How low can they go?

This Scott Murphy ad says Chris Gibson supports "Jobs for China, not Upstate New York", which made me think of last year's line of attack by Jim Tedisco, when Tedisco kept denouncing Murphy for his investments as a businessman in India. It also reminded me of what was obvious from last year's campaign: The Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committees devote all their ample resources to negative ads which compete with each other in stupid, mendacious sleaze.

As said in this post by the pithy Kristi Gustafson (another TU employee I don't recall meeting who has become my Facebook friend): "These political commercials kill me. AW-ful."

Comments

[Brian]

I think it was George Washington who said, "Blessed are those who have nothing to say and remain silent anyway."

[Tom Hughes]

Meanwhile, however it happens, the jobs are gone, aren't they?
What is it, exactly, again, that these Representatives do? I'm so abysmally ignorant, and it's past time for bed. Hi, Bob!

[Brian]

The attack ad industry seems to be weathering the recession quite well!

[Matthew]

As mentioned earlier, Gibson has been giving a lot of play what the other guy isn't about but very little on what he's actually for (I mean besides being for "low taxes" & "small government"...as if there are politicians who will actually run on "raising taxes" & "increasing the size of government"). Being (what?) 15+ points behind, I wonder what he's actually waiting for.

I may not agree w/ his positions but I'd WANT to at least hear him out & give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Bob Conner]

Hi back atya, Tom: I do think the standard of politicians is pretty low these days, as witnessed by these ads. Matt, I too would like to see a better Gibson campaign, although he is now in the position Murphy was in last year, a neophyte running against a politician with a record, which he can go negative on (and is obviously aware that it worked for Murphy). But when an established pol goes negative against a neophyte, as Tedisco did against Murphy and Murphy is now against Gibson, they have to make up stuff that stands out as ridiculous. Brian, your're right about the negativity; I wish Gibson would go negative more intelligently, as I tried to point out in recent post I think titled "Gibson needs to tie Murphy to Albany".

[Brian]

I'm not sure how tying Murphy to Albany is a good strategy. He's a federal politican and can (much more plausibly than, say, Andrew Cuomo) claim nothing to do with the dysfunction there. Republicans are generally running on "(insert incumbent Democrat) is a Nancy Pelosi clone" theme and I expect Gibson to go in that direction.

[Bob Conner]

I'm not a fan of the Pelosi as bogeywoman strategy. But Gibson did advise Murphy to vote against a recent bill that, Gibson could argue, did little to boost economy and just undid some of the state budget cuts Gov. Paterson had just pushed through. (Unfortunately for Gibson, Paterson is a good Democrat who will back Murphy.)

[Brian]

Perhaps, but I think that's a pretty weak link to Albany. The state had the choice to accept the money with its conditions or not. Ultimately, I think the line, "Murphy got more money for NYS" is pretty hard to sell as a negative to the masses who may not appreciate the nuanced point you're trying to make.

[Bob Conner]

Brian, I'm afraid you may be right.