We should redefine what a "negative" ad is.

[Marzupialis]

Warning the electorate about what a disaster the othe guy would be is not "negative" in my view. A real negative ad would be an ad where lies are spread about another candidate. That's what Republicans mostly do. The Swiftboat ads were really negative ads. Warning America that Romney is a Bush-like outsourcer who looted Bain workers is not negative. If viewers learn from these ads, the outcome is positive for America. Or does anyone agree? The media makes no distinction between Republican distortions and Democratic warnings. They just love to whine in unison about the "negativity" of the campaign, as if the media didn't love to broadcast negative news 24/7.

I love some "negative" ads so the media can suck it.

[ailsagirl]

1. This is so true!

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (2)

Obama's ads are necessarily negative because he's describing a nincompoop, which is the only way to *honestly* describe Nitt. I really resent it when the pundits lump Obama's ads with Rmoney's--Obama's ads tell the truth, always citing their sources, while Rmoney's frenzied ads consist of lies and distortions. And sleazy, racist tripe. There's just NO comparison!!

[LiberalFighter]

2. We should call all news anchors and reporters yellow journalists

that label honest ads as negative ads.

[WI_DEM]

3. I agree. I don't consider the Bain ads to be 'negative, mud-throwing personal ads'

It's just asking good questions about a candidates business background which is what he states is his strong point for running for president.