By now I should be tired of all the negative political ads that I am being bombarded with. But because Penn State continues to remain at the forefront of local and, to a lesser extent, national news (Paternoville is now Nittanyville! Take the statue down! Camp out to defend the statue! The Paternos are conducting their own investigation! The Freeh Report is biased! Joe Paterno is a child rape enabler!), the ads are not affected me as negatively as they have in the past. Yet.
I read yesterday that Romney is outspending Obama. I was extremely surprised at this nugget. I would have put the ratio of Obama to Romney ads at about 4 to 1 in western PA, which would lead me to conclude the opposite. Because isn't PA supposed to be a battleground state? If so, why is it that it appears I am seeing mostly the mud-slinging by Obama's camp? Maybe this just occurs on the stations I am watching, but if any of you is seeing a lot of Romney ads, I would love to hear.
But speaking of mud-slinging and back to my post title, the candidate I want to vote for is the one who won't run a negative campaign towards the other. Again, this is a rare find, and both Obama's and Romney's campaigns are doing a bang-up job of cutting the other person down. I will say this: If I knew absolutely nothing about either candidate, if I based my vote on the ads I saw on TV, and if I did not care about negative ads, I would vote for Obama. His ads are making Romney look really bad and Romney does not seem to be fighting back all that much. But, again, maybe I am just missing those ads.
Related to that, the candidate I want to vote for is the one who tells me what he has done and what he plans to do, not what the other person did or did not do. Sure, if the other guy has been involved in something illegal, I think I am okay seeing that on TV. But don't tell me all the other bad things he did without telling me what you have done. Otherwise, why would I want to vote for either of you?
The candidate I want to vote for is the one who is honest. Unfortunately, I am so jaded by politics that I am not if there is an honest candidate out there running for a high(er) office. Show me the person who has not made one false claim. You probably cannot.
The candidate I want to vote for won't ever say, "That was taken out of context" or "That is not what I meant." There is certainly a chance that could happen, but so far both men have made excuses for things they have said along the way.
The candidate I want to vote for will admit when he does not know something and will be able to explain himself without coming up with more excuses or turning it on the other person. I need to look more into Bain and what it did and did not do. But as for outsourcing jobs, unfortunately, that is a sometimes part of doing business. We, as Americans, want to things cheaply, yet we get mad when things are made in China and jobs are shipped to India because it is cheaper. I know I am simplifying this, but you can't have it both ways.
So who will I be voting for come November? I am not entirely sure yet. But if someone else happens to throw his or her hat into the ring doing what I said I would like to see, it will be that person. And, no, I would not consider it throwing my vote away.
I read yesterday that Romney is outspending Obama. I was extremely surprised at this nugget. I would have put the ratio of Obama to Romney ads at about 4 to 1 in western PA, which would lead me to conclude the opposite. Because isn't PA supposed to be a battleground state? If so, why is it that it appears I am seeing mostly the mud-slinging by Obama's camp? Maybe this just occurs on the stations I am watching, but if any of you is seeing a lot of Romney ads, I would love to hear.
But speaking of mud-slinging and back to my post title, the candidate I want to vote for is the one who won't run a negative campaign towards the other. Again, this is a rare find, and both Obama's and Romney's campaigns are doing a bang-up job of cutting the other person down. I will say this: If I knew absolutely nothing about either candidate, if I based my vote on the ads I saw on TV, and if I did not care about negative ads, I would vote for Obama. His ads are making Romney look really bad and Romney does not seem to be fighting back all that much. But, again, maybe I am just missing those ads.
Related to that, the candidate I want to vote for is the one who tells me what he has done and what he plans to do, not what the other person did or did not do. Sure, if the other guy has been involved in something illegal, I think I am okay seeing that on TV. But don't tell me all the other bad things he did without telling me what you have done. Otherwise, why would I want to vote for either of you?
The candidate I want to vote for is the one who is honest. Unfortunately, I am so jaded by politics that I am not if there is an honest candidate out there running for a high(er) office. Show me the person who has not made one false claim. You probably cannot.
The candidate I want to vote for won't ever say, "That was taken out of context" or "That is not what I meant." There is certainly a chance that could happen, but so far both men have made excuses for things they have said along the way.
The candidate I want to vote for will admit when he does not know something and will be able to explain himself without coming up with more excuses or turning it on the other person. I need to look more into Bain and what it did and did not do. But as for outsourcing jobs, unfortunately, that is a sometimes part of doing business. We, as Americans, want to things cheaply, yet we get mad when things are made in China and jobs are shipped to India because it is cheaper. I know I am simplifying this, but you can't have it both ways.
So who will I be voting for come November? I am not entirely sure yet. But if someone else happens to throw his or her hat into the ring doing what I said I would like to see, it will be that person. And, no, I would not consider it throwing my vote away.
Comments
First, toss out everything you see in commercials. In fact, don't even watch them. The most effective ads are the ones that go negative, and they're also usually the most misleading.
Second, figure out which issues are important to you and find out where each candidate stands. There are plenty of impartial websites that have this information. Just ask Uncle Google.
Third, pick the candidate that if for the most important things that you're for.
There, you've just eliminated the effect of all the billions of dollars spent on swaying your vote.
Would that everyone do so...
And, yes, I KNOW what a DVR is. But unfortunately, we don't have one for our upstairs TV; I cannot justify paying another 10 bucks per month just for that.
Bluz: I do ignore most of what I see in the ads, but I like your idea better. The thing is I am pretty well-informed. I feel worse for the people who base everything on the ads alone.
Interestingly enough, when I took a quiz at isidewith.com, I ended up with Ron Paul when I answered one way and... Wait for it... Wait for it... Obama when I answered the questions a different way. I think I heard some faint screams from most of my relatives just now.
Politics is a dirty business. I think what is really getting to you (and most of the rest of us) is how long and dragged out it all is. In Britain, once they call for an election, they have it in a month. If their is mudslinging, at least it's over quick.