it causes them to believe the opposite of what a particular ad claims. Ironically, attack ads often lead the horse race-obsessed news media back to the salient issues of the day instead of regurgitating the latest poll results.

But in the end, November's winner will be the candidate who does the best job of relaying to voters a sense of optimism and confidence about the future. Amid the barrage of negative attacks, the candidates will try to articulate a vision in which they will do things to make America a better place. Bush must be able to show that his efforts over the past four years have yielded progress of some kind and that his leadership in world affairs has made America safer--a tall order. Kerry must transcend his party's "Anybody But Bush" mantra and show that something special rubbed off on him during his couple of encounters with his idol, John F. Kennedy, as a young man. That extra something, if it exists, will carry more weight with undecided voters than the most devastating attack ad.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER