When I saw this Michelle Bachmann ad my first thought was, “Don’t go there, Michele, this will not help you.” But on second thought, why not?
I have been in favor of niceness so far, but I wondering whether it’s gone on long enough. Why shouldn’t the candidates face the types of challenges the nominee will face, sooner rather than later?
I’m not suggesting we go all “Voodoo economics,” but at some point the candidates need to be tested by each other not just the mainstream media.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That would have more impact if her source for China’s nuclear program wasn’t wikipedia.
I think part of Newt’s bounce has been due to his refusal to go after the other Repub candidates (at least in the debate settings). Voters/viewers liked that. If all of the candidates just agreed to make the case for themselves and against Obama instead of against each other, the conservative cause as a whole would find itself in a much better position by next November.
My only concern is that the MSM seems strangely reluctant to vet Romney. I’m afraid that they know many Republicans can’t stomach the idea of voting for him, so they’d just love to see him as the nominee. Their Romney-vetting will commence immediately after he secures the nomination.
It’s a powerful ad (and a depressing one because it shows what a truly awful set of choices we have this time around). Unfortunately, someone could easily run one like it using Bachmann’s own words against her, too. They won’t bother though because she’s polling so low that they’ll figure they can safely ignore her.
Burning down your neighbor’s house does not increase the value of your home. In politics, going negative only works if you have something positive to say about yourself (i.e. differentiate yourself or magnify their shortcomings).
In this ad, Bachmann attacks everyone ahead of her in the polls but she does not say what she stands for. For that reason, it fails. It might have had some success if she were differentiating herself from 1 candidate and not everyone ahead of her.
I did notice she did not attack Perry over Gardisil, probably because she had chances to oppose such vaccinations and chose to say nothing.
Um, might this sudden appreciation of the virtues of going negativs be related to your having endorsed a candidate?
“Time to go negative?” Are you serious?
Professor you have been carping about Romney not being scrutinized as Gingrich is supposedly enduring. This is precisely what the nominees should be doing. It’s called vetting and we better do a good job of it before our nominee faces Obama, who will most assuredly take all the skeletons out for close examination.
For that reason, I am glad that Gingrich’s record is getting a closer look and that he has to defend it. It would be nice if other nominees, in addition to Bachmann, started playing for real.
I don’t like it. The media will do its vetting, we don’t need to go negative on each other. At some point after the primaries we will have to band together and vote for the nominee. Getting at each other throat now will not make it easier.
[…] Professor Jacobsen writes and I agree 150%: I have been in favor of niceness so far, but I wondering whether it’s gone on long enough. Why shouldn’t the candidates face the types of challenges the nominee will face, sooner rather than later? […]
Frank Luntz just pointed out that the three candidates who have been leading the polls have been focused on Obama and Not negative about other Republican candidates.