In my deep blue congressional district, our incumbent congressman, a liberal Democrat who has won by wide margins in the past, is in a tough reelection battle because of his unwavering support of the Obama agenda. He’s now running an attack ad (over and over and over again) that characterizes his opponent as an “extremist” and as a close friend of the outlaws motorcycle gang. These allegations are, shall we say, extreme (and laughable) in and of themselves, but nevermind.
It seems that this year’s Democratic playbook is to characterize as an “extremist” anyone who believes in smaller government, deficit reduction, lower taxes, and reduced federal spending. Notably absent in our incumbent congressman’s campaign is any detailed discussion or cogent defense of the “achievements” that the current majority party has put in place over the past two years.
Jonathan Karl of ABCNews comments:
In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.
As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.
There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.
With an election debacle for the Democrats rapidly approaching, we listen to our President (remember: the man who told us he was going to usher in a new era of bipartisanship) suggest that “fear and anger” are driving some voters to make bad decisions (i.e., vote against his supporters in congress). Really?
Might it be possible (as poll after poll indicates) that a majority of the electorate (including a significant majority of those in the Center) is less than enthusiastic about the current version of health care reform, stimulus spending, taxpayer funded corporate takeovers, cap and trade, or financial regulation, not to mention the threat of ever-increasing spending and higher taxes at the federal level?
I find it interesting that the MSM never characterizes as “extremists” those who support a complete government takeover of healthcare, unbridled government spending to “create” jobs, taxpayer takeovers of more and more businesses, ill-advised energy and environmental legislation, ineffective financial reform, higher taxes on the "rich” and unconstrained government spending. Nah, those folks are called “activists” and are never demonized for being irresponsible. Interesting.
On the other hand, if you take a look at the polls and observe next week’s mid-term election, I suspect the results may indicate who the electorate believes are the real extremists, after all.