Political Advertisements as a Source of Amusement

Almost every editorial and letter to the editor in the major publications decry the incessant negative advertising that comprises modern political debate. Yet the negative ads work, or else the candidates and their teams would not rely on them. Really, what is happening, in my opinion, is that many people are simply “turned off” by the name calling and mis-characterizations and simply choose not to vote at all.

This is exactly what the candidates want. The only people that are effected by the advertisements are those already totally committed to the candidate, his or her “base”. Get out the base and, if no one else shows up, the primary (and maybe the general) election is a slam dunk.

What is an example of a negative advertisement? Candidate A accuses Candidate B, an incumbent legislator, of voting against motherhood and apple pie, citing a specific vote. In fact, Mr. B did vote against that specific proposal but voted for a substitute version that supported motherhood, apple pie and the flag and, in addition, supported the proposition that drunk driving was bad. Was Mr. A untruthful? Was an unfair message published?

I love to read and hear the advertisements of Republicans during the primary races. They all have that special nuttiness that cannot be described. For example, in the GOP primary for Florida Governor, the winner accused the loser of having changed his positions and beliefs over 30 years of political life; the charge was vociferously denied. But is it so strange that an intelligent human would modify and change views over a long period of time? Certainly as I have matured, mine have. I do not hold all of the beliefs I had thirty years ago; times change, I have changed.

The newspapers do, generally, a good job in “ad watch” columns but corrections and clarifications never lessen the impact of the original.

The Mc Cain-Feingold law on campaign finances already provides that each political ad include a statement by the candidate that he or she approves the content of the ad.

There should be a requirement that each political ad also state at least one thing that the opposing candidate has done or believes in that the advertising candidate finds positive! This would drive the Bill O’Reillys and Ann Coulters of the world nuts, an altogether beneficial result if nothing else happened. If the candidate balks at that suggestion, his or her advertisements should state only, “I really am not very qualified for this job but I need the money and my election will make my mother so very proud.”