Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ad of the Day: 'Who is Ken Buck?'

The Fix's Aaron Blake reports that Democrats are going negative early in the 2010 campaign cycle, and they are doing it often. This includes Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) who is in a tough race with Republican candidate Ken Buck. In this ad, Buck takes the same route as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada (also in a tight race against Republican candidate Sharron Angle), using Buck's own words against him.

Blake reports:

The ad features Buck -- in his own words -- questioning the constitutionality of Social Security, the Department of Education and federal student loans. Buck also says he does not support exceptions for abortions in the cases of rape or incest.

The ad is very hard-hitting and 100 percent about Buck, save the obligatory Bennet disclaimer at the start of the ad. It's also exactly what Democratic leaders are looking for.

Read more on Democrats' negative ads.

By Emi Kolawole  |  August 27, 2010; 3:59 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Freedomworks CEO: Expect 400,000 to 500,000 people at Glenn Beck rally
Next: Joe Miller compares Murkowski third-party bid to prostitution

Comments

The Tea Party is the best thing that could have ever happened to the Republican Party - the snake is finally beginning to eat it's own tail.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | August 28, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Ken Buch should be elected from Alabama, or Alaska. Now that would be normal. but not Colorado.

Posted by: fudador | August 28, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Miller is too kind. Clearly, EVERY ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN IS A PROSTITUTE - OR WORSE.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | August 28, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the time-tested negative ad, a great approach when you have absolutely no skills, accomplishments or plans whatsoever to tout except "I'm not that guy." Pathetic.

Posted by: wma98 | August 28, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Bravo, stmr,

You're exactly right in your analysis. If a Tea Party candidate in a speech for right wing partisans suggests eliminating Social Security, it is not negative advertising for an opponent to highlight this point. But lying about a candidate or distorting his or her positions is another matter. The right wing blurred this distinction so successfully for so long that apparently journalists can no longer distinguish between the two.

If the Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, a plan that is in Rep. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future," why shouldn't the Democrats bring attention to this position? The Republicans should be proud of their plan to privatize both programs. I simply can't understand how Democrats highlighting this point could be accused of negative advertising, as long as the assertions are accurate.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | August 27, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

If we use the argument that Muslims should not build their center near Ground Zero because those who drove the planes into the towers were Muslim, then it follows that because so many were Wahabis from Saudi Arabia, then we should shutter and ban all Saudis. This would include the 7% owner of NewsCorp who is a friend of the Bushes, and a buddy of the owner of Fox News and the Wall Stret Journal. Check it out!

Posted by: diamond2 | August 27, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

I think there's a difference between a "negative, attack ad" and an ad that fudges the truth. Does Buck in fact take the positions attributed to him? I wouldn't call that going negative. But you also get ads where someone claims that candidate X "supports suicide panels" if he or she backed the Obama health plan. That's not just distortion, that's a lie, and it needs to be recognized as such. Or if candidate X allegedly "voted against our military," when in fact the vote might have been against some other program that had some military rider tacked on. That's a distortion, unless the candidate's vote was based solely on the rider.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out how your policies differ than your opponent's, so long as those policies are clearly and appropriately defined. Indeed, how the hell else are we supposed to choose a candidate?

Posted by: stmr | August 27, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company