http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01811.html

The Year Of Playing Dirtier
Negative Ads Get Positively Surreal

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006; 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.

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 that of 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 cannot have healthy relationships when they grow 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 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 the ticking of a 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, said 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 is typical of modern politics, in which desperate candidates can attract media coverage and rally their base with distortion. He opposed the amendment in question -- as did many Republicans -- because he does 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 Bob Corker, called it "tacky" but said 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 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."

does this excuse me from voting?

Well, that's what they want you to do.

Might as well use this forum to post any dirty tricks you might find in these last ten days before the election. The thread will probably be 10 pages long by then.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/27/ ... index.html

Webb on sex passage recital: 'It's smear after smear'

From Joshua Levs
CNN

RICHMOND, Virginia (CNN) -- The bitter Senate campaign in Virginia turned uglier Friday when the Republican incumbent pulled up sexual passages from novels written by his Democratic opponent, who called the move baseless character assassination.

In a news release and list of quotes posted Friday on the Drudge Report Web site, Sen. George Allen accused his opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, of "demeaning women" and "dehumanizing women, men and even children" through his fiction writings. At least two of the listed passages include children in sexual situations.

Allen's campaign did not include the press release and list of passages on its Web site, where press releases are generally posted.

There was, however, a Thursday statement from Chris LaCivita, general consultant for the Allen campaign, saying some references in Webb's novels are "disturbing" and "portray women as servile, subordinate and promiscuous."

Webb served in Vietnam and later led the Navy during the Reagan administration. He is running as a Democrat.

He has written six best-selling novels from 1978 to 2001, his Web site says. His writings have largely focused on war and military storylines, influenced by things he experienced.

The first quote describes a shirtless man picking up a naked boy who runs toward him. The book describes what happens after the man picks up the boy and turns him upside down. It comes from the 2001 book "Lost Soldiers."

Webb responded Friday morning on Washington Post radio. "Let me explain what that was," he said. "I actually saw this happen in a slum of Bangkok and when I was there as a journalist. A man placing his lips on his son's private parts. ... And the duty of a writer is to illuminate the surroundings.

"There is nothing that's been in any of my novels that, in my view, hasn't been either illuminating surroundings or defining a character or moving a plot," Webb said.

He added that he has "strong female characters" in his writings -- rejecting LaCivita's assertion that Webb's books portray women as "servile, subordinate and promiscuous."

The Allen campaign included several passages aimed at supporting that argument, including graphic sexual depictions and a quote from the 1981 book "A Sense of Honor," describing the character "Nurse Goodbody" as "a bedtime friend to many of the doctors in Bethesda" who had hinted "that she simply could not contain herself."

Webb told Washington Post radio that to pull excerpts from his writings "and force them on people, sort of, like pound them over the head with them," rather than having someone read the entire book "is just a classic example of the way this [Allen] campaign has worked. And you know, it's smear after smear."

"This is a Karl Rove campaign," Webb said, referring to President Bush's chief political strategist. "We have known this one was coming for quite some time."

Webb said advisers had warned him his opponent would pore over his novels to find incendiary passages. Webb accused Allen of not having "a record to run on" and attempting "character assassination."

The Allen campaign's attack came days after a Washington Post article headlined "Women's Vote Could Tip Close Contest." A Washington Post poll earlier this month found the two candidates virtually tied among female voters.

On Thursday, Webb's campaign posted a news release looking at parts of Allen's voting record with the headline, "George Allen Votes Against Victims of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence." Allen has denied such complaints.

Allen's re-election bid has been dogged by complaints of racial insensitivity. Polls in mid-August showed him with a solid lead until he was caught on videotape referring to Webb campaign volunteer S.R. Sidarth, who is of Indian descent, as "Macaca." The term refers to a class of monkey.

Allen apologized repeatedly and said the term was something he made up. Later, two former associates told CNN that Allen used a racial epithet to describe African-Americans -- allegations Allen and other former associates denied vigorously.

Sexual scenarios in fiction novels by prominent political and governmental figures have been controversial in the past. Webb, on Washington Post radio Friday, referred to one.

"I mean we can go and read Lynne Cheney's lesbian love scenes if you want to, you know, get graphic on stuff," he said.

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, wrote the novel "Sisters," published in 1981, which included lesbian love scenes.

Cheney responded Friday: "Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit." She did not detail the scenes in her book.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release Friday pointing to sexual passages in books by other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

I can't help but laugh at all of these negative ads. Many are so over the top that it's hilarious to think that someone would take them seriously.

(yes, I know people take them seriously, you don't need to call me on that)

David Mark, author of Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning, on the Daily Show:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload ... ideo=76615

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload ... ideo=76614

Time for this classic:





STEELE HATES PUPPIES!!!

I'm curious how Arcuri's opponent found out about the misdial. Is the NRCC checking phone records of Dem. opponents?

It was probably an open joke in the DA's office (a place with people of many political stripes). It doesn't tkae much for something like that to get out.

business as usual. both sides avoid the issues and focus on tabloid issues. i dont even watch or care at this point since i feel that it pulls my attention awy from the real discussion

did anyone see Ford on Bill Maher this week? i like the way he handled being attacked for going to a playboy sponsored super bowl party...he said "i like football and girls, and that goes over well in tennesee"

great answer, and an honest one! pretty rare nowadays

thats damn good!

Fantastic

If he had said that the first time he had been asked a few months ago instead of dodging the question, the whole winking white girl thing wouldn't have ever come up.

Honesty is a good policy. Haven't there been enough movies that show that an honest politician will be loved by the people?

for the record, i think the Ford commercial is getting blown out of proportion. it actually didnt seem that bad to me, i would be pissed that they thought i was that stupid to let that sway my vote, but all in all it didnt seem that bad?

Republicans' Double Negatives

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A21

Ronald Reagan's brilliant achievement on behalf of American conservatism was to capture hope and optimism from a liberal movement that enjoyed a near monopoly on those virtues from the day Franklin Roosevelt told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself.

Whatever else it will be remembered for, this year's campaign will mark the moment when Republican leaders who govern in the name of conservatism turned definitively away from hope and waged one of the most trivial and ugly campaigns in our country's history.

It's common to gather all political attacks under one large rubric called "negative campaigning" and to condemn the lot. But this is misleading.

A conservative who attacks his opponent for wanting to raise taxes and a liberal who accuses an adversary of favoring cuts in Medicare or environmental programs are both being "negative," but legitimately so, presuming that the criticisms are rooted in fact. If candidates can't air their disagreements, what's the point of free elections?

But this year Republican campaigners and their advocates in the conservative media have crossed line after line in sheer meanness, triviality and tastelessness. Conservative optimism and its promise of morning in America have curdled into the gloom of a Halloween midnight horror show.

The reason is obvious: With the public turning against President Bush's policies in Iraq, most Republicans would prefer not to defend the war. Because most voters do not see the battle in Iraq as making us more secure, fear of terrorism has not worked as effectively for the GOP as it has in the past two elections. And the current majority can't exactly brag about, say, balanced budgets or its achievements in this Congress.

And so in Virginia we have Sen. George Allen, a Republican, assailing the widely admired novels written by his opponent, Democrat Jim Webb, for what an Allen adviser called "chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitative references." Lost here is that Webb's fiction has drawn praise for the moving and realistic way he has depicted war and those who fight for their country.

Conservatives should be embarrassed by Allen's last-minute sliming of Webb's books, since conservative critics have been among their biggest fans. In 2002 a writer for National Review, one of the nation's leading conservative publications, said Webb's "Fields of Fire" was "still the finest novel yet written about Vietnam." Reviewing Webb's novel "Lost Soldiers," a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard warmly praised the book's moral message and called it "an affecting and taut tale."

Are such views now inoperative because Republicans desperately need to hold on to Allen's Senate seat?

And how many compassionate conservatives will come forward to condemn Rush Limbaugh's cruelty in mocking Michael J. Fox's painful body movements induced by Parkinson's disease? Limbaugh felt free to parody Fox's agony because the actor had the nerve to make advertisements for Democratic candidates who support embryonic stem cell research. If you help Democrats, anything goes. Limbaugh claimed that Fox either "didn't take his medication or he's acting." Limbaugh ultimately apologized but called Fox "really shameless" in seeking sympathy. Really shameless? From Limbaugh?

Perhaps Republicans will be less skittish about criticizing Limbaugh after he has used his broadcast to turn out the party faithful on Nov. 7.

Space does not permit a full listing of other trivial and seamy ads being run by the GOP. They were well described last week by Post reporter Michael Grunwald, and many of them falsely accuse various Democrats of one bad thing or another related to sex.

And there is what will, sadly, become the most famous advertisement of this election cycle, the "Harold, call me" ad run by the Republican National Committee against Rep. Harold Ford Jr., the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Tennessee. To claim that an ad depicting a pretty blond woman coming on to an African American politician does not play on the fears of miscegenation on the part of some whites is to ignore history.

My hunch is that the sliminess won't work this year. A Newsweek poll published over the weekend found that only 9 percent of voters who have seen Republican ads say they made them more likely to vote for GOP candidates; 24 percent said the ads made them less likely to vote for Republicans. By contrast, Newsweek reported, "The Democrats seem to turn off fewer voters with their commercials and win more over, but it's still a wash," meaning that Democratic ads attracted and pushed away roughly equal shares of the electorate.

My hope is that principled conservatives will rebel against those who are dragging their once forward-looking movement through the mud. In their hearts, they have to be asking: Would Ronald Reagan campaign this way?

postchat@aol.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00826.html

Here's how the ads in the MD Senate race are going:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7wjJyMDUH0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjm_QfNAh8M


Cardin leads by about 8% in the polls.

Politics by nature are dirty.

Political advertising by nature is negative.

Sometimes the statements are so absurd, that I can't believe that people believe them. Some Democrat down here voted to allow terrorists free passage over US borders.

here in MA the stupidest commercial has to be by the republican candidate for governor.

the worst i've seen here in MA was by the republican candidate for governor, Kerry Healy...she had signs made up that say:

"Inmates for Deval Patrick"

because she has this thing that since Patrick was once a defense lawyer, he is not suitable to be governor

then, without healy's approval, a group of her supporters went to deval patrick's home and to the home of his campaign manager. they dressed in orange prison type jumpsuits and protested waving those awful signs. unbeknowest to them, the campaign manager's 12 year daughter was home alone at the time, and she got scared and called the police.

Healy issued an apology immediately.

Patrick has a comfortable lead...but who knows what will happen on election day.