Attack Ads or Creative Editing? You Say Potato….

Factcheck.org's stories on Bush's Misleading Attack Video and MoveOn.org's Creative Editing are not surprising. For years, campaigns, political parties and special interest groups from both sides of the aisle have been putting together attack ads like these to cast the opposition in a negative light. The course of action is predictable; group puts out attack ad using creative editing, opposition condemns it, and the public is disgusted by the "mud-slinging."

Both sides ride the fine line between "creative editing" and flat out lying to avoid any legal action as a result of airing the ad. The advantages must far outweigh the negatives for groups to air these year after year. But, what are the political advantages and disadvantages of airing attack ads?

The advantages are creating fodder for your supporters to distribute, ammunition for their water-cooler debates, and sparking anger (from both sides) that will elicit action. The disadvantages are having the label of a "negative campaigner" and possibly turning off supporters or swing voters who are disgusted by these actions. By identifying the advantages and disadvantages, the question then becomes, what are the negative consequences of airing such ads?

I say there are none. We've come to accept it as normal at a certain level. Negative campaigning has become part of our political process like it or not. As much as we condemn such behavior on the other side of the aisle, we political junkies anxiously await the latest ad attacking our opponent to hit the airwaves further validating our views.

This brings me to my final question to everyone, should we accept this as the way it is, and always will be, or should we actively work to change the system? (Remember your answer the next time your candidate releases an attack ad.)