Negative, Positive and Accurate
Bev Perdue’s campaign manager is filling Internet Inboxes with messages from people praising Perdue, pounding her on the back, for renouncing negative ads. In one email he quotes Priscilla and Kathy and Donna as gushing, “Way to go… you very well may have earned my vote… Mr. Moore’s negative ads have totally turned me off.”
First, an aside: Isn’t Mrs. Perdue slamming Mr. Moore for running dirty campaign ads, well, a negative attack? If so, Beverly’s fallen off the wagon a week after she pledged to stay out of the dirt.
Second, a paradox.
Richard Moore has an ad on TV about a company Perdue co-owns that failed to pay its property taxes on time. The News and Observer says the ad is 100% accurate.
Perdue also has a positive ad she’s aired about her efforts to keep North Carolina’s military bases in open. The Associated Press says: “A key claim of Perdue’s ad that the federal government threatened to close bases in North Carolina is misleading.”
So, what’s worse: Moore’s accurate negative ad? Or Perdue’s misleading positive one?
It seems Perdue has adopted an odd sort of ethic. She’s against telling the truth if it’s negative. But fiction is fine if it’s positive.
Let’s carry this a bit farther. If Mrs. Perdue had her way, the only thing anyone would learn about her record from a TV ad is what she tells them. So she can say she saved Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune and if Moore says, “Wait a minute. The Associated Press says that’s untrue” – that’s verboten. It’s negative.
What kind of sense does that make?
The most negative campaign ever in North Carolina was Helms vs. Hunt. It was also the campaign with the highest turnout ever.
Should Hunt not have had his say about Helms’ record on social security? Or abortion? Or Helms opposing the Martin Luther King Holiday?
Should Helms not have had his say about Hunt’s record on the Panama Canal, taxes and flip-flops?
Should Barack Obama not be able to criticize George Bush – in ads – about the war in Iraq?
Should John McCain not be able to criticize Obama and say he’s dead wrong about the war on terrorism?
Beverly Perdue’s answer to that is no.
No debate. Just positive gushing.
I don’t think Mrs. Perdue has had the great moral epiphany her campaign manager is describing. I think the answer is simpler: Mr. Moore turned up the heat and Bev’s reaction was an irrational, ‘Oh my gosh. Let’s ban stoves.’
Negative, Positive and Accurate
Bev Perdue’s campaign manager is filling Internet Inboxes with messages from people praising Perdue, pounding her on the back, for renouncing negative ads. In one email he quotes Priscilla and Kathy and Donna as gushing, “Way to go… you very well may have earned my vote… Mr. Moore’s negative ads have totally turned me off.”
First, an aside: Isn’t Mrs. Perdue slamming Mr. Moore for running dirty campaign ads, well, a negative attack? If so, Beverly’s fallen off the wagon a week after she pledged to stay out of the dirt.
Second, a paradox.
Richard Moore has an ad on TV about a company Perdue co-owns that failed to pay its property taxes on time. The News and Observer says the ad is 100% accurate.
Perdue also has a positive ad she’s aired about her efforts to keep North Carolina’s military bases in open. The Associated Press says: “A key claim of Perdue’s ad that the federal government threatened to close bases in North Carolina is misleading.”
So, what’s worse: Moore’s accurate negative ad? Or Perdue’s misleading positive one?
It seems Perdue has adopted an odd sort of ethic. She’s against telling the truth if it’s negative. But fiction is fine if it’s positive.
Let’s carry this a bit farther. If Mrs. Perdue had her way, the only thing anyone would learn about her record from a TV ad is what she tells them. So she can say she saved Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune and if Moore says, “Wait a minute. The Associated Press says that’s untrue” – that’s verboten. It’s negative.
What kind of sense does that make?
The most negative campaign ever in North Carolina was Helms vs. Hunt. It was also the campaign with the highest turnout ever.
Should Hunt not have had his say about Helms’ record on social security? Or abortion? Or Helms opposing the Martin Luther King Holiday?
Should Helms not have had his say about Hunt’s record on the Panama Canal, taxes and flip-flops?
Should Barack Obama not be able to criticize George Bush – in ads – about the war in Iraq?
Should John McCain not be able to criticize Obama and say he’s dead wrong about the war on terrorism?
Beverly Perdue’s answer to that is no.
No debate. Just positive gushing.
I don’t think Mrs. Perdue has had the great moral epiphany her campaign manager is describing. I think the answer is simpler: Mr. Moore turned up the heat and Bev’s reaction was an irrational, ‘Oh my gosh. Let’s ban stoves.’