LA Times: Negative Ads a Positive in GOP Strategy

[Judi Lynn]

Negative Ads a Positive in GOP Strategy
Hoping to deflect attention from Iraq, candidates unleash personal attacks. They get voters' attention, consultants say.
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
September 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — Sinister characters are scheming in a smoke-filled room, in a television ad that depicts big campaign contributors to Bob Casey, a Democrat running for Senate in Pennsylvania.

After detailing the legal troubles that each donor faces — including an FBI investigation and jail time — the somber narrator asks, "Where does Casey hold his campaign meetings?"

The camera pulls back to show the cigar-smoking "campaign team" — behind bars.

That graphic, personal attack on the candidate challenging Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is a particularly sharp-edged example of a key strategy in the Republican political arsenal as the party fights to keep control of Congress: going negative and personal, early and often.

While President Bush and national GOP leaders are attacking Democrats on such big issues as national security and America's role in the world, individual Republicans are hitting their opponents hard — below the belt, some critics say — on personal and local issues.
(snip/...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-negads26sep26,1,1883432.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

[truthisfreedom]

1. yawn. they're going to ignite our base.

there's nothing they can do that won't ignite our base.

[calimary]

2. Yep. Much as we'd prefer to deny it, it's true. They work.

Dammit. They work. Which is why WE have to stoop, I'm afraid. Unless we REALLY DON'T want to win. I wish it were different. But it's not. If you want to win, this is how the game is played. And I hate it, frankly. But that's the reality to be dealt with.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. How hard is it to come up with a negative ad on Santorum?

Just show the fucker opening his mouth.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Mr. Man-On-Dog is only angering the local voters

Once Upon A Time, my district heavily supported Santorum, but now the anti-Casey ads are only making people angry. Not only are they misleading, they're not even very subtle; for one thing, they imply that Casey has thousands of eeevil fatcat donors, as if M-O-D's money comes from nuns, orphans, and "da Fluffya woikin' stiffs".

My mother works with the public in a government office, and she's told me that she's heard two unsolicited complaints about Santorum's new ads already. It's the Motor-Voter thing. People start talking to her about politics -- ranting, really -- when they register to vote. These days, the spontaneous ranting has gotten much more frequent. As a conscientious public servant, she doesn't encourage or discourage them. But if their remarks are any indication, a whole lot of deep-red suburban Republicans are going blue.

--p!

[Goat or Panic]

5. I quickly scanned the article

Didn't see any mention of the fact that the ad had been debunked by a local tv station. Really bad stuff like one of the "campaign team" died two years ago and that none of the people mentioned were actually on the "campaign team." How sad the LA Times didn't mention that. :eyes:

[bklyncowgirl]

6. Their goal is to turn off the soft support

They love it when people say, "I'm not going to vote. There's no difference between the two."

It's a despicable tactic but it works.

[Joe Bacon]

7. And the LIES ANGELES TIMES fails to tell you the ad is a lie

What do you expect from a paper controlled by the Chicago FIBUNE?

[Ravenseye]

8. Lets be clear here

There are Negative ads and then there is outright slander.

Negative ads are things which either are true, or have some truth followed by a strawman argument.

"John Kerry voted against kittens 42 times. Do you want a president who hates kittens?"

What the ad doesn't mention is that of the 42 votes, 38 of them were procedural or something like that, while the other 4 were votes against ammendments to tack on pork to an educational bill or something. It's at least true, just distorted and framed in a negative way.

The Santorum ad against Casey though is just downright slander. None of the people represented in the commercial have a) given any money to Casey's Senate race, b) the money some did give to him was years ago for when he ran for Governor when the same people were not 'under investigation'. c) none of them are involved in the campaign in any way shape or form. D) one of them is fucking dead E) One of them is claimed to have given money to Casey and is his treasurer, but in fact he gave money to SAntorum, and works on tha tcampaign.

Just outright fucking lies. That's how far it's gotten now. They can't even put up negative ads that have a semblance of truth to them because they've gone so far off the deep end.