I usually wait til later in the day to update, to get the latest news. But I doubt anything earthshaking's going to come up today, so I'll keep typing now.
I noticed that the Dem in Connecticut -Blumenthal I think is his name- is rapidly outpacing rival, Linda McMahon, in the race for Chris Dodd's vacant seat. But, what struck me was why. Because according to a Quinnipiac poll, he's gaining ground because McMahon ran barrages of attack ads and folks are now tired of the subject, so she's burnt out her advantage too soon, giving him time to come back.
But, my question is, and has been for a long, long time -who in the world is influenced by any "ad" about anything in today's day and age, regardless of the subject? Whether it's advertising for politicians, beer, cars, dishwashing detergent or anything else you can think of, who cares about the ads? I think TV remotes blew advertising out of the water many years ago. And I also truly believe that when ads come on most people hit an alternative channel button, or mute the sound as second nature. I know I haven't heard a TV ad in more than ten years, regardless of what's being hawked, because I don't even think about what an ad might be for, I automatically click off to something else.
But, let's say that there are some folks, who for whatever reason, sit there and actually listen to what politicos say in their ads. From what I read, almost every radio and TV ad is geared to smear opponents. Guy "A" says Guy "B" is a crook and he can prove it. Then Guy "B" says, "Oh Yeah. Well Guy "A's" second cousin twice removed is an axe murderer." So, Guy "A" says, "There's no proof of the axe murders at all. Every word's unfounded conjecture. But, Guy "B's" been diverting funds from his daughters Girl Scout cookie sales and using the money to support his gay lover." And the beat goes on and on.
Beyond the baseless drivel in the ads themselves however, common sense indicates that they have no real impact on voters. Because if they did, how did Ted Kennedy ever get elected in the first place and then spend the rest of his life-long stupor in the Senate? And what about Chris Dodd? He'd probably get re-elected now, despite his multitudinous scams, frauds and backroom deals. But if he runs again, his collegues will toss him in jail, so he threw in the towel instead of hearing someone read him his rights.
Then, of course there's Hillary and the president himself. And for all of these folks the smear ads against them generally contain considerable aspects of truth. But do the negative truths affect them at the polls? It seems to me that they do not. In fact, I think if you add up the accusations, and could actually enforce them, against both Bush's, Cheney and Rove they'd all be in adjoining cells in Leavenworth right now.
So, in the end, I know that the pollsters will keep on churning out data and tell listeners that this guy or that is ahead by however much, and yada-yada-yada all season long. As for me, I think the whole thing comes down to counting the actual vote after the election. Because pundits of any kind aren't right all that often, and I'm old enough to remember the famously inaccurate banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Tribune no less, on November 3, 1948, "Dewey Defeats Truman." It made a very good story...except for the fact that Dewey lost.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment