"Negative" Ads are Positively Essential
October 28th 2008 02:54
There's been a lot of huffing and puffing about "negative ads" over the last couple months. The Obama campaign seems to be the most vocally offended, even filing requests with the Department of Justice and the FEC to force ads off the air.
How do you define a negative ad? It's an ad about your opponent, not yourself. An example would be the William Ayers ads McCain ran.
The fact is, negative ads have been around since the dawn of democracy. Papers in 1860 were unmerciful on Lincoln, calling him a "scrawny stretched out piece of humanity too ugly for even politicians low standards."
Neither campaign can get away with that kind of screed these days. But they have accused each other of lying, being dishonorable, etc.
Negative ads are, however, essential. If you only allow candidates to talk about their good qualities, you could easily miss out on very important facts. For instance, if somebody was running with Hitler type ideas and desires, how would we know it but for a "negative" ad. If we had a candidate running that believed in taking the money of his defined level of rich and redistributing it to his definition of poor . . . oh wait, we already do.
Sometimes negative ads DO cross the line in our more polite society. For instance, Obama's campaign mocked John McCain for computer illiteracy, when the fact is Cindy has to type for him because of the injuries he suffered in the "Hanoi Hilton". McCain ran an ad suggesting that Illinois's governor and Chicago's mayor are under ethical clouds.
Who else would have talked about Ayers, Wright, Frank Davis, ACORN, etc but the McCain campaign? Do you hear Obama listing off his faults, except that he's maybe "too awesome."? Would McCain have raised the Keating 5 episode in which he was exonerated?
The fact is, we would not be able to make an educated, fully informed decision without negative advertising. A candidates faults can say a lot more about their fitness for office than their abilities.
See a negative ad that really makes you think? Go find out the truth. For instance, Obama is running ads that McCain will cut Medicare, which are completely false. In stump speeches he said retired people in Florida would be "privatized" in the stock market right now if McCain had had his way, when in fact you had to be born after 1958 to participate in the Bush privatization plan and even then you VOLUNTARILY could only redirect 25% of your income. Personally, I'd love it if 25% of my SS was going into the stock market right now when stocks are cheap.
But I digress. The next time somebody says to you, "So and so is just too negative," remind them of the story of the Emporer's clothes. Nobody wanted to go negative, so the emporer was naked. If pointing out the obvious concern is negative, please, go negative.
How do you define a negative ad? It's an ad about your opponent, not yourself. An example would be the William Ayers ads McCain ran.
The fact is, negative ads have been around since the dawn of democracy. Papers in 1860 were unmerciful on Lincoln, calling him a "scrawny stretched out piece of humanity too ugly for even politicians low standards."
Neither campaign can get away with that kind of screed these days. But they have accused each other of lying, being dishonorable, etc.
Negative ads are, however, essential. If you only allow candidates to talk about their good qualities, you could easily miss out on very important facts. For instance, if somebody was running with Hitler type ideas and desires, how would we know it but for a "negative" ad. If we had a candidate running that believed in taking the money of his defined level of rich and redistributing it to his definition of poor . . . oh wait, we already do.
Sometimes negative ads DO cross the line in our more polite society. For instance, Obama's campaign mocked John McCain for computer illiteracy, when the fact is Cindy has to type for him because of the injuries he suffered in the "Hanoi Hilton". McCain ran an ad suggesting that Illinois's governor and Chicago's mayor are under ethical clouds.
Who else would have talked about Ayers, Wright, Frank Davis, ACORN, etc but the McCain campaign? Do you hear Obama listing off his faults, except that he's maybe "too awesome."? Would McCain have raised the Keating 5 episode in which he was exonerated?
The fact is, we would not be able to make an educated, fully informed decision without negative advertising. A candidates faults can say a lot more about their fitness for office than their abilities.
See a negative ad that really makes you think? Go find out the truth. For instance, Obama is running ads that McCain will cut Medicare, which are completely false. In stump speeches he said retired people in Florida would be "privatized" in the stock market right now if McCain had had his way, when in fact you had to be born after 1958 to participate in the Bush privatization plan and even then you VOLUNTARILY could only redirect 25% of your income. Personally, I'd love it if 25% of my SS was going into the stock market right now when stocks are cheap.
But I digress. The next time somebody says to you, "So and so is just too negative," remind them of the story of the Emporer's clothes. Nobody wanted to go negative, so the emporer was naked. If pointing out the obvious concern is negative, please, go negative.
| 55 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
But that would be how we would eventually get Adolph Hitler II or a terrorist in office. We shouldn't be attacking candidate's children but we should definitely go after the candidate's character and acquaintances.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Ooopppsss, was I getting negative? LOL
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
As S.L. said if it's true how can it be negative, Obama just don't like the truth told about him.