A Conversation With Myself About "Negative Ads"

I’ve always tried to keep a distinction between negative ads and contrast ads.

Maybe it’s a losing cause, as voters don’t seem to appreciate the difference, and if they don’t, than those of who cover politics probably shouldn’t either. But to me, an ad is “negative” when it attacks someone’s personal character. John McCain uses the Concord Monitor to call Romney a “phony.” That’s negative.

When Romney runs an arguably misleading ad that tries to draw a contrast between himself and McCain on a matter of public policy, he’s not resorting to an ad hominem attack.

But maybe I’m being too strict.

Romney’s immigration contrasts are almost willful in their ledgermain, and they seek to plant in the minds of a voter a distorted sense of what McCain says on the issue. Romney’s ad is much more cynical and manipulate than McCain’s ad; McCain just throws the “phony” label out there.

Point taken.

Continuing this conversation with myself, though, I’ve got to wonder: what about an ad that contrasts Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, which, with its mandate, would essentially insure the entire country, and Barack Obama’s health care plan, which could leave up to 15 million with insurance? This dispute is legitimate; neither side would argue that their plans are identical, and while Obama disputes the notion that his plan is inferior to Clinton’s in terms of its comprehensiveness, it doesn’t seem fair, somehow, to throw around the adjective “negative” to describe the idea of Clinton’s pointing this out.

Is there a meaningful difference? What hidden rules should we abide by? What do you think?

Comments

I dislike the personal attack ads. Of course, I also dislike the ads the completely misrepresent what the other candidate actually said or believes (ads accusing Fred Thompson of supporting choice would be an example).

On the other hand, pointing out another candidate's record (voting record; governing record; public statements) on topics relevant to the office being pursued are fair game. Even commentary on them are ok. So saying that McCain put forward an amnesty bill is ok, so long as you are willing to define what you mean by amnesty.

Posted by Joel | December 31, 2007 3:45 PM

Marc, I don't think Clinton highlighting the differences between her health care plan and Obama's is dirty. Is it negative? I have different definitions than you. Anything negative is negative. If you are telling people why not to vote for someone else, its negative. But not necessarily dirty.

By my definitition, any challenger is inherently running a negative campaign. If he or she thought the incumbent should remain in office, then why run?

I happen to disagree with Clinton on the distinction she draws. I don't like the idea of a mandate - in fact pretty much don't like the idea of government telling me what I can't and have to do on anything. Its a necessary evil in some instances, but still strikes me as un-American.

Plus I agree with Obama's talking point that the uninsured (adults) aren't uninsured because no one told them they had to be - its because they couldn't afford health insurance.

But all this is well within the bounds of good campaigning.

Having an organization (which opposes mandates no less) send out a negative ad against Obama, which tries to make that ad look like an Edwards ad... that's a little sleezy for me.

And of course the comments about naivete, madrassas, kindergarten essays and teenage drug use are not within the bounds of policy distinctions.

Plus the attack on Obama's Leadership PAC was just strange. This guy is a Democrat, and used his PAC to contribute to other Democrats. Am I missing something? Strange attack, not even considering that Clinton herself benefitted from the PAC as a Senate candidate.

Posted by Paul | December 31, 2007 3:50 PM

The bottomline is both Romney and McCain are liars. They are saying anything about their opponents to get elected.

Posted by Walt | December 31, 2007 3:50 PM

Before slamming Romney for distorting McCain, can someone please explain what is misleading about his contrast ad?

He said McCain would let illegal immigrants stay in the country permanently - true, with the Z-visa they'd be home free.

He said he'd allow them to claim social security benefits - true, as a previous commenter noted:

"Romney should have stated, "McCain wanted to give former illegal aliens SS benefits, but only after declaring them to be legal workers as part of the massive amnesty scheme that he hatched by collaborating with Teddy Kennedy"."

McCain now claims never to have supported "amnesty" - false:

On ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. McCain Claimed “I’ve Never Supported Amnesty.” SEN MCCAIN: “The fact is that I’ve never supported amnesty.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 12/30/07)

Yet As Early As 2003, Sen. McCain Was Specifically Calling For Amnesty:

Sen. McCain, 2003: “Amnesty Has To Be An Important Part.” ” ‘Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,’ he said. ‘How can we have a temporary worker program if we’re not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?’” (C. T. Revere, “McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

Someone needs to hold "Mr. Straight Talk" to the same standards as everyone else. Calling Romney a liar for doing that is slimy. There is no equivalence.

Posted by Jim | December 31, 2007 4:25 PM

I ENTIRELY agree Marc, and I tried to say the same thing on my blog last week, that McCain's ads are just plain negative but that nothing that Romney has aired has in any way been an attack on an opponent's character. While it is clearly disingenuous that he is starting his ads with things like "he is an honorable man," there is nothing ad hominem following that.

Posted by Daniel | December 31, 2007 4:26 PM

Drawing distinctions between health care plans in not dirty at all.

What IS dirty is having a special interest group (AFSME) send a direct mail piece that looks like an attack on Obama from Edwards, when it's actually from Clinton.

Perhaps worse, AFSME has been AGAINST mandates for many years.

That is dirty politics. It's deliberately meant to deceive Iowans.

Posted by JOhn | December 31, 2007 4:33 PM

it seems to me the standard to use is twofold - is the accusation accurate and factual and is it relevent to the race. For example, it is a "personal" (as opposed to policy) attack to note that someone has been arrested 15 times for DUI but it certainly is relevent in evaluating a candidate's judgement and temperment. Conversely, say one candidate supports phasing out all carbon emmissions in 15 years and the other thinks a 20 year horizon is more realistic. If the first ran an ad saying the second wanted to trash the planet and supported policies that would cause infants to choke to death on fumes, it would technically be "policy based distinction" but hardly considered to be fair or accurate and highly "negative"

So.... the distinction between policy based ads and personal based ads is the wrong distinction to draw. Better to evaluate on terms of accuracy and relevance.

Posted by Samantha | December 31, 2007 5:38 PM

I definitely call any personal attacks negative.

I also think misleading ads are out of bounds.

The reason i am so anti-Hillary is EXACTLY because of her misleading campaign. I wouldn't mind her healthcare ads if she wasn't trying to mislead people about her OWN plan, not just Obama's. You NEVER hear Hillary explaining to audiences what an "individual mandate" is, and what she'd do to punish people who didn't buy insurance.

So...i think misleading ads are dirty, and frankly, they piss me off.
I mean, if you think your plan is better, fine, but you better back it up by being truthful about what you plan to do, and making untrue statements about someone else's plan is just lame.

Posted by julie | December 31, 2007 5:40 PM

Let me get this straight.

Romeny lies about McCain's record.

McCain says "You are lying about my record"

Romney claims he is being personally attacked by being called a liar.

And McCain is the negative one?

hhhhmmmmmmm

Posted by Tony Barker | December 31, 2007 5:42 PM

Mitt Romney does NOT lie about McCains record

McCain says "you are lying about my record and you are a phony"

Romney notes that McCain is attacking him on a personal level.

Yes, McCain IS the one being Negative

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Posted by SVB | December 31, 2007 8:27 PM

Tony: You say Romney lied (LIED) about McCain's record. The facts do not support your position. Every statement in the adds show the 'source' so you can check for yourself. McCain called Romney a liar but he does not address the claims. THAT is NEGATIVE!

Posted by VSteven | December 31, 2007 8:32 PM