Letters to the Editor
-
Attacks From The Past
I posted a comment above calling this ad an indisputable attack ad and pointing out a number of ways in which it fails to be completely honest. As the discussion above, minus Scherer's defense of his own posting, continues to equate the very idea of negative attack ads with dishonesty, which is not always the case, I thought I'd remind Salon's readers of one of the most devastating and effective pieces of rhetoric delivered in recent decades. It's not from a campaign ad, but instead from a speech delivered on the floor of the Senate by Ted Kennedy within moments of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court:
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."
Nothing in Kennedy's scathing speech was factually inaccurate. Try as it might, Bork couldn't shake the image portrayed, because his stated stances on a wide range of prior Court decisions proved that Kennedy was telling the truth. But no one would possibly characterize Kennedy's speech as anything but an attack and it certainly isn't positive.
"Positive" campaign ads are those that highlight the candidate's record, usually without mentioning opponents, or highlight the candidate's family and character. Any ad which takes issue with the stated or perceived positions of an opponent with the intent to convince voters to oppose that opponent is an attack ad.
All the sad rhetorical nonsense we keep spewing about "keeping the campaign clean" is a big reason why people don't seem to be able to understand what a negative ad is, much less why they work so damn well. Voters don't just want a reason TO vote for a candidate, they want a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy. And that's perfectly fair and reasonable.
Hunter's ad still, I would maintain, does a disservice by claiming all other Republicans are wrong and then only mentioning those with whom he disagrees. But that has nothing to do with the veracity or negativity of the flier.