Smear tactics

[QueenAdrock]

According to factcheck.org, a respected site that reviews the accuracy of various ads, "the National Republican Campaign Committee's work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers."

http://www.slate.com/id/2152671/

I hate attack ads. They never say anything positive about the candidate running them other than "I'm not him." You should vote for me because I'm not the devil...I'm just the devil-in-training.

Attack ads may be the worst thing to happen to democracy. Anyone on either side who participates makes me sick to my stomach...though according to this article, Republicans are more to blame for participating. Which doesn't surprise me one bit.

[QueenAdrock]

Another important thing to point out:

But Democratic ads do not charge that their opponents "prey on our children"—even though one recently resigned following accusations that he did precisely that.

I love how they're falsely attacking Dems for being child molestors when they themselves have had their party disgraced by Mark Foley. The balls are astounding.

[Documad]

They really bother me. It's not that people stoop to that level, but that people are influenced by them. How stupid can you be to vote based upon TV ads?

What gives me some comfort is that it apparently was much worse in our country's history and we survived. When you hear about what US newspapers used to do in the 19th century it's astounding. Of course, there was no illusion of impartiality -- I guess everyone just read the newspaper that matched their political viewpoint.

Anyhow, the positive ads sure do stand out. I heard one yesterday that ended with "I'm ____ and I'd be honored to serve as your senator." That's class.