[teflon9]

Negatve attack ads are an embarrassment. They make the American political system resemble a cage full of monkeys, flinging feces at each other in hope something sticks to their opponent, or at least to the wall. They demoralize the electorate and discourage voter participation. They also suppress any real discussion of policy. One wonders why TV and radio stations simply don't put their collective feet down and refuse to accept such ads. If done evenhandly, according to a strict set of criteria, such a boycott might pass constitutional muster.

[stuartcr]

Lots of people like negative stuff about those they don’t care for.

[NativeSon]

One wonders why TV and radio stations simply don't put their collective feet down and refuse to accept such ads

Because one party's accusation of "it's an attack ad" is another party's exposing the truth.

Does anyone really believe that the media would not use a compromise like that as a one way street to slam Conservatives?

[dfwgator]

can negative attack ads be eliminated or at least curtailed?

Never...Why? Because they work.

[Capn Freedom]

I don’t expect either side to take the high road, so there’s nothing to do but dodge the feces both sides insist on flinging.

[Nervous Tick]

>> according to a strict set of criteria

So what are the criteria, and who exactly determines them?

A “nonpartisan panel” like the Federal Election Committee? ROFLMAO

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Negatve attack ads are an embarrassment.

Just because something is negative doesn't make it untrue.

Lies are an embarrassment.

The truth is free speech, whether it offends you or not.

[allmendream]

As long as a large percentage of the voting public determine who they are going to vote for (or against) based upon advertisements - then we will continue to have billion dollar campaigns, “attack” ads, etc.

An ignorant electorate necessitates a campaign based upon ignorance and soundbites and dishonest ignorant attacks.

Turn off the TV and turn on your brain.

[PapaBear3625]

The Democrats are all for “civil discourse”. Which they define as allowing them to attack conservatives all they want, while prohibiting any response from the attacked conservatives.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You joined just to post this kind of Lefty crap, didn't you?

teflon9

Since Jun 26, 2012

Free speech about your candidate is so annoying, isn't it?

[Steamburg]

I’m still waiting for real fighting from the GOP.
We recognize freedom of Speech in this Nation. We aren’t particularly in favor of outright lies like are coming from Obozo and his party. Still, it is not the roll of government to determine what can or can’t be said.

When we start calling the tin pot dictator in the White House, a Communist, bigoted, community agitator, dreaming of fulfilling his illegitimate daddy’s anti-colonial dreams by destroying America and the West in favor of an Islamic Caliphate, things might be considered negative. Accurate, but negative.
Then just maybe we can talk about negative campaigning. I’m not sure that even then there is any problem. But,until then, any politics with the Zero is a blood sport and failing to recognize that will result in our slaughter.

[discostu]

Negative ads will never go away. JFK’s campaign adviser figured out that making people change their vote was a 2 step process, first you get them to not vote for the other guy, then you get them to vote for yours, and he further figured out that if you do step 1 well enough you don’t actually need to do step 2. It’s a lot easier to scare voters away from your opponent, and once enough people are not voting for him you win.

[drypowder]

ONLY IN POLITICS: can you imagine even being considered let alone getting hired by denigrating another person who also applied for the position? To fix the system we should demand NOTA (none of the above) be a choice on every ballot.

[rmlew]

Without negative political ads, teh only way people would learn about records would be from the leftist media.