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.
3 comments:
I guess we all have a dark spot - the one that stops traffic to eye an accident, the one that laughs when someone stumbles... It seems to be a human thing but one would think we could unload it in time for elections! Voters are beginning to scare me and I'm not laughing!
I have never cared for negative ads either. They embarrass me for both sides, the slinger and the slingee. I agree with tumblewords - voters scare me - more than those who stay home. I would also say that the candidates scare me as well.
I believe "Coulter Culture" works much better because it keeps the focus away from the important issues ~ like health care, housing and jobs.
Personally, I don't participate in the political system but it's rather impossible to avoid entirely.
Thailand Gal
~*~*~*
Post a Comment