W's Negativity

Ok, I agree it's wrong when either candidate distorts or is dishonest. I just wanted wanted to point out that they aren't equally guilty.

 

Actually...

There were two points to the article.

One was negative ads -- which are not necessarily misleading or untruthful. George wins hand down on this.

The second was misleading or deceptive ads -- not sure who wins here -- but both are clearly in the game.

I guess a third issue is the sheer volume of ads being pumped out by Team Bush.

None of this bodes well for an informed electorate.

 

For nine months the Dems have been engaging in negative campaigning without having to buy time for TV ads. Where is the anaysis of those statements?

 

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com

Oh my GOD! I quoted a conservative blog. Run for your lives, it's scarier than a Steve Francis (missed) jump shot!

 

Look what his dad said about Michael Moore:

--Former president GEORGE BUSH on MICHAEL MOORE and his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is critical of his son, President GEORGE W. BUSH, in the New York Daily News. The elder Bush also called Moore a "slimeball."

 

For the same reason that this is negative:

 

There is nothing wrong with negative ads as long as they are truthful.

 

I agree 100-percent. I regret that negative advertising is a part of American politics, but it's not going anywhere. I just wish campaigns would stop INTENTIONALLY skewering the facts to make their opponents look bad.

To me, if they have to lie about their opponents, they lack the integrity to be the most powerful man in the world.

 

I guess were sort of immune here in Texas. Since our state isn't "in play", the only channels we can see these ads on are national ones, and I haven't seen too many of them....yet!