CAMPAIGN 2006: Attack ads - Questionable TV spots here to stay, but how bad?

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/23/6 | Carla Marinucci

[SmithL]

Defining the issues remains a cut above slandering opponent -

With the hue and cry about mudslinging and attack ads in the Democratic race for governor between state Controller Steve Westly and Treasurer Phil Angelides, one battle-scarred political veteran is sitting back and marveling at the fray.

Former Democratic state Sen. David Roberti, watching the tone of the current primary campaign, said his political career -- including 14 years as state Senate leader -- ended after he lost a race that featured "the meanest ad ever run in contemporary politics'' during his 1994 Democratic primary for state treasurer against Angelides.

In the current campaign for governor, Angelides has charged that Westly's new ads claiming that Angelides is proposing a $10 billion tax plan that may be unaffordable for working families are unfair and negative. Another ad from Westly suggests Angelides -- who has won endorsements from a variety of environmental groups -- won't stand up to oil companies, because he's received political contributions from them.

Those Westly ads are rough, Roberti, who has endorsed Westly, conceded in an interview. But "that's an entirely different genre from slander or defamation,'' which the former state senator said were the basis of $2 million blitz launched against him in the final weeks of his 1994 campaign against Angelides.

One ad accused him of corruption in office. But a second spot was even tougher: Using the image of Roberti's face, a smoking gun and a funeral, it suggested the former Democratic leader was in league with virulent anti-abortion rights activists who had killed a doctor at a Florida abortion clinic. "There was," Roberti said, "a lot of hate in it."

[SmithL]

Blame this on Rove, too.

[BlueStateDepression]

I think the best way to deal with this is simple. When a candidate runs for office, ignore the party they are running against when it comes to reporters questions and interviews and town halls.

American people ( read voters) want to hear what YOU are for not why you oppose another candidate.

I offer that if a candidate refuses to run any attack ads and focuses only on what their issues are and their alternative solutions for those problems the public will respond positively.

My wife was a life long democrat and she voted for W in 04. Yes there were many reasons she made that change but one major factor was the attacks on W that made her pay more attention than usual.

What my wife is learning is that the democratic party she was taught to respect has lost the conservative values that the party held when our grandparents were our age.

As more politicians go negative I think they lose votes and I think there is an easy solution. Concentrate on what you will do rather than on what your opponent is doing.

[singfreedom]

Sorry to disagree, but I think the fact that an opponent is proposing a huge tax increase is certainly germane to the campaign and I don't see it as negative campaigning. It's a campaign issue, plain and simple.

[youthgonewild]

I beg to differ, people respond to negative ads but will never admit it. Look at the huge poll drop in Kerry's numbers after the Swift Boat ads. They were for the most part fictional, but they really got the job done and even many political astute people actually believed them. Look even further back to Lyndon Johnson's Daisy ad implying Goldwater would set off a nuclear war. I really wish people responded to positivity but as much as people dislike watching the negative ads, it works.

[CivilWarguy]

The newspaper article proves only that "questionable" newspaper articles are here to stay.