Mud, Mud, Mud
May 18th, 2006 at 12:54pm Alec
Political Forecast has a post on Mike Blouin running negative TV ads against Culver. The buzz around the ads is that they are ineffective and make Blouin look desperate. I agree—this sure doesn’t seem like a frontrunner’s tactic. Then again, does Blouin look any worse than Culver’s petty jabs during the debates? Remember the “flip-flop” comment?
So let’s not pretend this is the first shot, or that Culver doesn’t have a mud trebuchet himself.
When Blouin visited Grinnell a few weeks ago, he went out of his way to stress that he would never run negative ads, but that he would “defend himself” if necessary. Sadly, he’s gone back on his pledge and stooped low. Too bad Culver was already there.
Of course, there’s still one spotless candidate—Fallon. Unfortunately, he’s wearing that stupid, stupid, hat.
Related Posts
- No related posts
Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Searches: mud mud mud, mike blouin, stupid hat, negative ads, frontrunner
3 Comments Add your own
1. Chase | May 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
I think Blouin worded his pledge in such a way that was more like he wouldn’t be the first to go negative, so I don’t think he has broken his pledge.
Moreover, I don’t like the stigma that negative campaigning has here in Iowa. On some level, you have to have a little critique or you can’t actually argue for why people should vote for you.
Frankly, I think the things the three Democratic candidates started sounding the same, so this type of negative campaign ad (which isn’t nearly as bad as it could be) isn’t so bad.
2. come one | May 18th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
oh please. Get your facts straight. Culver’s “jabs” were in response to Blouin’s direct unprovoked attacks during debates. Blouin is running a directly negative ad, not a contrast ad, so don’t try to fluff it by intimating Blouin wasn’t the first to go negative. He clearly was. Blouin is behiind, his “positive” ads aren’t doing the trick, so he went negative to try to move his numbers. At least be intellectually honest for pete’s sake.
3. Alec | May 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Blouin’s attack ad is not the first negative turn in the primary race. It may be an elevation, as it’s the first of its kind, but it isn’t out of the blue.
And I’m sure Blouin wouldn’t agree that Culver’s comments were defensive while his own were aggressive. Blouin probably thinks his own comments were a response to previous actions by the Culver campaign, like the McGuire leak I linked to above.
In the end, it’s a pointless “he said, she said” as to who provoked and how is defending.
The point is, however, is that the primary has been negative. And, I at least, think Culver looked petty and unnecessarily desperate in the debates when he went after Blouin–two things people are accusing Blouin of after his television ad.
As for the value of negative ads, I agree with Chase. We need all attack points aired before the general election, because the Nussle campaign is inevitably going to go negative. What else is he going to run on, fiscal responsibility?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed