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.