Meet the Attack Lads
Dirty politics has been around since Thomas Jefferson's oppo researchers went after Alexander Hamilton's mistress in 1800, but there's more money in it these days. With campaign expenditures hitting record levels—nearly $1.2 billion was spent in 2004, much of it channeled through shadowy independent-expenditure groups, 527 committees, and the like—those schooled in politics' darker arts are cashing in like never before. And for the off years, there's always corporate marketing and "grassroots lobbying," which increasingly employ the tricks of the campaign trade. Here are some key players from years past, and their current allegiances.
Instructions: Click on the images below to watch the ads and meet the attack lads.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Page 1 of 1 
All of this garbage goes a long way toward explaining why they can never seem to do right and do things like balance the budget, build schools that can educate a lot of people adequately,
or for that matter attend to problems like the levees at New Orleans or our
borders. What a rotten, festering mess
it is, and the sooner they get about
cleaning it up, the better. They won't
get that done by stabbing each other
in the back, we need people that can
demonstrate that yes, they can in fact
do the job they got elected to do, and
that no, they do not have conflicts of
interest that would prevent them from
doing so. 9.14 or so trillion in red
ink will not resolve itself, 08's the
year to get people in there that are
committed, math-literate, can read
a map, comprehend concepts like 'inside'
and 'outside', especially 'outside'
because that's where a lot people are
going to be sleeping if they don't get their act together on the lending laws, all that peanuty goodness, less with
the pleasure yachts and private islands
and more with the commitment to public service etc...
So you say attack ads are coming back. And the reason they are coming back is because they work on the weak minded people who have no idea which way is up or cannot think for themselves. They also know that if you tell a lie over and over it becomes the truth. Who cares if wars are not the answer. Lets tell the people that wars are great and killing has to be done to solve all of mankind's ills. But do not tell the people that wars are for power, money and oil and to hell with the family's it destroys. Lets not talk about love and peace because there is no money in that.
Attack ads these days are usually from the RNC pacs that did so well in 2004. They are guided or misguided by religious zealots that truly believe they are doing god's work.
I just had a thought on how to clean up this whole mess. Anyone running for political office of any sort should be banned from mentioning or referring to any other canidate. One could only talk about ones own plans,ideas,beliefs etc.
Perhaps people could act like adults and not 5 year olds
Or how about election reform. Just have all financing come come from the federal budget. TV Networks can be required to perform their patriotic duty (to at least in part perform to FCC laws) and dedicate air time to debates with all of the candidates. Not just the moneyed ones. Same with newspapers. Information on candidate can be restricted to legitimate, fact based news reporting like on Fox news (sorry, I couldn't resist the joke). Of course we'd need media reform as well to counter networks like Fox.
received email statement Obama's church loyal to Africa with this site www.tucc.org/about htm - is this true or to turn people against him?
The real problem with vicious attack ads is that they work. Despite the tongue-clucking and pontificating in the media, candidates who employ them generally win. But how logical is it to vote for those who employ such tactics? It says a lot about their character: devious, divisive, vicious and underhanded are adjectives that come to mind. And do those who have used negative ads match the adjectives? I think their post-election records confirm that they do. We've had enough swiftboating, hardball, triangulation, obfuscation, partisan bickering and deadlock in Washington and need to reject divisive candidates; Hillary Clinton is easily the most divisive Democrat, but on the Republican side almost everyone has this ugly trait.
