Attack of the attack ads
The Republican primaries seem to have ground down to a war of the attack ads.
Most (if not all?) are the work of PACs, so it’s a bit hard to tell how involved the candidates are. It would be naive to think there is no connection, and it would be equally wrong to imagine the candidates responsible for everything said in their name and on their behalf, whether it be though PACs or the ubiquitous anonymous “advisers.” Candidates are, of course, far more responsible for the words that come out of their own mouths, and for the ads that are officially in their name and approved by their campaign.
But let’s face it: attack ads are used because they work. Yes, sometimes they backfire, and/or sometimes they just don’t gain traction. But very often they undermine the attackee and benefit the attacker, and that’s why they’re so common in political campaigns.
At the beginning of this primary season, when there were so many candidates jockeying for position, things were a lot more polite. There was no one focus for negativity, and the way to stand out was to be more articulate and forceful in debate than the others. But with the narrowing of the field, sequential one-on-one rivalries have broken out, and with them the negative ads.
That’s to be expected. But I think the term “attack ad” is overused. Although I’m using it in a very general manner here, I’d much prefer to see its use confined to ads that distort or lie about the candidate targeted, rather than those that merely criticize him or her. When there are glaring flaws in a person’s record, it would be wrong for a rival not to raise a red flag, wouldn’t it? That’s fair game.
Trouble is that it’s hard to distinguish lies from the truth. And perhaps an even greater difficulty is that, in a primary as opposed to a general, a very negative ad campaign can—and I predict will—come back to bite the eventual Republican nominee, whomever he may be.
Some say that all this nastiness would have happened anyway, and I agree. Obama has shown himself (or those “surrogates” of his) to be a ruthless campaigner. But the groundwork is being laid by Republicans themselves. Will the public grow weary of the charges and will that make Obama’s attacks more toothless when they come, as some have hopefully alleged? Only if the charges have been successfully rebutted; otherwise all the repetition will probably serve to drive the negative perceptions deeper into voters’ minds.
It seems to me the attack ads / negativity / whatever have served to put the free-market non-pee-cee side of the divide in a decidedly negative light, making Barack Obama and ilk actually look mature and intelligent by comparison.
“Our” side has made it all too easy for the collectivist pee-cee side. All that side has had to do is sit back, munch popcorn, and enjoy the specter of “our” side shooting ourselves in our feet.
Obama looked on his way out a few months ago, but as of now he looks like a decent shot for reelection — and the consequent slide into Greece-like bankruptcy and meek dhimmitude for this once-great nation.
I won’t be around for how it all ends up, but I fear for my children.
“Only if the charges have been successfully rebutted; otherwise all the repetition will probably serve to drive the negative perceptions deeper into voters’ minds.”
Either 1) the charge will be successfully rebutted, in Feb instead of September, or 2) hopefully, the mea culpa will come in Feb, i.e. 8 months before the election, instead of 6 weeks before the election. The public will have many months to digest the mea culpa, and to allow their emotions about it to die down. For Repub candidates, either way = win.
The only way a Feb attack equates to a negative in Nov … is if the Feb attack would not have been raised in Sept/Oct. I believe EVERY damaging attack would have been raised in Sept/Oct. It is better to get them out now.
Media’s active work for Dems … means Repub candidates can never hide from anything. Repubs must always put everything out on the table. In the long run, this dynamic will make for stronger and better Repub candidates. In any short run, there is always the possibility of pain.
What a waste of time, energy and money.
It’s like diarrhea. It comes from a sick organism, it don’t look good, everyone is glad when it’s over, and the smell lingers.
Politics is propaganda. Truth is subservient to power. This is the culture that comes with the politicization of everything.
I find my enthusiasm is diminished by the negative ads. IMO, much of the lack of enthusiasm in this primary has resulted from all the candidates breaking Reagan’s eleventh commandment of speaking no evil about fellow Republicans.
Yes, we know the dems will do it and all the ads may strengthen the defenses of the eventual candidate. It just doesn’t play very well in Peoria.
Obama is getting a free pass while the Republicans attack each other. The Republican voters don’t want this, and clearly showed it when they supported Gingrich when he aimed his attacks at Obama instead of his fellow Republicans, but Gingrich lost his nerve and that probably cost him the nomination.
I think that things will be very different when the Republicans start to attack Obama in the general election. I think that a lot of independent players, like Breitbart, have kept their powder dry and are sitting on things that Obama has no idea they are sitting on. Obama is holding tentative support because he is being given a free ride. Once the general campaign begins he will be the target of ferocious and brutal attack, based on his endless litany of corruption and failed policies, and God willing, the rout will be on.
jms- I don’t think Newt lost his nerve. He was shaken in FL debates when Mitt clearly got the better of him. I was surprised, frankly, because he has an ego and an enormous opinion of himself. And then he made lame excuses about audience not being allowed to applause (huh? what is he? an entertainer who feeds off audience reaction?) His excuse for 2nd debate was that the stupid moderators — news anchors, as has been the format all along– “controlled” the debate and it wasn’t fair. Maybe because Wolf Blitzer pursued topics Gingrich didn’t want to answer. (as did Mitt a couple of times in answer to Gingrich’s attacks & which made Newt look like a fool).
He’s very bright, but the same undisciplined loose cannon he always was — and newsflash for Newt: being a grandfather doesn’t qualify him for the Presidency. (He keeps mentioning those grandkids as a reason he should be candidate)
And, Newt continues to make an idiot of himself everytime he gets an interview by saying he’s returning to the positive campaigning — even as, in the very same sentence, bashes Romney! The curtains been pulled back on the wizard and everyone — or most everyone sees him for what he is.