Monday, July 9, 2012
In recent weeks I’ve written about the appropriateness, about the essential nature of negative advertising.* The simple reality is that incumbents aren’t going to tell you why they don’t deserve to be re-elected. Unfortunately, the media in our day and age is more likely to react to what candidates say than to take a pro-active, watchdog roll to educate the voting public.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
We elect our Congressmen/women and Senators to represent us when they legislate in the national interest. Unfortunately, that’s not all they do. A good deal of their time, and a great deal of our money is spent devising “earmarks” to benefit us locally. Not incidentally, these dollars legislators get for local causes improve their prospects for re-election.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Yesterday, I wrote an article entitled, “Negative Advertising: An essential means of voter education.” This piece looks at the flip side of negative advertising. From the campaign’s point of view, it’s as essential to winning as money. In fact, funding negative advertising may just be the primary reason the candidate needs money.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Hi. This is the first of two articles that I’m writing about “negative advertising,” a concept that I believe has been given a bad rap by the media and, most importantly, by the form of it that many well-funded candidates and their political action committees have chosen. This first piece is about its definition and essential role. (As usual, I’m going to write like I know what I’m talking about, leaving it to your comments to help me get it right.)
Friday, November 25, 2011
I have an expression. It’s my expression. I made it up. I’m going to tell you the expression. You can think about it, but if you use it, you owe me a royalty.