Oops. Dukakabee gets caught in a misstep, but this time in a positive (not a negative) ad:
In the run-up to the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, Huckabee is running a TV ad featuring graphics that claim he was “tough on crime” and “brought Arkansas’ crime rate down,” and that he “cut taxes over 90 times as governor.”
In fact, the violent crime rate was higher at the end of his tenure than it was the year he took office. And the tax cuts he claims credit for were minor compared with the large increases he approved, which included an increase in the state sales tax.
The same predictable (and tiresome) few always rail about negative camapaigning.
I hate it. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about.
There are two types of campaign ads: positive (reasons to vote for a candidate) and negative (reasons to vote against a candidate). Cross-sectioning these, there are two ways to get the message across: truthfully, or untruthfully.
It’s the latter category — untruthful or nasty campaigning — that is the enemy. And while most people associate nasty campaigning with negative campaigning, the truth of the matter is just because it’s a positive, uplifting ad doesn’t mean it’s not misleading you… on purpose…
I want to know why I should vote for and against a candidate. What I shouldn’t tolerate as a voter is when those ads stray into untruthful or inaccurate claims.
So the next time you read about someone whining about negative campaigning, ask yourself whether the candidate targeted would ever spend money advertising his faults?
HINT: the answer is “no”.
Once you answer that, then ask yourself whether or not the ad is truthful and honest about its claims… then make an informed decision for yourself.