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.