Perfect example of how the free market has some screwy results. In searching for news (truth), viewers prefer simplistic, extreme, and often go for pitches that target the lowest common denominator. Fox has exploited these weaknesses very well.

Yeah. I used that word on purpose

Additionally, Fox becomes the example NCJ was looking for as a persistent offender when it comes to dishonesty in politics. While the attack ad was misleading, there are about 5 examples a day of Fox news distorting the facts to attack the left.

update: obama camp denies any knowledge of guy with dead wife...errr...until it's pointed out that they did have knowledge and had him on a conference call months ago. oops?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...195237581.html

"We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don't have any knowledge of the story of the family," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.

"I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance," deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday.

But there's a problem. As Politico first reported, Soptic told essentially the same story in a May 14, 2012, conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.



edit: holy shit. dems make ad with black repub punching white women. imagine for a millisecond if repubs put this ad out.

idk, he hit that old white lady pretty hard. wait...

 

Originally Posted by userid363

Perfect example of how democracy has some screwy results. In searching for candidates, voters prefer simplistic, extreme, and often go for pitches that target the lowest common denominator. Politicians have exploited these weaknesses very well.

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

Reads about the same.

I couldn't agree more. It's kind of funny how some people recognize voters' incompetence while asserting their near infallibility in buying products

lol @ comparing the two. this is a blatant, already proven lie. sb was people who were there with different opinions iirc

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

lol @ comparing the two. this is a blatant, already proven lie. sb was people who were there with different opinions iirc

Except that a local prosecutor was disbarred for being one of the liars in that ad.

googling that now. never saw him cleared, just read in the paper, thought he had been disbarred.

Had a reply typed yesterday but looks like it didn't submit from my phone (would have been first by the way in case OT is tracking that in the future which I think is a good idea to find out who the real OT degens are - gloam probably wins in a landslide a year ago but has tailed off quite a bit it would probably be NCJ now which would be ironic that he leads in "firsts" as well as having a thread killer title to his name) but anyways that video has more so than any political video ever made me want to vote for the person they are attempting to bash. So being completely neutral and hating all politics/politicians I think I'm a pretty big Romney fan now

we need to do away with all campaign finance "reform" imo (lol @ keeping money out of politics. I mean...). cards on the table ftw, and whatnot



I do have a q though. there are still limits on giving to a potus campaign, right? a few grand or something? so what happens when people go to a "dinner with the candidate" event. there was one recently around here that cost people like 35K. does that money go to the party or something?

edit: don't blame the sc, blame congress for writing unconstitutional laws

We should make it like a high school election, where the candidate gets to make a 5 minute speech, and then each one has to do a skit with his buddies.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rom...ampaign,29114/

 

Originally Posted by USCphildo

This is what happens when campaigns can raise infinite amounts of money and are not held accountable by the party or the candidate. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with this ad getting on the air.

If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the Supreme Court for their ruling in Citizen's United.

Bullshit. If an ad is wrong or misleading the candidate should denounce it. If not, then voters can hold it against him. If they don't then I blame the voters. Voters will believe whatever they want in any event. It just bottles my mind that in this day and age people would be influenced at all, even a tiny bit, by an ad from a candidate a PAC or anyone else. If that is who is going to decide the election or if that is what has decided past elections then it is no wonder we are where we are. We need consequences for being idiots and we are going to get those consequences.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

We need consequences for being idiots and we are going to get those consequences.

Best statement in your post.

I think holding a party responsible for approving ads before they run, is better than letting a super-PAC put out ads and hoping the candidate denounces bad ones afterwards.