http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75880.htm
my first point, is a campaign ad caustic or negative if it's content is true? seems it would be more an oxymoron. is this really no more then media promoting itself. don't feel Obama ads are of that kind he has said nothing that wasn't true, where as Romney and his writers do just that write their own stories behind their ads rendering them false hyperbole.
Outside groups have been responsible for 60 percent of all ads aired so far this year, according to the study. Of those ads, 86 percent were negative, and 14 percent were positive.
But for all their big spending, super PAC aren’t the only culprits.
“We cannot attribute the negativity solely to outside groups,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Even the candidates’ own campaigns have taken a dramatic negative turn.”
Here’s POLITICO’s list of the most biting ads of the 2012 presidential race…so far.
notice the one's shown are righty against righty the one they show of the Pres. is it not true?
this coining of "ATTACK ADS" by the right is another example of them committing the crime and trying to make the Pres. collusive to their skulduggery, hard to attack someone in the context they mean it with the truth that's not an attack it's an exposing.
