What is an attack ad?
Much ado is being adoed over the Jerry Jones ad (now pulled from the airwaves) putting Cedric Glover's record on display. Seems like most of the criticism is coming from those who remember Jerry's promise to keep the campaign clean. What's your opinion? When candidates use an opponent's record as a campaign tool is that an attack ad, a negative ad or merely an information ad using public records which are fair game?
Just about every political consultant with whom we spoke said the ad could do one of two things: either those on the fence in an area which is considered convervative will tilt toward Jones, or Cedric's core constituency will be energized and the race will become tighter. Another comment from a couple of the consultants centered on the wording of the ad. The consensus is the generality of the ratings from LABI and Family Forum doesn't do enough to explain why Cedric is "anti-business and anti-family." Our friends in the consulting business say specifics in an ad about an opponent's record is a must.
Also, the timing of the ad is questioned. As you know, that ad has been pulled at the request of the local police union. Now that it's off the airwaves, it's easy for Cedric's supporters to say the ad was being viewed in a negative manner and was forced off the air by public opinion. True or not, that could be the message on the streets. In the opinion of many, the best time for that type of ad is a couple of days out — say, newspaper on Sunday...radio Monday and Tuesday. That would give little or no time for response and impact would have been maximized.
Negative ads or informational material put to the public...which is it? We'll know Tuesday.
Just about every political consultant with whom we spoke said the ad could do one of two things: either those on the fence in an area which is considered convervative will tilt toward Jones, or Cedric's core constituency will be energized and the race will become tighter. Another comment from a couple of the consultants centered on the wording of the ad. The consensus is the generality of the ratings from LABI and Family Forum doesn't do enough to explain why Cedric is "anti-business and anti-family." Our friends in the consulting business say specifics in an ad about an opponent's record is a must.
Also, the timing of the ad is questioned. As you know, that ad has been pulled at the request of the local police union. Now that it's off the airwaves, it's easy for Cedric's supporters to say the ad was being viewed in a negative manner and was forced off the air by public opinion. True or not, that could be the message on the streets. In the opinion of many, the best time for that type of ad is a couple of days out — say, newspaper on Sunday...radio Monday and Tuesday. That would give little or no time for response and impact would have been maximized.
Negative ads or informational material put to the public...which is it? We'll know Tuesday.
posted by The Pat Culverhouse Show at 11/02/2006 07:14:00 AM
9 Comments:
Pat, congrats on getting your blog up and running. Remind me to mention it in my Fax-Net Update. With regard to the ads, it is befuddling to me to see how the local media reacts. Do they have their head in the sand? What is a local candidate to do? At some point, a candidate's record is fair game to draw a distinction between philosophies and positions on issues. I see nothing wrong with the ads run by Jones. Where was the media when the Louisiana Democratic Party ran the ads on Jones in the primary? Heads in the sand? The local media needs to grow up and take a Political 101 course.
Attack ad or not, it's a broken promise as far as I'm concerned. There's an ad running now from Cedric Glover that says it all. Leaders don't make promises and break them. Jerry Jones broke his word, and it's gonna cost him Tuesday.
Finally, a Blog with some substance! I wish Jones had never run the ad, but he did and now will have to suffer the consequences. I heard Glover's response ad yesterday several times in a one-hour span. Guess he's making up for lost time. But all of this should make for a more interesting time watching the returns Tuesday night.
Pat,
Glad you finally took the leap into the bog, uhh, I mean blog world. Good luck and I know if it is half as good as your radio show it will be the end of that Marshall Fago.., uhh, I mean Fannin guy.
Attack ad? Is Cedric bleeding? No, That was a shove ad, not a attack ad, but the poop is it is back firing...Candy, I'll be there in a minute darling.....
Anything exposing an opponent's record can't be considered an attack ad unless the record is intentionally misrepresented or something personal is included. Cedric's record speaks for itself.
Good to see you on-line Pat...enjoy your work even when the deep Webster Parish back woods references lose me.
As to the Jones ads I think a poster above hit it right on the head for me. It is not about are the ads negative or not or if that is "fair game"...they are and it is.
It is about making promises and keeping them. Both Jerry and Cedric opened with the high road, seemed to be staying the course and then early voting closes, traditional voting patterns seem amiss and Jerry goes on the offensive. Lots of people I talked with saw it as a bad move on Jerry's part.
Was especially interested in his comments in The Times. He claimed his internal tracking polls continued to show him way ahead yet they felt the need to draw a clearer distinction between him and Cedric. I may not have that Political 101 degree Lou refers to, but that statement seems insulting to me as a voter and follower of the race...
I learned years ago you let a sleeping dog lie...if you are way ahead why rock the boat?? Couple that decision with the SPD issue, which appeared as if the Police Dept. was against Jerry (do not think that is the case based on teh Citizens Review Comm issue) and then throw in what appears to be advice to duck the final debate once his daughter got sick and you have a week in free fall....how much we are yet to see...
I think when Jerry and Cedric said they would run a clean campaign, they were talking about race. They have both kept race out of the equation. But if you think revealing an opponent's record is an attack ad, what rock have you been hiding under. Shreveport needs to come into the real world. It is so small-town on so many levels. If you think Jones lied, then vote for Cedric. But it will be a naive vote because of ignorance about politics.
Give me a break. Don't you people watch any political ads on TV? Revealing an opponent's voting record is breaking a promise? People who are going to vote had their minds made up as soon as the primary was over. The ads won't make a bit of difference in the outcome, nor will The Times editorial. They endorse tired old Jim McCrery one day and Cedric Glover the next. McCrery will win, unfortunately. Jones will win, thankfully.
Give me a break, too. The issue of race was introduced into the mayors race when white and black candidates qualified. But the mayors race is not the race where race is being played, it is in the District B race where the Powell gang, who by the way don't even live in District B, have interjected themselves into it to try and prevent Jones from having to work with a majority black Council...Yes Candy, I will remember to tell Lou hello....
Post a Comment
<< Home