As the US midterms come into the home stretch, lofty debates about pressing issues of public policy go out the window. It's all replaced by mudslinging, wave after wave of negative campaign ads and barbed attacks in public appearances. I was just reading The Caucus, the New York Times' midterms blog, and they flagged up a race gone nasty in North Carolina. The local newspaper, the Hendersonville Times-News, pleads: Please deliver us from mud.
The newspaper is calling for a face-to-face debate between the two candidates; Republican incumbent Charles Taylor and Democratic challenger Heath Shuler. They just want a break from the barrage of attack ads.
"A debate on the substantive issues important to the nation and the mountains could help clear the tsunami of mud, at least for one hour."
If the local newspaper is weary of the attack ads, you have to wonder about the voters. Campaign consultants say that negative ads work. If you want to get a taste of the ads, here is a sample. What do you think? Fair game, pointless, unfair? Attack ads may help win elections, but what do you think they do for democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment