|
The Post's Howard Kurtz on the S.C. Primary
Friday, February 18, 2000; 10 a.m. EST
After showing relative restraint in Iowa and New Hampshire, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have gotten down and dirty with personal attacks in their battle for South Carolina voters. And not only have the candidates gone after one another over the airwaves, Bush and McCain sniped at each other during Tuesday night's debate, while Alan Keyes watched the spectacle from the middle.
Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz has been keeping an eye on the fights over the airwaves, and analyzed a recent poll that focused on negative advertising, concluding that the nasty spots actually give Bush an edge. Kurtz joined "Free Media" on Friday, Feb. 18 to talk about the effects of negative advertising and the final hours before South Carolina voters head to the polls. The transcript follows:
Free Media: Good morning, Howard, and welcome. It's down to the wire, the polls are showing Texas Gov. George Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain neck-and-neck. The poll story you co-wrote earlier in the week noted that negative advertisements, which they've been fighting over, actually don't hurt Bush. Can you talk a bit about the ads Bush and McCain have been running in South Carolina?
Howard Kurtz: For the last week, Bush has pounded McCain with mostly negative ads, belittling his tax plan as too Democratic, calling him a hypocrite on campaign finance reform and denouncing him for having compared the Texas governor to Clinton. McCain has run only positive ads, touting his war-hero biography and likening himself to Ronald Reagan. So there's a very clear split in their approach.
Raleigh, N.C.: Is there ANY evidence of a conspiracy of Democrats voting for McCain so that the Republican Party will, supposedly, have a lesser candidate? Sounds nuts to me!
McCain is a crossover candidate because people like him, if not his issue stands. Will he hold up when the issues are compared to Gore or Bradley in the general election?
Thanks.
Howard Kurtz: I think this business about a Democratic conspiracy to help McCain is mostly overblown. A lot of Dems just like the guy, and recent polls show he does just as well as Bush against Gore in November. But there's no question the aggressive Gore machine would try to pick apart McCain's 17-year voting record in Congress, similar to the assaults on Bradley.
Columbia, S.C.: Negative or no, the sheer volume of Bush ads down here in South Carolina seems to be overwhelming the airwaves. I do see McCain TV spots, but see many more Bush ads. Win or lose, the money Bush has spent here in South Carolina is much more than he planned to spend, correct?
Howard Kurtz: One of the reasons you raise $70 million is so you'll have plenty to spend on ads. No question Bush outspending McCain (who has to abide by spending ceilings) in S.C. Bushies say the difference is only $300,000 to $500,000, but it doesn't feel that way when you watch TV there. They'd spend even more but there's no more time available.
Manassas, Va.: Don't you think that this one of the most disheartening things – that the negative advertising actually seems to be helping Bush? I'm just sickened ....
Howard Kurtz: Political professionals know that negative ads, however distasteful, usually work. In fairness, McCain ran some tough negative ads too before deciding to scramble back on the high road. People like me try to point out the subtle and not-so-subtle distortions in negative ads, but probably to limited effect.
Baltimore, Md.: I saw a report that said Bush had spent $50 million so far. $50 million and he's not breaking 50 percent in the polls in South Carolina? How long can he keep spending money like this? Why is it so ineffective?
Howard Kurtz: It's sort of amazing that Bush has spent $50 million. He has a classic front-runner's campaign – big staff, highly paid consultants. But since he's not taking federal funds, he can always raise as much as he needs – unless he loses more primaries and donors don't answer the call.
Tavares, Fla.: Why is the liberal press promoting John McCain so much at the expense of the more conservative Gov. George Bush?
Howard Kurtz: The "liberal press" actually includes many reporters who are centrist or just not very ideological. The fact is, McCain has done a brilliant job of charming the press and using unfettered access to reap gobs of favorable publicity. Some of the columnists who've been pushing McCain say they disagree with many of his positions but like the guy anyway.
Washington, D.C.: If McCain manages to edge Bush out on this one, what does that mean for W's candidacy?
Howard Kurtz: Even Bush's people are very nervous about losing S.C., since he'd then probably lose Michigan (and Arizona) three days later and be 0 for 4 in contested primaries against McCain. But a McCain loss would also hurt his momentum. So the cliche "crucial primary" is probably warranted here.
Free Media: What's the last presidential primary you remember being this close right up until the last day?
Howard Kurtz: New Hampshire in '96, when Buchanan edged out Dole and Alexander, was also too close to call. But the suspense here feels greater.
New York, N.Y.: The Post ran a headline the other day: "S.C. Turnout May Be Key." Can you name for me an election in which turnout isn't important? If no one shows up, it's not much of an election.
Howard Kurtz: Good point. Turnout is always key, especially in low-turnout primaries. But SC is a little different in that no one really knows how many independents and Democrats will come out in a GOP primary, and they're the ball game at this point.
Hey, it's hard writing fresh headlines every day.
Boston, Mass.: Mr. Kurtz, how is that Vice President Gore can manage to hold onto a comfortable lead over Sen. Bradley, when he has misconstrued, distorted and falsified his opponent's positions and his own? Does the press have an obligation to "expose" his inconsistencies? After all it has been more than once and has occurred over the last 20 years.
Howard Kurtz: Gore can hold a comfortable lead because the voters of Iowa and NH decided they liked him better than Bradley. Some of Gore's mistakes and distortions have been amply aired by the press--I wrote, for example, how his ads were distorting Bradley's record on a midwestern flood aid bill that was important in Iowa--but we definitely need to do a better job.
Washington, D.C.: Can you talk about the lay of the land for the Arizona and Michigan primaries on Tuesday?
Howard Kurtz: McCain's up by 30 points in his home state and will win easily. He looks strong in Michigan at the moment, up by 9, after having been down 20 or 30 a few weeks ago. Lot of Reagan Democrats in union-heavy Michigan. But through the weird magic of momentum, the SC outcome will probably affect Michigan three days later, so it's hardly in the bag for McCain.
Stilwell, Kan.: Mr. Kurtz,
What I want to know about campaign ads is whether they are true or not. I am not interested in editorial comments from members of the press as to whether an add, in their opinion, is an "attack" or "dirty" or "unfair" one. I can make that judgment as long as you and your associates do your unbiased best to inform me as to the veracity of the content of the add. Any comment?
Howard Kurtz: The distortions in ads make it difficult to say whether they're "true" or "false." One Bush ad said McCain's tax cut was half the size of Clinton's; that was false. But another Bush ad said McCain had voted five times for public financing of elections. What it didn't say was that he had opposed it 11 times, and reluctantly voted for it five times as part of Senate compromises. So that charge was technically true but incomplete. I try to deal with these things in the "ad watches" we've been doing since 1992, but TV has all but abandoned them.
Laurel, Md.: All those negative ads in South Carolina seem to designed to suppress turnout. Isn't this inherently un-democratic? Are columnists, public interest groups, etc. in S.C. speaking out about this?
Howard Kurtz: Negative ads do more than just suppress turnout; they're designed to bloody the other guy and drive up his negatives. But no, it's not undemocratic. Anyone can make any charge he wants in a campaign. Still, the press needs to do a better job of blowing the whistle on unfair or misleading ads.
Virginia Beach, Va.: Howard, I loved your book "Media Circus." Hypothetically (of course), if you were to advise McCain beginning today, would you recommend response ads to Bush's negative blitz?
Howard Kurtz: McCain's in a difficult spot. He tried fighting Bush's negative ads with his own negative ads, and that hurt McCain's reformer image. So he went totally positive, which means some of the charges are going unrebutted. I tried to detail some of this in today's Post story.
P.S. – Glad you enjoyed the book.
Free Media: Negative ads and even negative sentiments have caused such a problem for candidates in this race. On the Democratic side, Bill Bradley seems unable to respond to anything Al Gore says without being accused of going negative. Bush and McCain get negative even as they cry foul on ads. What's the purpose of this tactic – going negative while claiming the high road? Do voters see through it?
Howard Kurtz: Some voters probably see through it, but others aren't paying close attention. You've put your finger on it – the latest popular maneuver is to go negative while blaming the other guy for being too negative.
Washington, D.C.: The purpose of negative ads is to keep people away from the polls. With turnout so important in this race, do you expect them to have the intended effect? Could they actually motivate people to come out and vote against them?
Howard Kurtz: There's sometimes a backlash against candidates who go too negative. That's the risk of negative ads. So far, at least, it doesn't seem to be hurting Bush in S.C.
North Potomac, Md.: Why hasn't the GOP leadership come to grips with the fact that they have a candidate, John McCain, who the press supports. Why would they give up this advantage and continue to support Bush? Do they not want to regain the White House?
I haven't seen this much excitement about a presidential candidate since JFK ran in 1960.
Howard Kurtz: In a nutshell, the GOP establishment got behind Bush as the best bet to reclaim the White House. Many of its members regard McCain as insufficiently conservative, or too much of a maverick. The fact that the press likes McCain just adds to their suspicion.
Washington, D.C.: How much money do you think has been spent on political advertising in S.C. – not just by the campaigns, but by outside groups as well?
Howard Kurtz: Bush campaign says they've spent about $3.1 million on SC ads to McCain's $2.8 million. Totals for outside groups would be much smaller.
Hollywood, Fla.: All the polls have Bush ahead. There are predictions of a large turnout. What are the chances of a McCain surprise?
Howard Kurtz: Actually, the polls have Bush ahead by 3 to 5 points, often within the margin of error. None of the polls predicted McCain would win NH by 19. McCain will win SC only if he gets an unusually large turnout among Dems and independents.
Free Media: Barbara Bush said the other day that she feels the press is paying so much attention to McCain because it's more fun to cover a competitive campaign. Granted, she's not exactly an uninvolved observer, but do you think there's some truth to what she's saying?
Howard Kurtz: Sure, reporters love a good horse race, but McCain's huge victory in N.H. far transcended any influence the media have.
Arlington, Va.: Do you think that the positions that candidates take in South Carolina will affect them later on? Bush seems to have moved hard right so would he have difficulty swinging back to the compassionate conservative middle?
Howard Kurtz: There's no question that some of the conservative positions Bush has taken in SC – and some of the liberal pandering Gore has done in the early contests – will come back to haunt them in the fall, when elections are won in the center.
Free Media: That was our last question this morning for Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. Thanks to Howard and to everyone who joined us. Fantastic questions.
Tune in this afternoon, when author Jonathan Rauch will talk about what's wrong with Washington and his new book, "Government's End: Why Washington Stopped Working" at 3 p.m. EST. Then, South Carolina GOP Executive Director J. Sam Daniels will join us to talk about turnout, crossover voters and the landscape of the race in the last hours before the South Carolina primary at 4 p.m. EST.
|
|
© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company | 
Carolyn Hax: No-nonsense advice for the angst-ridden under-30 crowd.
Tony Kornheiser & Michael Wilbon:
Bob Levey: Talk to newsmakers and reporters.