Catholic Online Forum

makes me supremely happy and that's the fact that my mailbox is no longer stuffed full of stupid political ads for myself and Doris...the woman who got to vote instead of me because she's registered to vote at my address. How many times does the same politician need to send me different pictures of himself and wife and child or himself looking like he's doing something?

A notarized affidavit to the Registrar might solve your "Doris" problem.

but I don't understand why the mail service can't get it right when the mail has been sent back a million times.

Plus the non-stop TV ads about either how good I am and how miserable the other one is.

According to a political advertising analysis done by the Wesleyan Media Project, Americans have been subjected to more than $800 million worth of presidential campaign ads alone, with more than 80% of them, they say, negative.
. . . .
Dr. Seyb says candidates run them, first, because there's no penalty for it, but secondly, because they work, especially on so-called low involvement voters, people who don't follow campaigns very closely and get their information from the ads.
. . . .
The Washington Post reports that President Obama spent $457 million on campaign ads, compared to $356 million for Mitt Romney. The Post also reports 85% of the president's ads were negative, while 91% of Romney's were negative

I heard from friends and family in the States that the nastiness of the ads was a new low.

Just think the same type people will soon be managing our Health Care.

That would depend on where you live. Bob live in one of the "battleground" states. Where I live we did not see a lot of TV ads about the presidential candidates, negative or otherwise. OTOH, we had a lot of contentious ads about state and local candidates and especially ballot propositions.

Just think the same type people will soon be managing our Health Care.

Bob,

Unfortunately for the seniors, they won't be managing much but how to tell doctors to pull the plug and turn off the switches so they peacefully relieve us of their health problems.

That would depend on where you live. Bob live in one of the "battleground" states. Where I live we did not see a lot of TV ads about the presidential candidates, negative or otherwise. OTOH, we had a lot of contentious ads about state and local candidates and especially ballot propositions.

. If our politicians are this moronic and uncivil during the campaign how can we expect better after the election?

I had similar thoughts.

But probably most of the ads came from PACS rather than the candidates or their campaigns.

When I hear I'm "President Obama or Mitt Romney and I approve this ad" it tells me it came from them, ghost writers or not.

Davids point is that many of the worst ads came from PACs which were not endorsed by the candidates nor did the ad endorse a candidate. It was just tearing down the other guy.

The point is still valid though. It speaks ill of their character that they behave this poorly in the campaign, so it is unreasonable to expect their behavior to be excellent once elected.

Ultimate blame lies with the electorate. We elect those that behave most poorly during elections, those willing to say the worst things about their opponents and twist the truth most. Applies to both sides, too.

Still, the Electorate perceives they have but two options.

Pax et bonum,

How much of negative campaigning is detraction and calumny and how much is legitimate reflection on the record of the candidates in question?

Pax et bonum