Negative ads work. Attack ads work. We're told this over and over again. Another question in my quest to understand the candidate and the voter. Why do they work?
What is there about us that likes to see the side we disagree with ripped to shreds with half truths and innuendo? What do we gain from it? Why does it resonate with the voter? It doesn't say much positive about we voters. Especially if we buy into it which apparently we do.
When you get right down to it, neither party is squeaky clean. Jimmy Carter, Democrat, had his Ham Jordan and Bert Lance. Reagan, Republican, had the Iran Contra affair. Bush one, Republican, had Dick Cheney in training and Bill Clinton, Democrat, had - well, himself. And those are just starting points. But certainly not party specific as far as the lack of honorable and ethical behavior.
I don't understand the joy of mudslinging. I see nothing positive coming from it. Maybe the alternative isn't all that bad.