Washington Post-

 

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

 

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

 

It turns out that Kind ? along with more than 200 of his fellow hedonists in the House ? opposed an unsuccessful effort to stop the National Institutes of Health from pursuing peer-reviewed sex studies. According to Nelson's ads, the Democrat also wants to "let illegal aliens burn the American flag" and "allow convicted child molesters to enter this country."

 

To Nelson, that doesn't even qualify as negative campaigning.

 

"Negative campaigning is vicious personal attacks," he said in an interview. "This isn't personal at all."

 

By 2006 standards, maybe it isn't.

 

On the brink of what could be a power-shifting election, it is kitchen-sink time: Desperate candidates are throwing everything. While negative campaigning is a tradition in American politics, this year's version in many races has an eccentric shade, filled with allegations of moral bankruptcy and sexual perversion.

 

At the same time, the growth of "independent expenditures" by national parties and other groups has allowed candidates to distance themselves from distasteful attacks on their opponents, while blogs and YouTube have provided free distribution networks for eye-catching hatchet jobs.

 

"When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative," said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. "And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there's a big incentive to go to the extremes."

 

The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. A few examples of the "character issues" taking center stage two weeks before Election Day:

 

* In New York, the NRCC ran an ad accusing Democratic House candidate Michael A. Arcuri, a district attorney, of using taxpayer dollars for phone sex. "Hi, sexy," a dancing woman purrs. "You've reached the live, one-on-one fantasy line." It turns out that one of Arcuri's aides had tried to call the state Division of Criminal Justice, which had a number that was almost identical to a porn line. The misdial cost taxpayers $1.25.

* In Ohio, GOP gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell, trailing by more than 20 points in polls, has accused front-running Democratic Rep. Ted Strickland of protecting a former aide who was convicted in 1994 on a misdemeanor indecency charge. Blackwell's campaign is also warning voters through suggestive "push polls" that Strickland failed to support a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Strickland, a psychiatrist, objected to a line suggesting that sexually abused children could not have healthy relationships when they grew up.

* The Republican Party of Wisconsin distributed a mailing linking Democratic House candidate Steve Kagen to a convicted serial killer and child rapist. The supposed connection: The "bloodthirsty" attorney for the killer had also done legal work for Kagen.

* In two dozen congressional districts, a political action committee supported by a white Indianapolis businessman, J. Patrick Rooney, is running ads saying Democrats want to abort black babies. A voice says, "If you make a little mistake with one of your hos, you'll want to dispose of that problem tout de suite, no questions asked."

* In the most controversial recent ad, the Republican National Committee slammed Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) for attending a Playboy-sponsored Super Bowl party. In the ad, a scantily clad white actress winks as she reminisces about good times with Ford, who is black. That ad has been pulled, but the RNC has a new one saying Ford "wants to give the abortion pill to schoolchildren."

 

Some Democrats are playing rough, too. House candidate Chris Carney is running ads slamming the "family values" of Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), whose former mistress accused him of choking her. And House candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has an ad online ridiculing Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) for attending a late-night fraternity party. "What's a 50-year-old man doing at a frat party anyway?" one young woman asks, as a faux Sweeney boogies behind her to the Beastie Boys. "Totally creeping me out!" another responds.

 

But most harsh Democratic attacks have focused on the policies and performance of the GOP majority, trying to link Republicans to Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq and the scandals involving former representative Mark Foley and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. That is not surprising, given that polls show two-thirds of the electorate thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. And studies show that negative ads can reduce turnout; Democrats hope a constant drumbeat of scandal, Iraq and "stay the course" will persuade conservatives to stay home on Nov. 7.

 

It is harder for Republicans to blame out-of-power Democrats for the current state of Washington, but they are equally eager to depress Democratic turnout and fire up their own conservative base. One GOP strategy has been raising the specter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, becoming speaker; for example, Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) is airing radio ads warning that a Democratic victory would allow Pelosi to "put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda." Then again, Hostettler's opponent, Democrat Brad Ellsworth, has accused him of promoting the sale of guns to criminals, "including child-rapists."

 

Some of this year's negative ads are more substantive, reprising a successful Republican strategy from 2002 and 2004: portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism. For example, Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.) has an ad lambasting her opponent for opposing Bush's efforts to conduct wiretaps without search warrants. A host of Democrats have been accused of trying to "cut and run" in Iraq ? including House candidate Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who lost both legs in Iraq.

 

The RNC has raised eyebrows with an ad consisting almost entirely of al-Qaeda videos starring Osama bin Laden and his top deputies. There is no sound except a ticking bomb before the final warning: "These are the stakes. Vote November 7th." John G. Geer, a Vanderbilt professor who has written a book defending negative political ads, says he told a well-connected Republican friend in Washington that the ticking-bomb ploy seemed like a desperation move. The friend e-mailed back: "John, we're desperate!"

 

"Look, the electorate is polarized, the stakes are large, and neither party has much to run on right now," Geer said. "You can expect to see some pretty outlandish ads."

 

The "pays for sex" ad against Kind in Wisconsin ? along with a similar one aired against Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) ? may be the most extreme. It says Kind spent tax dollars to study "the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes" and "the masturbation habits of old men" and "to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia." Cue the punch line: "Ron Kind pays for sex, but not for soldiers." The Wisconsin Republican Party denounced the ad, and several TV stations refused to air it, but that only got it more attention. It is the centerpiece of Nelson's Web site: "This ad is so powerful, a sitting U.S. Congressman threatened TV stations with legal action if they dared to play it."

 

Kind joked in an interview that he has been paying for sex ever since he said "I do." But on a more serious note, he said Nelson's attack ad was typical of modern politics, in which desperate candidates can attract media coverage and rally their base with distortion. He opposed the amendment in question ? along with many Republicans ? because he did not think Congress should interfere in peer-reviewed NIH studies, not because of any interest in teenage genitalia. That particular study, incidentally, had nothing to do with teenagers.

 

"Man, it's a crazy system, and it's getting worse every year," Kind said. "We rip each other to shreds, and then we're all supposed to come back to Washington and try to work together. It's a hell of a way to elect representatives."

 

At least it is clear who is responsible for Nelson's ad: Nelson. The Playboy ad bashing Ford, on the other hand, is a typical product of the attack politics of 2006. Its beneficiary, GOP Senate candidate Robert Corker, calls it "tacky" but says he cannot do anything about an RNC ad. Even RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said he is powerless to stop it; it is an "independent expenditure" of the RNC, out of the committee's control. He doesn't seem too upset about it, though. Corker has been rising in the polls ever since it started airing.

 

Experts say that in the past, negative ads were usually more accurate, better documented and more informative than positive ads; there was a higher burden of proof. Stanford's Iyengar thinks that is still true for candidate-funded messages, which now require candidates to say they approved them. But it is not true when the messages are produced by political parties, shadowy independent groups or partisans posting on YouTube.

 

"You're going to see more of this sensational, off-the-wall stuff," Iyengar said. "If you get people disgusted, they might withdraw from politics, and that's the real goal these days."

I just had to bold and underline the fact that an Iraq War veteran who lost TWO legs in service to this country, is being attacked as wanting to 'cut and run'. That's just completely disgusting. Then again, it's not really a surprise, considering the tactics used against former Congressman Max Cleland in Georgia in 2002. A man who lost three of his limbs in Vietnam was painted as a terrorist sympathizer, and somehow lost his campaign.

 

I also have to say that I don't approve of those Democratic candidates using negative attack ads against their opponents. Particularly the one about the frat party, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal to begin with.

 

I would have liked to see each of these campaigns about the issues, but I guess that's impossible these days in modern politics.

People should have a little more respect and keep negative ads to attacking the job the person's done (or their beliefs), not their actual person.

 

Then again, we're a lot better off now than we used to be. And it's not like negative ads don't work and aren't more effective in allowing you to succeed, because they are certainly that on both counts.

To pretend that the GOP is attacking any more than the DNC is assinine. Just watch TV, the GOP is under attack constantly.

To pretend that the GOP is attacking any more than the DNC is assinine. Just watch TV, the GOP is under attack constantly.

Yes, the article mentions DNC ads, but says that they aren't as nasty and personal as the RNC's ads. They actually focus on relevant issues.

Yes, the article mentions DNC ads, but says that they aren't as nasty and personal as the RNC's ads. They actually focus on relevant issues.

 

Article? What article?

 

The Year Of Playing Dirtier

Negative Ads Get Positively Surreal

 

By Michael Grunwald

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A01

 

Rep. Ron Kind pays for sex!

 

Well, that's what the Republican challenger for his Wisconsin congressional seat, Paul R. Nelson, claims in new ads, the ones with "XXX" stamped across Kind's face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6102601811.html

 

I'm hoping that one of these days you'll learn how to properly cite (read: cut and paste) and provide links for the stuff you post.

I was running out the door as I posted this. I did say it was from the Washington Post, but I didn't have the time to add the link. Sorry.

Both sides do it and it sucks either way. There's way too much of it.

 

It'd be different if Americans were more educated and able to read up on the issues instead of voting by party line and on whether or not who gets the better *SNAP* in.

kerry healey up here in mass is running negative ads about patrick like its a public service announcement about the next blizzard of 78...i love the counter though...love it...Massachusetts teacher's association(ya know...all those brain dead liberal wackos with teaching degrees from harvard, holy cross, umass(all of em), framingham state college, fitchburg state college, BU, BC, northeastern and many many many more) who run just as continuously how much that healey and romney cut education spending in massachusetts to the point where one of the wealthiest states in america ranks 41st in educational (both college and public) spending behind alabama and mississippi...kerry my friend...you remind me greatly of the bitch running for office in the movie black sheep...and i hope it ends the same way...with a fat ass on her head and deval patrick as our new governor

kerry healey up here in mass is running negative ads about patrick like its a public service announcement about the next blizzard of 78...i love the counter though...love it...Massachusetts teacher's association(ya know...all those brain dead liberal wackos with teaching degrees from harvard, holy cross, umass(all of em), framingham state college, fitchburg state college, BU, BC, northeastern and many many many more) who run just as continuously how much that healey and romney cut education spending in massachusetts to the point where one of the wealthiest states in america ranks 41st in educational (both college and public) spending behind alabama and mississippi...kerry my friend...you remind me greatly of the bitch running for office in the movie black sheep...and i hope it ends the same way...with a fat ass on her head and deval patrick as our new governor

Except for the fact that educational spending does has no correlation whatsoever with the quality of education. Massachusetts consistently ranks among the top in public schools in the country despite having such a low budget. We have a massive education budget in Florida that is near the top, yet our quality of education is near the bottom.

 

Bush recently cut a few hundred million dollars worth of programs from the national education budget, the democrats were all up in arms trying to capitalize off of this, yet they ignored the part where it was proven that the programs were ineffective and a waste of tax dollars which is why they were cut. I'm sure the situation in Massachusetts is similar.

Yeah, unfortunately throwing money at education in hopes of fixing it doesn't work. I wish it was that simple.

Throwing money at anything doesn't work.

 

As far as the negative ads work, the two candidates I've seen attacked here are both Democrats. However, they both deserve it (Davis who never showed up for work and Klein who was both a legislator and a lobbyist) and weren't personal.

i wasnt suggesting just throwing money at the problem(after all...im not republican)...but i found the quality of education in massachusetts to be lacking...and way too many teachers having to go out and buy many of things that they planned on using in their daily lessons...or they wouldnt have access or very limited access to other things...and im not even going to start on the situation with our state colleges in this state which suffered greatly under the romney/healey administration...its time to really start investing in our children by investing in our schools

i wasnt suggesting just throwing money at the problem(after all...im not republican)

:| :| :| :| :|

Throwing money at anything doesn't work.

 

As far as the negative ads work, the two candidates I've seen attacked here are both Democrats. However, they both deserve it (Davis who never showed up for work and Klein who was both a legislator and a lobbyist) and weren't personal.

 

Davis didnt show up the last 2 years because he's been running for governer. He had a attendance somwhere in the 90% range the 8-10 years before that.

 

Plus how can we even prove if Crist showed up to work or not. I bet he wasnt in the office as much as he was the years prior but you cant prove it because he doesnt vote on anything.

 

It's a lousy attack IMO. The way I see it is this shows how clean Davis is, that they have to resort to attacking him on his attendance record the last two years.

Yeah, maybe that's the case. However, if you don't show up for your job why should you get a promotion?

 

And if we are to assume that Davis is clean except for his attendance record, then we must assume that Crist is totally clean because there hasn't been a single blemish on his record thus far.

Yeah, maybe that's the case. However, if you don't show up for your job why should you get a promotion?

 

And if we are to assume that Davis is clean except for his attendance record, then we must assume that Crist is totally clean because there hasn't been a single blemish on his record thus far.

 

Except hes backed by special interest groups like insurance companies.

 

Davis has attacked his Democratic opponent Smith and Crist on their special interest groups like sugar farms and insurance companies.

 

While none of them have attacked him back with allegations of special interests. Maybe its because Davis has no harmful special interests, would make sense since he has a lot less money in the chest than Crist.

You're telling me that the DNC doesn't have enough money to attack Crist in Florida, a state where the governor seat is huge?

You're telling me that the DNC doesn't have enough money to attack Crist in Florida, a state where the governor seat is huge?

 

I dont know how exactly the DNC process works but their concertrating their funds more towards Congressional seats.

 

Plus the last totals I heard which was a while back was that Davis had $500,000 cash on hand while Crist had $2.5 million.

 

According to a newspress.com story on Oct 1. The state GOP has raised 27 million while the State Dems raised 15 million this election cycle.

And none of that money can go to television ads? Pretty hard to believe, especially in an important state like Florida where most of the Congressional seats are pretty locked up.

i wasnt suggesting just throwing money at the problem(after all...im not republican)

That makes absolutely no sense.

You know who I would vote for? A guy that advertises all the things he would do in office instead of attacking his opponent on half truths and facts taken out of context. Guess I won't be voting anytime soon.

Guess I won't be voting anytime soon.

Or mabye you could research the issues and form an educated opinion rather than rely on some stupid TV commercial.

it's also about how candidates present themselves - out here in AZ the dems are lambasting the reps with negative ads - i by no means like the republican candidates, but you aren't going to sway me by pointing out what I already know (that there are some flaws in the opposition) - at least balance it out with what you can do

Guess I won't be voting anytime soon.

Or mabye you could research the issues and form an educated opinion rather than rely on some stupid TV commercial.

 

To me, those television ads reflect on the character of the candidates. And if both sides are relying on that kind of campaigning I don't know if I would vote for either side.