Truth in Advertising?
November 6, 2009 | Alexandria, Virginia | Vetting explained
Mudslinging is a tried and true political strategy in this country. But what happens when the entire campaign becomes a big catfight?
I have lived in Virginia my whole life. I helped campaign for Tim Kaine's campaign in 2002 because I really believed in his ideas and aspirations for the state I live in.
This year has been a long one for our family and I didn't have the time to go online and research the candidates' positions on ... well, anything, really. There is usually enough discussion on the news, talk shows, and other media outlets that an average voter can make a (fairly) informed decision.
On election day, I found I had absolutely no idea what either candidate really stood for.
I'm sure McDonnell is probably more conservative than someone I would have voted for. I'm sure that Deeds is not flawless. They both reek of modern politics and all the schmoozing and half-honesty that we in this country have come to expect from our fine leaders.
But it's the ads that really bothered me this time.
I am sure that Deeds did have some ideas about what direction Virginia should head in over the next few years, and he was certainly not planning to hop into office and raise taxes like McDonnell's ads claimed. I am equally certain that McDonnell doesn't hate women. But according to the ads that were run on television, that seemed to be what the campaigns were about.
Do you want to elect someone who hates women, or someone who will increase your taxes?
And Virginia chose.
But the truly disturbing fact is that it was abundantly clear that those ads were disingenuous. Do these guys really think we're that stupid? I realize that the whole idea is to plant a negative image of the opposing candidate, real or imagined. But, if a company advertises a product that doesn't do what the company claims, the company is punished. Politicians are held to a much lower standard, and I think that's wrong.
If the candidates are really secure in their political ideals, why not run on the issues? Take Obama's example. Tell your constituents what you really think, and allow them to vote for the candidate that they feel would best serve them. I feel that we have been left to choose between which candidate's hidden agenda we hate the least. And the sad thing is, we have become so accustomed to this kind of politics that we no longer care to object.
Personally, I plan to write a letter to both candidates expressing this sentiment. I hope that others will follow my lead in demanding honesty and transparency. These are people who want to lead us, who want to influence the education of our children and decide where funding goes in our state. Shouldn't we know who they are, and not just what they think of the other candidate?
- Tags:
- campaign,
- election,
- politics,
- change,
- 2009_resolution
- Posted in Assignment:
- Journey to change
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.
What is iReport?
-
Share
Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what's important to you.
-
Discuss
Join the conversation on the day's big issues.
-
Be heard
The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.
The label “Not vetted by CNN” lets you know that this story hasn’t been both checked and cleared by a CNN editor.
iReport stories that have a red "CNN iReport" stamp in the corner have been vetted and
cleared. That means they've been selected and approved by a CNN producer to use on CNN,
on air, or on any of CNN's platforms.







Comments