Posted on 07/16/2012 9:32:10 AM PDT by teflon9
Why do negative ads work? Some people say the negative ads give them information upon which to base their decision at the voting table (those little four-legged stands we use in Marion County). A study from Stanford University says the information from negative ads generally is not accurate.
Perhaps negative ads work in the same way as Big-Time Championship Wrestling (as it was called when I was young; whatever it is called now). No one doubts the efforts of the participants, and the world is made a much simpler place when painted in black-and-white (with slightly better resolution vis-a-vis the graininess). As human beings, each us has a darker side, otherwise negative gossip would not be the nation’s leading pastime at work.
(Excerpt) Read more at civildiscoursenow.com ...
Lots of people like negative stuff about those they don’t care for.
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?
Never...Why? Because they work.
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.
Exactly. The "cure" would only be worse than the disease.
>> 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
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.
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.
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.
|
teflon9
Since Jun 26, 2012
Free speech about your candidate is so annoying, isn't it? |
If the compromised was applied in a biased way, news outlets would be sued quicker than you could spell “cat”, and they’d lose too. It would have to be applied straight down the line to have any chance of standing up to legal challenge.
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.
No. My candidate is, since I’ve no other choice, Mitt Romney. And it infuriates me that Zero and his 503c lackeys are throwing all this “Bain Capital” garbage at him, while not talking about what he (hasn’t) accomplished or what his polices are or will be. If negative attack ads were curtailed, Zero would be forced to acutally campaign on the issues, and what he will do.
That would never happen. First, how to enforce a breach of a "compromise", second, look around at all cr@p that the Dems are doing/have done and get away with. The media protects them now, crimes are ignored, do you think that this would not be abused?
and what court would rule?
I'd rather have a "zoo monkey sh*t-fight" everyday than have a law regulating my right to free speech
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.
Romney is free to attack back. He has lots more ammo than Ubama.
But he seems to lack the balls.
That is a flaw with Romney, not free speech.
And that makes the article’s point! A fair and evenhanded (and I know most of you believe that’s impossible) supression of negative ads (by media boycott—not by unconstitutional gov’t fiat) would get rid of all that, and actually force voters to concentrate on ... get ready ... issues!
Zer0 isn't even letting the Constitution "force" him to act properly.
Look at his reckless disregard for Congress' rejection of amnesty.
Look what he did last week in cancelling Welfare Reform, a 16 year old federal law.
What makes you think he'd obey some new law that tells him not to say bad things ?
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.