What would I do to get rid of them? It would be a huge undertaking, but I think that letter-writing campaigns directed at every television station that runs such ads might be effective.

Marshella: I agree with HighFiveDJ. I am tired of it. The only thing is, I don't know what to do about it except to ignore it. It is a shame so much money gets wasted that way when it could be going toward getting the word out on the candidate's views.

Victoria16: As an advertising copywriter, I understand the inclination to overemploy hyperbole and exaggeration -- sometimes saying too much is the only clear way to get the point across. When it comes to civic debate, however, there's more at stake than just selling the latest burger, condo, or dish soap that comes along. Here the commodity is leadership, and citizens are still forced to be consumers. Given the lack of nutrition labelling on the candidates, it is incumbent on their promoters to inject some amount of truth into the messages.
For instance, this morning I saw a Dole ad where he came off sounding slightly socialist, of all things. The claims made in the spot were so vague as to be completely obfuscated. How is anyone supposed to form an opinion on that basis?
Whether vicious or not, these ads are pernicious attempts to make palatable to the entire populace two men who are supposed to stand for different beliefs. Eliminate all middle-of-the-road claims, I say. Turn the spotlight on debates, on town hall meetings, on forums where the people find out themselves what the candidates stand for, instead of trusting the next Willie Horton campaign to decide the election.

Shar: If the comments are directly related to the candidate (not her mother, cousin etc.) and can be substantiated beyond a reasonal doubt, I feel they are acceptable. A person's character and how they have conducted their lives will tell us how they will legislate and respond to the wishes of the voters. It better be the truth and backed with facts before it is ever released!

Baddog: I once saw a cartoon that showed a group of very sad people cleaning up a campaign headquarters. The caption said, "I thought we had the election sewed up, then that thing with the hooker came out...". The poster on the wall was a picture of Christ, with a caption of Jesus for President".
The way our campaigns are now, he with the least mud on him wins. I am amazed and appalled at our general populace in its facination for mud flinging campaigns. I cannot remember the last time when either party had a "platform". The closest thing to a platform anymore is everybody, regardless of what side they are on, agrees with whatever the crowd want to hear. Not that they really mean it.
Two things have come to the surface of our electoral process (by my observation):
1. People do not vote for who they want in office, they vote for who they think will win.
2. Our politicians do not seem to care about what they do to their constituents. They lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Destroy anyone and anything in their path to make a name for themselves.
Then they move on, and get elected to some other office because we remember their names. We just forget why we remember their names.

bbigman: Mud-slinging is not healthy in any process. I'm not interested in who politicians are or are not sleeping with or whether they smoked pot twenty years ago or even if they inhaled. Just don't want to be lied to. It insults my intelligence. A mud-slinger will not get my vote, period. As citizens, it is our responsibility to let the candidates know how we feel and that we will not put up with this type of campaign. Write to them, email or whatever. Just do it! If enough people protest and if they want our vote, they will change their tactics. I, for one, want to know where they stand on the important issues concerning this country.

Rip: No, vicious campaign ads, "fun" as they are, are not a healthy thing. Hate is not a rational part of decision making. What we should do is ban electronic campaign advertising. It doesn't lend itself to issue-oriented campaigning the way print does. I think candidates should return to whistle-stop campaigning with sound bites prohibited. The print media should, of course, be required to share their revenue bonanza with the eletronic media which would suffer mightily in the face of a campaign advertising ban.
The current attack ads make good theater but offer only poor bases for electorate decision making.

navastasan: Sure, the Presidents always suck, so who cares what they say to get there?

artamerica: I think vicious campaign ads are good; they are usually the only truth uttered by politicians during the campaign cycle. After all the empty promises it is refreshing to hear the candidates tell the people the truth about what a bunch of lying, cheating, rotten bastards they all are. The best way to get rid of negative campaigning would be to elect me, Arlis R. Tyner, Emperor of the United States.

tomlong: Vicious campaign ads aren't healthy for our political process, but they are a very effective campaign tool. They work because casting doubt about your opponent's character or morals is easier than explaining positions on complicated issues or your own character strengths. They are unhealthy because they promote cynicism and distrust about government and political leaders--most of whom I suspect really want to do some good for their community, state, and nation. The only way to get rid of them is to make it clear to candidate and political consultants that the ads don't work. Unfortunately, that takes collective action that I doubt will occur.

Gadj: I thhink the American voters should look past all the rhetoric and decide whats best for them. It happens at every elaction and most of the nasty capaigning is done by managers. One has to ignore the b.s. and look at the issues, which are, where is all this going to take us? Whoever getss the vote isn't going to make all that much difference

PRVS: I favor honesty and quoting in context as guidelines for campaign ads.

enigma7: It makes little difference, since there's not much to choose between the parties anyway.

Twinfinity: Vicious campaign ads ARE a key part of the election process, but they're not "healthy" per se. I wouldn't get rid of them, because they show us just how UNhealthy the sponsoring candidates are. Here are quick, easy-to-understand demonstrations of how the sponsors are willing to treat their fellow humans. -- Still, they should by no means be funded by tax money. I'm glad I've got that check box on the 1040 so I can refuse to contribute to the Election Fund. (Now just to get check boxes for all the OTHER federal programs.) And regarding what Baddog said -- Hey, *I* vote on conscience and principle. (Hint: I do NOT vote elephant or donkey.)

scoob: In this age of tasty sound bites and more flip-flopping than a fish out of water, it's no surprise that what grabs people's attention is a character attack, rather than a sincere, staid attack on issues. The idea of trying to scare the electorate away from a candidate is tasteless, and in many people's eyes the attacker is often the one who gets hurt. At the same time, to say character is an issue when selecting a leader is an understatement. Wouldn't you want to be sure about your babysitter's character? Then why should it be different for someone who is undertaking such a large burden of responsibility? When the issue of character is raised (even tastefully-- yes, this is possible), the act is often still deplored as tasteless. This knee-jerk reaction obscures the facts, and is as immature as the idea of mudslinging in the first place. Bottom line: character is indeed an important issue and should be brought up, but not in an inflammatory way. People need to sort through these facts, along with all the others they will be bombarded with in the next five months, and make their decision accordingly.

doctorno: No vicious campaign ads are not a healthy part of the election process. We need mature adults that attack the issues that are paralyzing our country, NOT each other. Anybody can sling mud, especially juveniles that still lack education. Perhaps these juvenile tendencies are a normal sideeffect of senility and the aging process. Hey?? What did you say?? Let me get this straight?? At any rate, what this country needs is a FEW, Good, Mature Adults that can lead by example. We know one candidate still carries his mentor's letter with him, from the Watergate era. How do we stop this mudslinging. Grow up, mature, and above all, take a look at the PEOPLE you are supposed to represent and address issues. Later, when you get in office, if you don't forget the people, we'll align Congress so the People are heard.

ralphb: Negative campaigning is not part of any healthy election process. The only way I could see around it would be to impose a strict cap on campaign advertising expenses. While we're at it, let's get rid of that stupid campaign fund check-off box on our tax forms ("this will not increase your taxes..." Yeah, right, where does the money come from then?). Anyway, I have problems with that idea on freedom of speech grounds, so maybe that solution is worse than the problem. The ultimate answer is to vote against candidates that use these tactics (or, at least, vote FOR the candidate that seems to use them less). Sigh.

TBlackmore: If the ads are 100% true they're very healthy. If not hopefully they will backfire on the liars.