Attack Ads- Kayley Cedrone

Attack Ads Article:

• In my personal opinion, I believe that attack ads are cruel and immature. I think it creates a lot of unnecessary problems within the campaign. They bring out the worst of the candidates,  making them angry and upset. Attack ads do not only effect the candidates, but also the citizens of America who are paying attention to the 2012 Race For President. It can cause the citizens to start becoming irrational or upset, and it can make them create rude opinions about the candidates. Truthfully, there is no good when it comes to attack ads, the word just says it all. The candidates are literally attacking each other through erroneous ads. 

• As much as I hate attack ads and are totally against them, I feel as if they are necessary in a campaign. I believe that they help citizens choose who they really want to vote for. Also, it can get more people involved with the campaign and pay more attention to it. Most of all, it can really help or damage a candidates campaign. This can give the candidates an advantage at winning the election. 

• Yes, attack ads most definitely take place in today's political race. I know this because they are published everywhere. They are all over the news, in the paper, and on television. You cannot seem to get away from them. To me this seems to be a very tough battle between Romney and Obama, and attack ads the reason for this. 

Attack Ads Videos:

• Each video made me feel hatred toward the candidate being attacked. The videos made them seem so selfish and not very understanding of the problems in our nation. I felt empowered by the video's. They drew my attention and sucked me into their argument. It made me feel comfortable and made me like the candidate who approved the ad. I felt as if they were the better person and better for our country. 

• I really questioned what each candidate said. This is because you never actually know if it is true or not. Like everyone always says, "you cannot believe everything you hear/see". Therefore, I was not totally positive about who was right. It actually really confused me. How am I supposed to know what to believe and if it is true or not?

• Honestly, I do not have any political beliefs. I tend to not pay attention to the race because it confuses me and stresses me out. Also, I am not sure if I am a democratic or a republican. This is the reason to why I am stuck in the middle between Obama and Romney. I think that once I am able to vote and can get more into a presidential election I will pay more attention, but right now it does not really concern me.

Article

Article

• I think that attack ads are stupid because they shouldn’t worry about making other people or things look bad they should make themselves look good. I don’t want to see an ad that destroys other people or things just because i don't like their product doesn’t mean I will like their product.They waste their time showing us how bad other things are. I think all ads should be about is how good they are and I think most attack ads toward people just start rumors.
• I think that they are harmful because they could start rumors and get voted for just because they started false things about the other candidate. They over exaggerate the truth to make them seem terrible. Like if when Romney said the 47% they kept tearing that apart and saying what he might not have meant. But they are necessary at the same time because they do point out the weaknesses of others and we need to know those.
• I think that attack ads are necessary because not all of them are untrue and do let us know the flaws of the other candidate or product. But its to an extent because some get carried away and take things out of context. Like I will turn on the radio and hear an ad that says Scott Brown isn’t for women and voted no on bills for women. But then I will hear one that says he if for women and he does this and that for them and then I don’t know what to believe.

Video

• It made me feel that Obama wasn't doing his job but I don’t know if I should believe because Mitt Romney didn’t approve it. But then the other made me feel better about Obama because he is trying to help college expenses. Obama did approve so it made me feel like that ad was more accurate than the bad one about Obama.
• I think that what some of each ad is saying but not the whole thing. I don’t know what to believe because some ads could be completely true while others could be all lies. So i don’t accept the ads because if I believed them all then I would dislike both candidates because it keeps going back and forth. Like there might be one ad that says that Obama care is bad and then list facts while there may be another that states why its so good because ads keep going back and forth.
• I don’t have many political views so I don’t know who I would go for. When I’m older and can vote then I would pay attention more and see what president agrees in the same things I would. But right now I don’t know if I am a republican or democrat so I don’t know if I would liek a president who would believe in my same beliefs.

Attack Ads in Today's Political Race Response

Attack Ads in Today's Political Race Response
Article

• I feel that attack ads are wrong and unnecessary. They cause too many problems between the candidates and voters, and people get the wrong idea. When Mitt Romney discussed about his opinion on abortion, Obama's campaign turned it around into making voters think that he thought that abortion was never necessary. In reality, that was not the case at all; Romney's view was just deliberately misinterpreted. 
• Although attack ads can be harmful, I think they are necessary for campaigns. By using these attack ads, campaigns can grow and become more popular by the voters. When Mitt Romney's campaign attacked Obama, people would question Obama's campaign and support Romney. Romney questioned Obama's Americanism and in result, so did the voters. People accused him for being Muslim and other religions. This would help Romney's campaign because people would want to support his campaign, if the opposing one lied about their religion or nationality. 
• Attack ads do happen in today's political race. People watching the ads believe what they see on the television and assume it's the truth. They do not bother checking to see if it is a real accusation or not. Romney and Obama use attack ads on each other to attract voters to their own campaign. Romney's attack ad on Obama was when he accused him of being from another nationality or religion than he claimed to be. Voters watching the ad on television would not check to see if this accusation was false or not, they would believe what they see. This would help Romney's campaign if people found Obama's "actions" to be unacceptable. Obama's attack ad on Romney was when he messed with Romney's words and transformed him to an abortion-hater. Voters, especially women, would find this preposterous and support Obama's campaign. 

Videos

• Each attack ad made me feel that the person it was attacking, was causing too many problems in society. It made me think that these people were making bad decisions. The candidates seemed less powerful when they were being attacked; they seemed unorganized. The attack ads portrayed them as unworthy presidents for this country.
• At first, I did not question what was being said on the ads. But after thinking about the ad later on, I realized that what was said may not be truthful. The candidates doing the attacking may have exaggerated when describing their opponent's opinions on the problem. This made me realize that when voters are watching these ads on the television, they would believe what the ads are discussing because they do not have the time like I had to think about each ad. 
• I do not have a person political belief; I consider myself as an independent. I lean towards a Democrat, though. This would make me believe more of what the Democrats campaign is saying, rather than a Republican's. I believe this is because I would want the Democrats to win the campaign, so I have more of a motivation to believe in their opinions. Also, since they are the political party that I lean towards, I believe in their views. Therefore, when the candidate discusses their political beliefs, I would most likely agree to it.

• I will read and comment on my other classmate's blogs.

My Response to Attack Ad Videos

My Response to Attack Ad Videos:

1. After Watching the "Get Real" ad it made me feel against Mitt Romney because me as a student would rather have Obama in that situation. I think that Ad make some good points without going over board but at the same time i feel that Obama twisted his words because they held the same thing against him over and over. I feel like i like Obama more after watching this Ad. After watching the "Anti-Obama Ad" I realized that Obama hasn't really done all that much to help the economy but he has still made a change. I also feel Mitt Romney wouldn't do much better though, He kept saying why we shouldn't vote for Obama but he never said why to vote for him or what he would do for the economy

2. in "Get Real" I believe that they were telling the truth because they had some proof to back it up unlike in other ads I've seen in the past. there wasn't really a time where i questioned it not being true and Obama won me over with that ad. In the "Anti-Obama" ad I feel like i question a lot of things they had a few good points but they took one thing he said and made it into a huge deal.

3. Yes. I believe the person with my views more than the one who doesn't because if someone doesnt want the same things i want or doesn't believe in what i think is right I think i would rather have the person who does running the Country.

My Response to the Attack Ads

My Response to the Attack ad Article:

1. In my opinion attack ads can be useful in gaining ahead in a election but they can also backfire as well. When the ads are true they can really be powerful they make people question their beliefs about a person and even maybe vote for the other person.I personally think attack ads are a waste of money but in  race like this where both Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney are so close there is a lot of people they need to convince to vote, and attack ads can be a great way to do that. Some of the ads though that are based completely on lies are pathetic like in the article when they talked about how the Obama SuperPACs came up with the attack ad pretty much blaming Mitt Romney for someones death was not just horrible but wrong since the man in the video was fired years before his wife got cancer.

2. The attack ads are very hurtful towards the candidates because its propaganda that people believe they hear about all the horrible things it says about each people and most people who have no way to prove it wrong buys the lies it tells. Most people already have their mind set on who they want to vote for though and others know that it is just lies and don't fall for it so most of the time it doesn't really hurt their campaign.

3. Yes. they do have a place in today's political race because This election could change america in a huge way. our economy isnt doing well and both candidates have different opinions and ways of going about solving it so in this situation they have a place because even though they are wrong and sometimes complete lies it could help a few people change their minds in the next upcoming week.

Attack Ads

Attack Ads

1. Personally, I believe that attack ads are not necessary. Instead of focusing on the country's issues, the candidates decide it's easier to get into office by slandering and tainting the others self image. They can be very harmful to another candidate's reputation, as it usually attacks their personal life, and also makes me respect the offender less. They definitely do not belong in the political races of the 21st century, as it always makes me have less faith in the new president.

2. For Romney, I felt it made him look like he was a "rich kid", as he mentions borrowing money from your parents to start a business or go to college. For Obama, I felt that he wasn't fit for being president as he was blaming the American people rather than believing in them. However, I didn't accept either of these ads as being legitimate evidence as to why I should vote for the offender, as they are both slandering the other. I guess I believed Romney's ad more, as it linked Obama with the supposed worst U.S. president, President Carter.

Attack Ads

1.

• In general, I believe there should be a lot less attack ads if any. All they do is say something bad about the opponent. Attack ads don't say anything about why you are the man/woman for the job. Honestly, attack ads remind me of rumors spread in school. Grown men/woman should not be spreading rumors. Also, a lot of attack ads take something and expand the truth. That is my general opinion of attack ads.
• I don't think they should be, but I believe these attack adds are helpful to a candidates campaign. A lot of Americans are gullible enough to vote on someone just because of bad things the other guy did. I think that is completely wrong, but that is how it is. A good attack add  can make or break someones campaign.
• Yes, attack ads do have a place in today's political race. I personally do not believe that they should but attack ads are more popular than normal ads explaining why you should vote for that person. on YouTube, all I see are attack ads, for Obama, Romney, and even Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.         They are annoying but they play a huge role in the elections.

2.

• First I watched the Romney attack video and honestly, it made me feel like Romney was not the right man for the job. Then I watched the Obama attack video and it made me feel like Obama was not the right man for the job. Honestly, either video did not make me feel like the one who approved the video was the right man for the job. Watching both honestly made me think that either candidate would be the wrong choice.
• I think some of the stuff said was true while others was questionable. Like in the Romney approved video, all the statistics and number comparisons between Obama and Carter I believe because those are factual numbers so I have to believe that. Other things I find questionable is like when Romney is saying Obama is a bad president because He did do good things in office.
• Me, being fourteen, I keep myself from calling myself a democrat or a republican yet. I agree with things Romney says, as well as Obama. I can not say that I have had enough experience and knowledge of politics to say which party I believe is correct. 

My Respone to Attack Adds

Megan Sodano

Article Questions

• In my opinion I think the attack adds are rude, obnoxious, annoying and untrue. To come across then is annoying because of how everyone is putting down other candidates to make the candidate they like look better. Most attack adds are untrue but sometimes they can convince others they are true. I think to come across a attack add is very common considering the presidential campaign in now. Yet it is annoying because all it is, is rude comments about a candidate which is most likely a lie. All these adds make the candidate(s) look like they are not right for the job even though the information is false. 
• In some ways the attack adds can be harmful but also helpful. They can be helpful because they give voting citizens something to at least think about, not that anything is 100% true. Sometimes the things in the adds may be true, but not accurate though it can still give people a reason not to agree or to agree with the candidate  Also attack adds can be harmful, they can create false rumors about a candidate which can lead to problems involving voting. Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does not give them the right  to attack a candidate. 
• Yes, I absolutely think attack adds take place in today's presidential election. All over T.V, the radio and websites people are bashing the candidates. These adds are annoying and shows people that the whoever is making these commercials or announcements are running a dirty campaign. Almost everyday calls are made and commercials are produced to bash another candidate which can most certainly get annoying. 

Video Questions

• The adds made me feel like I should vote for whoever approved the message but in reality whatever was said is most likely miss-worded or miss-understood. Obama was bashing Romney saying he cut tax deductions and cut college aid for millions of students. Mr. Romney may or may have not done those things but Obama is not perfect and has many flaws such as Romney. You cant just go along with whatever someone tells you, or convinces you to think. You have your own mind and can make your own decision. Romney and Obama adds both put down each other so you don't know who to go with, each add makes you want to decide with a different candidate but in the end it your decision.
• Considering what was said in each add I do question what was said, some may be true but it also may not. You never get the truth unless it is coming from the actual person. Whatever was said may be true but then again may not be. these adds sometimes can make you believe something that  is not true and can persuade your vote, but that is the purpose of these attack adds. they want to persuade your vote, but again everything that was said I do question. I don't think Romney would eliminate tax deduction, or Obama would call America "lazy".
•  The candidate who shares my political beliefs I did believe more. Someone who agrees with the same things I do would convince me in liking them. I do however think it is not okay to put down your opponent to improve your over self. Overall I do agree with the candidate of my political beliefs but sometimes their statements can be questioned. 

Atack Adds

 

 

 

Atack Adds

 

 

1.

• In general i dislike the atack adds. I think that they are pointless just like stupid gossiping that happens goes on at school. It is just an excuse for them to try to get the upperhand and taint the name of there opponents. i think that they are stupid and pointless.

 

• I think that the adds are harmful because they can bring things out that are a sore subject for the other competitors. I also dont think that they are neccesary to a campaign. A campaign should be won by the ideals of the competitors not the mistakes that they have made that is just a low blow.
 
 
• I beleive that they do have a place in todays in todays political race. it is important to know what the other candidates have done howeer it is not neccesary. They become way to common to be ignored when they appear and they are adertised in many different ways. they start to leave an impression on you after awhile.

2.

 
• The one about Romney and the college plan mad me upset. i disagreed with what he was saying because not all parents can just lend you money for colllege. That can be ridiculusly expensive and not in a familys price range. It mad me sympathize with Obama. The add about Obama made me confused as to the point of the atack add. I didnt know who he was getting compared to and it made sense. what Obama was saying is true so whats the point of using it to atack him he was speaking the truth and honestly about what he thought was needed. it made me question Romneys motives.
 

 

• I did accept what was being said in the two ads. Both had evidence that it was being said and details explaning what they meant. I dont question the ads and i shouldnt have to, If someone is paying to put somethign in the eyes of everyone why lye about it and then have reprecussions to deal wth afterwards.

 

 

• I would say that between these ads i believe the ads just about the same. Neither of them have done anything to make me question there legitamacy so why should i not believe one but believe the other. If the candidates were making sense then why should i question them

Attack Ads

Trevor Currin

"The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President"

1. In general, I believe attack ads are very rude and unnecessary. Many attack ads that are being used in the US Presidential Election consist of false facts. They try to persuade the voters that the opposing candidate is not only not fit for the job, but also an awful human being. One example of this is a commercial supported by Mr. Obama states that Mr. Romney wants "a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest". While the true fact is that "Mr. Romney has said that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, and when it would save the mother's life". In the attack ad, it shows Romney for not caring about women rights while the truth is that he does but is also religious about his thoughts. I believe it is very childish of grown mature men to make lies about one another while they are applying for the most important job of the country.
2. I believe it is very harmful for a candidates campaign. It shows that they are desperate they are and how they will do as much as trying ruining another persons reputation entirely to achieve their goal. Voters do not care about what lies somebody can make up about the other candidate, they would care about where a candidate stands and their opinions. Candidates at all levels are now using attack ads as their only advertisements. This is bad because now the only place where you can understand a candidates views is during a debate, and even then they both are making fun of each other and sometimes not properly answering the question.
3. They do not have to take place within today's political race. This is because these candidates are smart enough to know what people want. Instead of making negative ads about others, they should create positive ads about themselves. Attack ads contain no information upon what the candidate would like in the future. They are wasting their campaign money. If they created positive ads about themselves they would be a lot more successful. The candidates would know that the voters know what they believe in and the commercial or advertisement would not create national drama about the election.

"Get Real" - Obama for America TV Ad & Anti Obama Ad

1. For the "Get Real" attack ad, I believe that Romney should not be afraid, the entire ad revolves around one quote. However, that quote does mean a lot to many Americans, college students, parents, and even people going into college. College costs a lot and with this economy, just to get a decent job a college degree is needed. Because we did not see the speech entirely, we do not fully know what Romney was truly talking about however because of this little fragment, many people may think that he does not care about a large part of American voters. However a small fraction of these viewers may research more in what Romney believes in to find that the advertisement twisted his words. While others will take it and go. For the Anti Obama attack ad, I believe Obama needs to me careful in what words to use. This is because with today's technology and today's attack ads, your words can be manipulated and changed to where somebody can only use a portion of a sentence to get a whole new meaning out of it. For the "Get Real" attack ad I believe it was very random for Obama to pull out that quote and say what he said. I believe I would feel better if not only he did that, but also summarized or just told the viewers what he would do with College Aid. For the Anti Obama attack ad, I believe that Romney did a very good job with the comparisons between both presidents within the same dilemma. However, like Obama no facts were shown to show his views. They just pulled out numbers and speeches that were alike. The so what question was still running around within my head. Yes they are bad numbers for the economy but how is Romney going to change those numbers? It is not just Obama's fault for them. 

2. For the "Get Real" attack ad, I did question the quote by Romney and its true meaning. I doubt that a candidate would tell kids or students to borrow money from their parents just to go to college to get an education. Many would view him differently if he did. Also seeing his background, how he was and still is a rather rich person it is easy for somebody like that to say such things. The entire ad revolved around just one quote. For the Anti Obama attack ad, I did not really question the facts stated within the video. They had true numbers about the economy and good statements .I believe the comparison between Barrack Obama and Jimmy Carter was also a good touch. They were both in an economically tight situation and the quotes are very much alike. I believe that is very interesting because they are in the same problem although as you look at the numbers, in Obama's case, they are worse. 

3. I believed the candidate who showed more data than assumption or lies. Between these two videos, Mitt Romney showed more data. This is because he chose a great person to compare Obama to because they were both in very equal situations. He also pulled out quotes from both people and stated numbers from both person. Although he did not look at the positives in what Obama has done for the economy such as jobs created, he should not have to. He is trying to show more of the bad than good. This is a competition  you would like to win. But winning by attack ads is like an un-sportsman like penalty. You do not want it. Candidates should win correctly and not try and grind each other down by hatred.  and he organized his data much more compared to the "Get Real" attack ad against Mitt Romney.

Attack Ads Response

Attack Ads and Video

• In general, I think that attack ads are annoying, untrue and unpleasant to come across when watching television. They remind me of rumors spread in middle school and high school.  However I understand that the reason candidates try to belittle their opponents and ruin their reputations is so that they can succeed in gaining a majority of the votes. I think that the world might even be a better place if America elected a president that did not have to resort to attack ads. It makes me think that the candidates who create them are sneaky and untrustworthy.

•   I think that attack ads are only necessary for something as serious  as the Presidential Election. When students at are school run for Community Council or some sort of Class Officer position they do not resort to attack ads- they just try to advertise how they can make a difference at Hudson High. I believe attack ads are morally wrong. When one candidate plants false information about another candidate and millions of people hear about it, regardless of whether or not the rumor is true many people believe it to a certain extent. Even when the rumor/misunderstanding is cleared up, most people still have lingering thoughts about it, which could potentially influence their vote.  It is harmful to the other candidate that is being exploited. The other candidate has the power to create a false statement about the other, which often triggers a vicious cycle. Attack ads become much less harmful after they become repetitive and eventually lose their impact on people's votes.

• Presently, I believe attack ads do have a place in today’s political race.  It is extremely rare when one does not come across an attack ad on television as Election Day approaches. Their existence is seldom questioned and often reluctantly accepted by the people of the United States. I think that they really are a part of presidential campaigns and candidates spend more time bringing their antagonists down rather than bringing their reputation up, which should change in the future.

2.

• The first ad about Mitt Romney’s thoughts on college made me a little bit angry at him for saying that parents should pay for their children’s college. I do not agree with this because some parents cannot afford large college tuition. I think that he should actually try to improve the situation of college instead of putting it behind him. This ad made me feel more inclined toward Obama’s ideas, and made me feel that Obama was completely right, even if he was slightly rude about it in the ad.  The other ad did not provoke any negative emotions from me towards Obama; I am assuming that when he said Americans were lazy he had a reason for it or it was appropriate in the context of the situation. It made me feel like Romney was trying too hard and confused as to why two different presidents were being compared. I do not like Romney or Obama.
• I accepted a large majority of what was in the attack ads because there was clear proof that the candidates said what they were accused of. The attack ads simply made their views more dramatic and negative. For example, if the ad claimed to say that President Obama called America lazy, I would question it. However, the ad actually showed Obama at a conference calling America lazy and saying that America has “gotten soft.” Whether or not it was exaggerated is not the point; the fact that there was legitimate proof made me believe the ads to some extent.
• I definitely do believe the candidate whose political views I share more than the other political candidate because I know that they are trying to do what I think is best for America and I trust them more. The attack ad  about the candidate whose political views I do not agree with makes me dislike them and question their motives. If I do not agree with what they have to say, of course I will agree with the ad that has a similar opinion to mine.

Attack Adds

1.

• In gerneral I dislike attack adds. I dislike them because I feel the canidate should not have to make negative remarks about the other canidate if they want to win. They should just try to win based off what they themselfs are about. I also do not like attack adds because overall there is a ton of money used to make them when the money could be used o rebuild and fix our economy.
• I feel like attack adds are harmfull to a canidates campaign. I feel this way because the other canidate could make one about someone and it could get a lot of oters not to vote for that person anymore. I feel like they are not neccessary because why should they have to diss the other aponet if they want to win?
• I think attack adds do play a part in todday's race because I feel our generation watches a lot of tv and attack adds are usually on tv comercials. I also think they play a role in todays election because they help some Americans choose who they want to vote for.

2.

• In the first video that was against Mitt Romney it made me not like how he cut college aid for students and cut tax reduction because I plan to go to college one day and do not want to spend so much money on it. Also it made me feel like Obama was the better canidate because it said he doubled college grants. In the second video it made me feel like Obama did not like Ameicans when he said we were "lazy". Also this video made Mitt Romney look a lot better then Obama and made it look like he could help fix America.
• I do not beleive everything said in the attack adds are true. I dont beleive Romney would cut all the college aid because he needs a plan for school. I also feel like when Obama said Americans are "lazy" that he did not mean that in context but was trying to say something else. I also feel both canidates put what the other canidates were saying way out of context and made what they said seem really bad.
• I beleived the canidate who shares my political beleifs more because i want them to win. I also beleived them because I feel like I know them more than the other canidate and that I just have more trust in them.

Response to Attack Ads

Attack Ads
1.
A.I have two different views on Attack Ads, I think they can both be helpful to a presidents campaign but can also have a bad impact on the campaign. For example an attack ad can be helpful to a president because it portrays their competitor as a bad person,leader and shows reasons why they themselves is right for the job not their competitor. By painting in image in the viewers watching that this competitor is rather an antagonist then a person who is truly fighting for the people persuades them to want to vote for one competitor over the other. But on the other hand most of the information in the ads is false and can be proven so by their competitor making the person who published the ad look like the so called "bad guy" because they were using information with false facts. Which can set them farther back in the competition then forward.

B.I think attack ads can be both harmful and necessary to their campaigns. I think they can be harmful because they can make themselves look bad or sometimes even worse then the ad does to the candidate because the ad is implying false information to the world about the other candidate. It can offend people all over the country because of some of the accusations made about the candidate. Attack ads can also be necessary to ones campaign because without them each candidate would not have the chance to pull above the other or show why the other candidate is not the right person for the job. Without Attack ads the election would be equal because no one would ever think bad about the other candidate. Therefore I believe Attack ads are needed in an election.

C.I believe that attack ads have a solid place in political campaigns everywhere during every election. Political campaigns need attack ads for the campaign to progress and to help people all over the wprld form their own opinions on which candidate they truly believe will make the right choices for their country and for the rights of the people everywhere. The attack ads make the competition more interesting all over the world and make the people really come alive and to become excited to vote and use their voice to elect the right candidate. Therefore without attack ads people would never be able to form their own opinions and would not care about politics making it almost impossible to have an election without them which is why I believe all political campaigns need to have attack ads.

2.
A.The first video made me feel like Mitt Romney was not a good candidate for becoming the president because....

• He eliminated tax deduction
• Cut college aid for 10 million students

By the attack ad having these comments it made me think that he is making it much harder for kids everywhere to have an education because he is making it much harder for the parents and students to pay. It made Mitt Romney look like he was making a lot of things worse for our country and that he did not no what he was doing. The video however made Obama look like the much better candidate because it pointed out the facts about what he has done for our country. For example he..

• Eliminated bank middlemen and used the savings to double college grants

This made me feel that President Obama was helping out our country and making life much easier for people all over the world and helping lives everywhere become better because people could afford their education. The second video made me feel like President Obama was the antagonists because he was calling Americans "Lazy" and saying "we had lost our ambition". The video makes it seem as if  by comparing two democratic presidents that they are all the same and use excuses to cover their actions instead of acting themselves against what is right. It made me feel like the Republicans could change things around and make them much better for Americans all over the world instead of making us fall deeper into the hole we have dug for ourselves.

B. I do not accept that everything that is being said is true because a lot of the attack ads are just replaying some of the candidates speeches over and over again. This makes me question the video of implying fake information because by replaying the same video they are just highlighting parts of the speech and sort of twisting the video around to make the other candidate look bad and themselves look better.

C. Yes I do believe the candidate that shares my political beliefs is true because it is what I belief the country should stand for. By having a candidate that shares my political beliefs would automatically make them a picture in mind of the right guy for president because I believe what they are saying and I feel as if I can trust them making it easier for me to form my opinion and my vote on the candidate I would choose for president.

Attack Ads

Kaylie Blais

Article Questions

 

1. I think the attack ads can be very useful to the canidate funding them. The ads point out the flaws and mistakes their opponents have made. However if the attack ads are false than it gives the canidate funding them problems. It makes them seem like liars and someone who could be trusted to get the country out of the trouble it has been in.

 

2. Attacks ards are harmful because based on the message or insult being advertised it could cause people to become angry over what they are insulting. Also if a message turns out to be false or very over exaggerated it would reflect negatively on the funding canidate. This could cause people currently voting for them to change their minds after seeing that they would lie to become the president.

 

3. The attack ads definetly have a place in this campaign. Whenever you turn the tv on or listen to the radio on almost every station you see ads attacking the opponent. The ads are neccessary though because it sends short "important" messages to people who don't watch debates. These ads are meant for believe who vote simply because one is a democrat and the other a republican. The ads are there to hopefully change their minds or their opinions on who to vote for.

 

Video Questions

 

1. Obama's ad makes you want to vote for him because he appears to care more about the middle class and how they get to college than Romney. The ad makes Romney look like he doesn't care about if you go to college or how you get there and is basically saying that you should take whatever money you can to pay for college. It seems like Obama would want to help others pay to get into college instead of expecting them to give every cent they have to go for an education. Romney's ad makes Obama appear to completely blame Americans for the trouble we are having. It makes it seem like while Obama is blaming us he is also doing nothing to help fix the problems and some issues have even gotten worse like the unemployment rate. It makes you want to vote for Romney because the ad is saying he will do a better job of fixing our problems than Obama has.

 

2. I have trouble believing any of the ads shown because a lot of them are overexaggerated or are a complete lie in general. The goal is to make their opponent look bad and sometimes to do that they have to make the canidate appear much worse than they are. The ads never say the good things done and it makes it seem like our current president is useless or that the opponent is going to make our problems worse not better. I think that the only way to know what someone actually said is to watch the debate themselves not the ads.

 

3. I think I would be more inclined to listen to the canidate who supports my beliefs more because if our opinions on issues are the same then my issues would be the first ones the president tries to fix. I may not care about the most important issue to Romney but agree with Obama so I would vote for him or vice versa. If a president agrees with your issues that is likely the canidate that you will vote for.  

My Response to Political Ads

Lilly Clouter

1.

• In general I think the attack ads can make a break a person campaign.  At times they can be useful and can win over a numerous amount of people.  They can bring up vague issues that have been hidden, or that the other candidate does not talk about.  This usually wins over voters and the candidate with the ad has gained a good lead.  Others times, they can be over aggressive, which gives the candidate a mean image and can turn voters away.  If the ad is filled with false accusations against the opponent the image for that candidate is now that they are a liar.  The sympathy vote can also change voters opinions.
• In most cases I think that political ads are mainly harmful to a candidates career because they usually  backfire.  This leads to having his or hers opponent end up getting more votes.  The political ads are also a very big risk to take.  I believe the risk is too big.  An election win should be about how the candidate worked and how they went out to the voters, not based on how good the ads on television were.
• I think these ads do play a part in today's election because the media is a huge part of people's life now and the ads are everywhere, which gives each candidate an easier way of getting the word out and what their plan is.

2.

• After watching the ads I felt torn between the two candidates.  When watching Barack Obama's ad against Mitt Romney I thought it was very mean and it took his words and used it against him in a cruel way.  In the ad against Obama it was not approved by Mitt Romney, which made me feel like he was not very involved with the advertising.  I felt bad when each candidate when they were attacked because it was done in a cruel way.  It should not be delivered that way.  When Obama approved the ad I felt disappointed in him because I thought with his background he would be more kind and not as harsh.
• For the ad against Mitt Romney I questioned it because it seemed as though a possible future President would not ask young adults to depend on their parents for money for college.  It seemed a little outrageous to be true.  For the ad against Obama I was halfway.  I think that I would need to know more about the President they were comparing him to in order to categorize it true or false.
• I did believe the candidate who shares my beliefs because I have more trust in that candidate and I think I know more about their past and what they want to achieve so the message is more clear to me.  I also thought his campaigning group's evidence was more direct and seemed like it would be more correct than his opponent in the election.

3.  I will read and comment on others blogs.       

      

Attack Ads Article

Attack Ads Article                          Jen Kallin

1. I think that attack ads in general are a pathetic way of trying to make themselves look better. If a person is such a good president candidate or product, then why spend time and money to make other people or products look bad? Find positive aspects of what is wanted to be promoted, and work off of that. To me, all they do is make rumors and they have to be careful because demoralizing someone else can cause trouble to the accuser.

2. I think attack ads are necessary to a certain degree in a president's campaign. Sometimes, when they have a weak spot, they need to fill it by turning it around on their antagonist and bringing out the worst points of them. With the Romney campaign saying how the Obama campaigns have been in the political gutter and saying how Obama needs to learn to be American, that is just rude and unnecessary to me. The attack ads make false rumors, and it can confuse the people who listen to them. That either means people who listen should actually read up on what they are hearing, or that attack ads should acknowledge people's lack of intelligence and not make up ideas about the other candidate.

3. I would say that attack ads have a play in today's race because they exist for a reason. Not all of what attack ads say are untrue. Commercials such as "Elizabeth Warren isn't who she says she is" and "Scott Brown is not in it for us" is all people hear from day to day. This is one of the only ways that the candidates oppose each other. Attack ads draw away the attention of the real issues between candidates. They make people think and warp their opinions. Everything is based on facts, but when attack ads throw in rumors, how does the American public know if these rumors are true or not? They confuse people, and what people hear in commercials plays a role in the opinion about that person. Is Elizabeth Warrren for big businesses? No one knows what to believe.

Attack Ads Videos

Attack Ads Videos                                          Jen Kallin

1. The college one from a one point perspective made me think that Obama was the better candidate because as a high school student, I am obviously thinking about what I am doing for college and how to pay for it, being the third child of my family to go through it. To think that ten million kids would not be able to have college aid and rely on their parents makes me lean on Obama's side. This ad played around with very believable facts, so I have more respect for Obama attacking Romney and did not rumor his personal life. The second one compared Obama to Jimmy Carter, said to be one of the worst presidents, which is an opinion. I do not appreciate how it was saying that Obama called America lazy and that he blamed us, so it made me think that Obama might be discouraging us. I do not believe it because he obviously wants America's votes, so why would he put us down? The attackers did not think of that I assume, and was not very intelligent.

2. I am suspicious of some of what is being said within the ads because if there were so many issues with Romney's thoughts on education, he would not run. Not all of that is true because it targets almost everything that he could do about education, and he obviously must have positive ideas for it. I also do not believe that Obama called America lazy in the context that the ad made him to. He might have said it, but not without the intention of trying to encourage people and trying to make citizens more involved.

3. I believe the candidate I want more than the one I did not, but not just based on the ads. Of course, once I like one candidate, I am adamant to my beliefs about that candidate and am usually stubborn in changing them. Not based on ads, either. I know Obama as a president and Romney as a governor, so I know how they can lead already. Who I liked better as a leader representing where I am stays true with me, and I still oppose the other person. The Obama ad was more convincing because I care about what happens with kids going through college, but I did find the anti-Obama ad clever in terms that it compared the quotes of problems and excuses to Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents.