How is this an "attack piece"? Is Hunter lying? Hey, the guy's an asshole; so are all the rest of the GOP field. But he's not allowed to say "I think this and they think that"? Is this patty-cake? Not everyone can be Obama, seeing no evil and aping Rodney King's lament every two seconds. Edwards-Webb '08.

... was Chuch Yaeger's endorsement. Another hero, knocked off his pedestal.

Rarely have I seen a leaflet with this much info that can actually be backed up. He also has huge creds from the hardcore right posted on the bottom. I respect this leaflet. Granted I am a leftist and would have nothing to do with Hunter and think his policies are a joke, but this leaflet is hardhitting politics with the facts to back it up.

Two of the three letters praise the leaflet for being substantive and for not even being an attack ad. Yes, an ad can be legitimate and true and STILL be an attack ad (which is at least one good reason for the Supreme Court to finally get off its ass and void the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act.) But, Hunter's ad remains pretty slimy and, at the very least, disingenuous.

Note that he doesn't mention the positions of candidates who might agree with him. On abortion and gay marriage he mentions only Romney and Giuliani, not McCain or Brownback. On immigration, no mention of even his fellow minor candidates like Tancredo. Furthermore, all his quotes from Romney are 13 years old and Romney has openly repudiated those positions. Whether or not he's sincere in that repudiation is a valid question for conservative voters, but to simply ignore that repudiation is most certainly dishonest on Hunter's part.

Duncan Hunter DEFINES San Diego politics -- willfully stupid, US flag wrapped around him tightly enough to cut off any oxygen flow to the alleged brain, brown shirt neatly starched -- do not forget that he was gung-ho for the Enabling Act passed last year... oh, wait, it was actually called the John Warner Defense Authorization Act but you know what I mean. And Dunc was 100% for it.

I can only assume that he's hoping to enjoy a free ride and plenty of campaign contributions a la Al Sharpton's alleged Presidential campaign. Dunc is termed-out and needs a new government teat to suckle from.

Get a fucking job as a Wal-Mart greeter, Dunc, it's what you're best suited for.

We should be able to discriminate between an honest compare and contrast piece and an attack. Much as I despise Hunter's positions, this piece is very fair. Based on my research of the candidates in the Republican primary, I think his information is spot on. I wish we could get more of this on the Democratic side - honest comparison of positions - instead of obfuscating positions to appeal to everyone. I hope Mr. Hunter wins the vote in South Carolina and gets the Republican nomination. I think he really represents the Republican base. He would be a great opponent for a Democrat to run against in Nnovember '08.

Ok, fill in the far right wing psychochristian check boxes. Gotcha. I hope they kill and eat each other.

As the reporter who posted this flier, I thought I would explain why I think this is a negative campaign piece:

1. At the top of the page, Hunter's campaign writes "Others: WRONG."

2. The flier calls the McCain immigration plan, which Brownback supported, "amnesty" (in bold). But McCain and other Republicans deny that their plan is "amnesty," meaning that at minimum that there is a clear negative value judgment at play.

3. The flier includes 1994 quotes from Romney on abortion and gay marriage, with no mention of the fact that Romney has dramatically reversed his positions in recent years. (He now opposes "equality" for gays in marriage and describes himself as pro-life.) As a result, the flier arguably misrepresents Romney's position, the inclusion of phone numbers notwithstanding.

I also agree with the other letter writer: Negative campaigning is not always false or slanderous. A candidate can go on the attack and be factually accurate at the same time. Many of the best (or worst) negative campaign pieces are "comparative."

As attack ads go, this is pretty tame, folks. What's so negative about pointing out one's policy differences with one's opponents?

The Republican Party is supposedly the party of conservatism (though there's certainly not much conservative about the last three presidents it sent to Washington, DC), and I find it completely appropriate for Mr. Hunter to try and establish his conservative credibility in contrast with the words and actions of those against whom he's being compared.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported on another scam perpetrated on the taxpayers of the City of San Diego.

The Scam is the development of homes and condos known as as Liberty Station.

The property was formerly the cite of the U.S.Navy boot camp.

The Union Trib reported that the developer scammed a contract

with the Navy and apparently did not live up to all of their contractual agreement's with the city of San Diego. The City attorney is contesting the contract.

Guess what the brother of Duncan Hunter is and has been a VP of the McMillan Properties the developer for years.Another guess what Duke Cunningham congressman, recently prosecuted by Carol Lam and convicted of taking over $2 million in bribes of another contractor was signatory along with Duncan Hunter and the former congressman Brian Bilbray,now the Congressman that replaced Cunningham. With Carol Lam gone i doubt that a new loyal Bushie will not bother to proceed ,time will tell. oregon 58

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.