Where’s the beef? Campaign ads tell us nothing
http://www.limaohio.com/articles/ads_29388___article.html/based_policies.html
Candidates hate it when you say you vote for them because they're the lesser of two evils.
But based on what we've seen on TV lately, it's hard to think you have any choice but evil.
One side flings a little mud about the celebrity of the other candidate. The other side rakes some muck about how the other guy will maintain the status quo. And it devolves from there.
After more than 225 years of democracy in this country, is this really the best we can do?
It's implausible that anyone could really make an informed decision based on what the candidates put forth. While there are a few ads out there spelling out beliefs and policies, those seem to find air time very late at night, when most people are dreaming more than thinking.
What's wrong with explaining your stance on Iraq? What's the trouble in helping us understand your health care policies? Is it so wrong to tell us how you'd lead us out of the present economic upheaval?
No, instead we get to hear name-calling and far-fetched efforts to link people together.
If we're to trust the ads, Barack Obama and William Ayers, one of the "Weather Underground" bombers from the 1970s, must dine together regularly to talk about how much they hate America.
If we believe everything we see on TV, John McCain and President Bush must sit around talking about policies that will help businesses and punish the little guy.
Anytime the ads bring up a vote on a particular issue, you know there must have been some pork barrel project or some extralegal language thrown in to make it objectionable.
Both campaigns will blame the media for shifting the focus away from their issues. The reality is the campaigns pay for these advertisements, which they've carefully crafted to the point they don't say anything useful at all.
It's daunting to imagine a world in which we make all of our decisions based on negative advertising.
The cola wars would definitely change if things went negative:
Pepsi: "Do you really want to gulp a soft drink that once had cocaine in it? How can you be so sure they won't put it in there again?"
Coca-Cola: "The government of India banned the import of Pepsi from 1970 to 1988. Do the folks in New Delhi know something you don't?"
It would alter the quest for the best paper towels:
Brawny: "Do you want to leave the job to Bounty's so-called ‘quicker picker-upper,' or do you want it done right?"
Bounty: "Come on. Does the Brawny guy really look like he's done any housework?"
We would roll our eyes. It's callous. It's tasteless. And it has no place in our world (except in this column to make my point).
We're intelligent beings, and we like being treated intelligently. Give us the facts, and we'll figure out what we think.
It's time the campaigns start giving us the credit we're due and the facts we need. Tell us about what you stand for, not what you stand against. Tell us what makes you the right man for the job, not what makes him the wrong one. Tell us what matters to you and how you'll do it.
I'm David Trinko, and I approved this message.
Posts
