I'm also annoyed by the ones for the KS Attorney General race. Specifically, Phil Kline's reference to a case filed (and dismissed for lack of evidence) against Paul Morrison 15 years ago. Turns out, even the woman who filed the suit didn't know the Kline campaign was going to use it.

While I am a Republican and try to support my party's candidates, I'm sickened by someone in the legal field who'd drag up a case that's already been determined to lack merit as "proof" of bad character.

After all, what Kline's really saying is that the court's decision wasn't valid and, honestly, who wants an Attorney General who has that view of the legal system?

I haven't seen the Fox commercials, but I heard that he *stopped* taking the meds to make the tremors and such worse for the commercial. Either way - it's a stupid tactic, and cheapens him. Shame.

I just don't know why the ads have to be so intellectually insulting to us, the viewers and voters. They act like we have no brain and no common sense, and we're completely uneducated! Makes me wanna puke.

Actually, Michael J. Fox admits to not having taken his meds before some other appearance. I've not read that he skipped them before doing that particular ad. But what if he did? Exactly why is it labeled a tactic? And why does it shame him? Is it that when he's on his meds his Parkinson's goes away? Of course not! Do his meds mask the signs of the disease so that he can function better and we feel more at ease looking at him? Yes. Is it that we're so uncomfortable seeing him, an icon for many of us, shake and move uncontrollably like that that we think it's shameful he would appear that way? Sadly, I think yes. So what if he didn't take his meds before the appearance! Maybe what he wants to get across to all of us is the severity of the disease and the magnitude with which it affects his life, and everyone else's life who has the disease. Would we really realize that if he appeared looking normal?

Something to think about.

Leigh, I find such naked emotional pleas dispicable. Rather than make a case based on the science of it they attempt to pull on heart strings. 'But people are suffering!'
Parkinson's sucks. A mentor of mine, a man who came to my house when I didn't go to lab for a week after my grandmother died and kicked my arse to get me restarted, has Parkinson's. I still don't support em. stem. research. My nephew suffers from DiGeorge's syndrom. Stem cells could potentially make it so that kid could talk and be normal. Still don't support em stem research.
Rather than making a case as to why embryos shouldn't be thought of as humans(oh, I dunno, using Peter Singer's ideas on personhood maybe?) they trot out a beloved actor to shame us into voting in favor of candidates who support em stem research. That's so f'n low a snake looks down. They provided NOTHING to think about, but plenty to emote about---and that's something to think about.

But ry, aren't all political ads designed to evoke some emotion in us that will convince us to vote for them? That particular ad is not solitary in its endeavor. All of them either try to piss us off at their opponent or incite our sympathy, empathy, sorrow, disgust, etc. in order to get us to cast our vote their way. Those ads which speak strictly to TRUE facts and the voters' intellect are few and far between.

"Those ads which speak strictly to TRUE facts and the voters' intellect are few and far between." And ain't it a crying shame that they don't?

Just because many ads rely on emotion, or more specifically half truths that fog the issue, does that mean it is right? That because of that we should all just accept it? That's the politics of slander and scandal. The politics of 'personal destruction' and divisiveness. That isn't the best way to go as it's effective in the short term but generates long term problems.

But, hey, if you LIKE being treated like a child and manipulated that's your business. So the 'well everyone is doing it, mom' argument is enough for you to find this tolerable. It isn't for me and never will---regardless of which side does it.

And I wouldn't say that fact backed ads are few and far between. A 'true' fact backed ad can still be mean and gut an opponent.

What the hell is a 'TRUE fact'? Is this getting at the truthiness issue again? Or is it 'stuff I agree with is true! while stuff I don't agree with isn't true'?

Look, I'm a chemist. Either something is a fact or it isn't, but never both. Example of fact: unemployment is below 5%. Assertion: tax cuts are the cause. I believe that tax cuts are the cause, but I can't definitively prove it, which makes it an assertion. An ad that uses a quote by a noted economist to link the two is a factual ad(the economist actually did say it even though it contains an assertion). So let's quit this 'TRUE facts' nonsense. Call them what they are, half truths and innuendos. Don't rot the language, please. It's hard enough to figure out what people mean as it is.

Wow ry, you're so defensive. Or perhaps it's just passion. Excuse me for just "talking" and saying something that I thought anyone would understand. I simply meant that too many politicians and people in general will cite purported fact after fact, when in reality they aren't facts at all. If I didn't use the language to your specificity, then I guess ... well, I guess you'll just have to deal with it.