Open discussion about campaign ads

I think political ads have been mostly rhetoric for the last few elections, and nothing new to this election year either. I think people should check several of those "fact check" type websites before believing any of them in full myself. At least you get some information before making an informed opinion on what was "claimed"...

Jack Uldrich for Senate (Minnesota). His ads are a blog of real issues, real answers, and real questions waiting for your input.

www.dotheimpossible08.com

That does count, doesn't it?

I won't watch them Julia.

If one shows up I'll change the cannel or mute the sound.

There’s plenty of time after Labor day for me to make up my mind.

It would for others to remember that I’m basically a Republican, however, I am registered as an independent, as there don’t seem to be many or any republicans with the same ideals as I now.

Negative campaign ads tell me more about the campaign - and person - who did the ad more than the person being attacked. If the ad is "being coy" with the facts, then it tells me that the person is playing politics. Unfortunately, this is the status quo of most political ads.

However, if the ad blatantly promotes falsehoods that are defamatory to the opponent, then it tells me that the candidate is unfit to be in office. That is, the candidate who "approved this message" is unfit for office. It tells me that they have no integrity and are willing to slander their opponent in order to get elected. It tells me they lack judgment.

Unfortunately, one candidate has taken years of service and thrown it away by "approving" (and even defending) ads that he knows are false, that he knows are defamatory, that he knows are demeaning. And yet he has chosen this route. And thus proven he is unfit for the office of President.

"Negative" campaigning has become a necessity because the mainstream media does very little investigative reporting on the major candidates. The mainstream media just waits until one compaign fills in the media of something in the other candidate's voting or personal past, then they start investigating. And the mainstream media's bias gets in the way too, like with Franken, the blogs and talk radio must talk about Franken for about a week before the Star Tribune, MPR, and the 4 local stations will talk about it. They of course, want Franken to win, right Julia?

If the media actually asked tough policy questions and held the candidates feet to the fire, "negative" advertsing would not be neccessary.

Next topic, what is negative advertising? A very subjective definition, I predict.

I have never seen an attack ad that changed my mind about the person it was attacking.

I have, however, seen some attack ads that changed my mind about the attacker.

Similar things have been unfolding in this election.

For example: The McCain ad that portrays Obama as kin to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears demeaned John McCain in my eyes. There would be more appropriate and intelligent ways to attack Obama over the fact that celebrity is his most massive driving force.

Or that McCain is just another Bush. McCain has been one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.

"Next topic, what is negative advertising? A very subjective definition, I predict."
Possibly. I'd welcome you to start that one, Winston! And what defines an ad? As Tim wrote, does a blog count as an ad?!

It is funny how much - or little - power campaign advertising can have. I have to wonder if attack ads (both examples mentioned here) simply serve as a way to solidify or confirm the base.

Remember, 35 percent of folks will vote Democratic and 35 percent will vote Republican. It's the middle 30 you are trying to win.

It is still funny to watch the mainstream media genuflect in front of Obama. Do they realize that they are turning off as many people as they think they are winning? The pols show it.

A blatant attack ad is one that starts out saying: "My opponent is (insert something scandalous or derogatory here)..."

The craftier attack ads sneak it in later, or just insinuate it in the overall tone.

Neither of these candidates offers details on how they will accomplish their goals. We seem to get more media coverage, yet less information on how the hopes and dreams they are stoking will be realized. Where are the copies of the bills they have already drafted that will show us the focus of their intent?

What is negative advertising? Is that like "it depends on what the meaning of is - is?"

There are no doubt a myriad of definitions, but the worst to me is when a candidate out-and-out lies.

(Another example of "negative" is when a candidate puts his own wife up for a lewd bikini contest - that's all I have to say about that.)