ABC pre-emptively criticized Democrats for negative campaign ads that have not yet been produced
In a report on how recent campaigns advertisements are "getting ugly," ABC News, unable to point to a single instance of "nasty" attacks from Democratic candidates or their supporters, suggested it is only a matter of time before "the left" begins to "unleash its garbage as well." ABC News offered no evidence to back up its allegation that Democrats might soon resort to distasteful, negative advertising.
ABC News had no problem documenting ads, currently airing in campaign across the country, attacking Democrats, including one from the Republican National Committee about Democratic Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. In it, an actress playing a ditzy blonde bimbo says: "I met Harold at the Playboy party. ... Harold, call me." Critics, including one prominent Republican, have called the ad borderline racist.
At the conclusion of its report on attack ads, ABC News insisted that "Democrats aren't necessarily running clean campaigns." Unable to cite any examples, ABC News simply reported, "As the races tighten in the next couple of weeks, the left will likely unleash its garbage as well."
It works in wars {Iraq}, smearing candidates {Clinton, Pelosi}, and campaign ads . . .
Just as 9/11 is the all-purpose excuse, pre-emptivism is the all-purpose justification for the wingnuts.
And they had the fair and balanced Sean Hannity to comment on how dirty attack ads are bad.
If we're going to be accused of getting nasty, we'd better go ahead and do it already.
All they have to do is run the Republican ads over again and append a single screen in black with the words "Had enough? Vote Democratic" at the end. Would work like a charm.
We are getting barraged by what I would consider negative ads in this area. I will admit both sides are using negativity, but it is being used.
You claim both sides are doing it, but you provide no evidence of that.
Democrats are not equivalent to Republicans at this "game". The Republicans are much better at name calling and misleading and baseless attacks.
It is not coming from both sides, and when you say that it is, you are providing evidence that you carry water for the Republicans.
but FactCheck.org is finding and reporting on miselading and false information coming from "our" side, as well. The one that came out yesterday is at [link to factcheck.org] and this morning I've asked MMFA to please check out the accuracy of that damaging report (i.e., is it based on conservative misinformation or is it correct in its economic analysis re: social security attac ads). That link will reveal other incorrect ads by the dems, mostly at local government level, but will also reveal that the overwhelming majority of misinformation and about all of the downright lies is coming out of the RNC and Republican candidates across the board.
And the Democrats don't have to lie in their negative ads - there is plenty of negative truth to hang the Republicans with.
The Republicans, on the other hand... I mean, why do you think Ann Coulter was complaining about not being able to attack the Jersey Girls? What she meant was that she had no ledge to lodge an ad hominem, which meant she might actually have to engage their issues.
Ad hominem is all they have. Michael Moore is fat.
attacking Michael J. Fox as another "unassailable liberal victim" that she's not allowed to attack, just as she attacked the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan as people she was not allowed to attack.
Faith & Begorrah, I wish I got as much time on national TV to attack people I wanted to attack while complaining that I was being oppressed by not being allowed to attack them.
It's one thing to say Republican ads are worse, but to claim that Democrats don't participate in the same practice of deceitful ads is absurd. That screams of the very bias you cry exists on the other side! For you to ignore these (and many other) examples - or worse, defending them - only goes to show your own hypocrisy. You are what you claim to hate.
- Ad ad for Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, running for congress in Ohio, shamelessly and unnecessarily ties her opponent with Mark Foley by saying, “Deborah Pryce’s friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages." [link to tinyurl.com]
- An ad for Rep. Baron Hill (D) also references Foley by saying that his opponent took donations from GOP leaders, “who knew about but did nothing to stop sexual predator congressman Foley.” Huh? [link to tinyurl.com]
- An ad for Democrat Harold Ford, Jr, running for Congress in Tennessee, said that because of his opponent's failures as mayor, "more than 31,000 911 calls went unanswered." The number is inaccurate and misleading, with the Nashville City Paper calling the ad "disingenuous." [link to tinyurl.com]
- A Democratic ad in Iowa used an out-of-context quote by Republican Mike Whalen to falsely imply his position on an issue. The next sentence spoken by Whalen, which was conveniently omitted by the ad, completely changes the meaning of the out-of-context quote. [link to tinyurl.com]
- A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad in Ohio attacks Rep. Steve Chabot (R) Ohio saying, "... would you vote to raid the Social Security trust fund? Steve Chabot did, eight times." The phrase, "raiding the Social Security trust fund" has been used numerous times, by both sides and is misleading at best. As far back as 1999, that attack has been discounted because the budget debate has nothing to do with Social Security. Yet, Democrats are pulling the quote out and using it, as recently as last week. [link to tinyurl.com]
- Two ads in North Carolina by Heath Shuler against Rep. Charles Taylor (R) say that Taylor voted against "healthcare" for the National Guard and Reserves. This isn't even misleading, it's a blatant lie. There was never a vote on whether to give or deny healthcare to the Guard and Reserves, only a vote on whether to expand their existing coverage. [link to tinyurl.com]
- A MoveOn.org ad attacked three Republicans for supporting money spent on Halliburton contracts and wasteful Iraq projects, while supporting Democratic congressmen who voted the same way. [link to tinyurl.com]
The only ads that are negative and unfair are those that talk about Social Security when they really should be talking about the deficit. Of course, the Republicans spent countless hours misleading people about the Social Security Trust Fund 2 years ago when Bush was fighting to privatize SS.
So, you have almost nothing to back up what you are saying, and the Republicans have used those same distortions about Social Security much more often!
i herard a 'negative ad' story on npr
- the republican ad was the ford/"call me" add. - the democrat ad was the mj fox ad.
hmm ...
The ad run against Harold Ford had absolutely nothing to do with any policy issues - it was a disgusting ad - period. The ads that Michael J Fox is participating in attack a specific policy position with which he disagrees. I say policy is fair game, unsubstantiated character attacks are not. Pretty clear to me.
If you want to see a particularly ugly race with negative ads coming from both sides check out the Joe Klien, Clay Shaw congressional race in Florida. It seems like the Clay Shaw ads never mention Clay Shaw and vice versa.
What ads by the Democrat are negative?
It seems to me that his ads are point on, talking about the Republican's record in Congress, especially his almost total agreement with Bush on most issues.
Just like Nightline and ABC, you say that there are examples on both sides, but there's no evidence that's true.
[link to www.palmbeachpost.com]
Based upon this newspaper's report, it looks like the Republican did run misleading ads, over and over again. Can you provide evidence of the same happening with an ad from the Democrat? Talking about the Republican incumbent's record in Congress is not negative campaigning, btw.
I'm in East Tennessee, and Ford's ads have been negative with regard to asserting that Corker's interest in being Senator was to continue making a fortune for himself as he had done with sweet land deals (one lawsuit was just settled a week ago so he would not have to give deposition testimony), among others. The issue becomes: negative, which apparently has to be done to win in my state (or Al Gore would have carried it), versus truthful or race bating. In addition to the now notorious photo of the blonde playboy honey winking as she invites Ford to call her, Corker's ads show a dark-complexioned Ford either scowling (usually) or starting yesterday, confused looking as if he were not intelligent, and now a radio ad has Tarzan Kettle Drums in the background as Ford is discussed and syrupy string music as Corker is discussed ( [link to www.talkingpointsmemo.com] ) (You will need a decent sound system on your computer to get the effect) . He's appealing for the white-sheet vote that normally would not vote, and he will get it.
Is the Clay Shaw running for office related to the Clay Shaw who was tried in the Jim Garrison, Kennedy Assasination, trial? Tommy Lee Jones played Shaw in the movie JFK, one of his best performances.
An Oct. 25 All Things Considered piece does ABC one better. The piece, called "Elections Loom; Now Is the Time for Negative Ads," provides two examples of "shocking" campaign ads. The first is the RNC "Playboy party" ad against Harold Ford. The second is Michael J. Fox's stem cell ad. How could they possible put Fox's plea for stem cell research in the same "negative" category as the race-baiting RNC spot? See: [link to www.npr.org]
I have almost nothing wrong with that ad. I actually live in the area where this ad was being played (although everyone has seen the ad anyway by now) and I think that it is fine that he didn't take his medication. That shows how his disease affects him, and with this research there is a possible cure.
Unfortunatly, who you vote for (Jim Talent or Claire McCaskill) should not be based on this ad. For one, Michael J. Fox was saying Jim Talent does not believe in stem cell research. That's not true- he doesn't believe in embryonic stem cell research, but that does not mean he doesn't believe in stem cell research altogether.
The Fox ad says that Talent is not in favor of expanding stem cell research (to include fetal or embryonic stem cell research paid for by the government).
Rightwingers are distorting what the ad says, what the law will provide for, and what Talent and the Democrat stand for and have voted for in the past.
I just can't believe the rightwingers would do such a thing!
I have almost nothing wrong with that ad. I actually live in the area where this ad was being played (although everyone has seen the ad anyway by now) and I think that it is fine that he didn't take his medication. That shows how his disease affects him, and with this research there is a possible cure. But that isn't what i want to talk about.
Unfortunatly, who you vote for -whether it is Jim Talent or Claire McCaskill- should not be based on this ad. For one, Michael J. Fox was saying Jim Talent does not believe in stem cell research. That's not true- he doesn't believe in embryonic stem cell research, but that does not mean he doesn't believe in stem cell research altogether.
Also, neither Jim Talent's view or Claire McClaskill's view will matter with this issue. This issue- whether to vote yes on embryonic stem cell research or not- will be voted on by the public, sometime after the election (I have not researched exactly when) . I believe this was somewhat of a misleading ad. What do you think?
It isn't the rightwingers who are distorting fact, its actually just the opposite. The left doesn't give you the whole story.
Let me give you and example. Scientist tested mice with both embryonic and adult stem cells. In this test, they used these cells to boost the insulin levels in mice. Both stem cells worked, and the sucess was a big hit with the leftist media outlets. These same media outlets were starngely silent when it came to the sucess of adult stem cells. Even stranger was the fact that every mouse treated with adult stem cells lived, while mice treated with embryonic cells died. Why was the media promoting the less sucessful test??
Have you heard the story about the three young boys with defective immune systems that were saved by adult stem cells? Probably not, because the media hardly touched it. In fact, I don't think it appeared on any major leftist media outlets.
What about the woman of 18 who severed her spinal cord in an auto accident? She to was saved by adult stem cells, and now has control over her legs and toes. Again, this story had no left media coverage to speak of.
These are the kind of things that are promised by embryonic stem cells - years down the road. Another obvious advantage is the fact that adult stem cell research doesn't require the sacrafice of a human embryo. You don't necessarily have to be pro life to appreciate that.
It is unfortunate that the left can not seem to report fairly for both sides. It seems that it is the left wingers distoring facts. Somehow, I can believe that they would do that, because this isn't the first time.