Best (worst?) political ads

thankfully only a few more days of these, but some are so bad they're good


solid first 5 seconds - probably does work in Iowa though

Why is it that political ads don't have to cite sources? For example, when Schauer & dems say that Snyder cut $1 billion from the education budget, where's the proof?

Also, wouldn't it be funny if political ads were required to carry disclaimers like pharmaceutical ads? Voting for so and so may cause liver damage.

I effin hate political ads. Can't wait for this cycle to be history.

I am so sick of the exaggerations used by so many politicians. I see nothing of value in exaggerating the position of your opponent. Whenever I see or hear an obvious attack add, I change the station. These PAC funded advertisements that attack the opponent of their preferred candidate only serve as a means for each candidate to sling mud at the other, while claiming deniability for doing so. Their money is wasted trying to advertise to me and I hold the candidate responsible for the ads put out by the PACs.

I will only listen to adds of the candidates themselves that clearly state their positions/accomplishments and detail their differences with their opponent in a respectful manner - and then I view their claims with a skeptical eye. I think there might be a handful of ads in this entire campaign that I have listened to, and most of those have been by non-partisan candidates like judges.

I'm voting for Richard Bernstein for one reason.. and one reason only. His campaign slogan: "Blind Justice for All".

Floyd Robertson wrote:Why is it that political ads don't have to cite sources? For example, when Schauer & dems say that Snyder cut $1 billion from the education budget, where's the proof?

Because the law states that they don't have to cite sources, or even be at all factual (I believe that candidate ads are even exempt from libel/slander, so a candidate could call his opponent a murder and child molester if he wanted to, though I'm sure the backlash for that would be WAY too much for most candidates to go that far). The law also states that candidates must pay a lower cost than any regular advertisers, that their ads can bump out ads for local advertisers, and that stations are required to accept their ads.

Now, WHY does the law allow all of this? Because it's the politicians who write the laws, of course, so naturally they write the laws to benefit themselves (regarding TV, Cable, and Radio...in other words, media that are under FCC over-sight, which is why the politicians have the power....newspapers have no such laws). It's why some politicians even want to pass laws to make all political advertising FREE to candidates, which would absolutely kill many businesses and cause loss of jobs (on top of making elections even more annoying for the average TV viewer), so fortunately that hasn't ever made it too far.