by Jack Lee
Recent polling has shown that over 70% of the ads run during the presidential primary were negative, compare that to 6% just 4 years ago. In some states these negative ads ran as high as 90%. If there was ever a time that Reagan’s 11th Commandment should be respected, this is it. Running that many negative ads is a good way to sour the public on all our candidates.
For most of this election season we’ve been exposed to literally thousands of mudslinging ads and now as we near the final stretch we’re suddenly supposed to forget all that and cheer wildly for the victor? These campaign managers relying on this muckraking must think we’re dumber than door knobs.
Looking back at the run for the White House I think Romney would have been better off managing his own campaign and focusing on the issues. Maybe it would be better for them and us if in the future all presidential candidates run their own campaigns.
Wouldn’t it be a great test of leadership to see who runs the best campaign without the guidance a professional (spin master) campaign manager? In theory these candidates are all political pro’s, right? If they can’t run a simple campaign, how can we trust them to run an entire country? Yep, I think this is a great test of leadership and we should make it a law. I bet it would the inept real quick as it cut down on the negative ads. Under this method the candidates would be directly responsible for everything done by the campaign staff and if they went negative they would be faced with the voter backlash. And no more superpacs running negative ads for them…these superpacs are 99% candidate contrived anyway. We can live without em!
Okay I live in the real world, so while it may be a nice dream, we all know it will never happen. I can assure you that before you could even finish proposing the idea in earnest campaign managers across the country would be so mad they would be spluttering obscenities and what followed would be downright bloody. The scientific manipulation of the voters has evolved into a huge multibillion dollar election industry – that’s a powerful foe. Our idea would threaten this giant, as well as the status quo! We can’t have that, can we?
Those powerful people who tell us how to think and vote depend on this electing industry and they would have our heads for daring to propose such a thing. Why we would be lucky not to get lynched for our outside-the-box thinking.
And this is reason #362, why things are as they are… and why they will not change.
This is the direct result of the citizens united decision. A constitutional amendment to fix that decision would fix this problem. However, the people who benefit form this have convinced a large portion of Americans to fight any changes. I have seen letters to the editor saying that these powerful people are people too, and should be allowed to control us. That is reason #363
Why are corporate donations about “controlling” us but union pac donations and public sector education (unions) pacs, some of the largest donors in the land, are just lowly individual people exercising their right to free political speech?
How many jobs have been lost, and how much debt has been added, because the people in private and public sector unions used their considerable money and power to elect a man with not one clue how to create a robust recovered economy?
If corporate “control” resulted in the people once again having jobs and income it would be a vast improvement in outcomes. At least corporate free speech has a shared interest in creating opportunity. Our union friends seem more interested in the socialist paradise of dependency (And dependency by its very nature requires a ruling elite…these are the dangerous controllering types).
It has been proven that negative advertising works. In recent years targeting individuals and companies for destruction has become even more popular; hello OWS! If you fail to see the danger in this orchestrated tactic you are a total fool.
But what are freedom loving folk to do if we wish to win but still hold on to some shred of our integrity? Negative ads and revelation, if they contain the truthful inforamtion rather than just being a generalized or manufactured smear, are ok by me. We must do our best to meet fire with fire; there is no room for stoic restraint or retreat. This shouldn’t prove too difficult but fortitude will be necessary as it’s going to be a long ugly summer.
Gentleman’s battles are long gone. Progressives have never embraced the gentleman’s contest; they are unbridled revolutionaries…angry ruffians at heart.
Let the games begin.
I choose to ignore the ads, all the ads. I let the real world and how it is going form my opinion of how I will vote. I hope most people do the same. I guess not many are free thinking or the politicians wouldn’t spend tons of money on ads.
We agree on this one. The only people our representatives should be beholding to is the voter and what they do should reflect that solemn obligation. The should not feel obligated to the corporations, the unions, the lobbyist or any of the special interests they represent. -Jack
We’ve got something for you “Observer”. It’s coming up soon and it deals with the Citizens United decision. I think you will like it. ; )
Capital “C” control-freak is out and small “c” is in?
Ever heard of the freedom to associate?
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/freedom-of-assembly-clause.html#ixzz1uhYiEqr4
Quite recently the supreme Court ruled that money is speech.
The coal mining companies of West Virginia come to mind about now. Do we really want to deny them the right to express and petition the government as it attempts to kill their industry?
How about gun company owners and workers? Do you really want to restrict their ability to express and petition the government when it attempts to abridge the second amendment…or would you prefer to have that extra clout working to surpress government oppression?