Nattering Negativity

I have nothing against negative ads. Politics is a contact sport, and negative commercials can convey valuable information about an opponent's record.

I have plenty against distorted, inaccurate and unfair negative ads, which means that every couple of years, I spend way too much time watching and critiquing them.

I believe I can say, without fear of contradiction, that this year is the worst I've seen in terms of smarmy and sleazy spots that take some little kernel of a fact and twist and pound it out of shape until the opponent is rendered as a sex-crazed, tax-raising, criminal-coddling, terrorist-hugging loon.

Some of these are so bad they seem like "SNL" parodies. They insult the intelligence.

Over the years, both parties have dished out their share of the negative stuff, but this year, most of the truly awful and factually challenged commercials have been on the Republican side. That may reflect their tactics, the fact that they're defending far more seats, or simply a level of desperation. And party strategists haven't made any bones about it, acknowledging to reporters that 90 percent of their ads are negative.

The Democratic attack ads tend to accuse Republicans of being rubber stamps for Bush, in bed with Big Oil and Big Pharma, or diehard backers of the Iraq war. Some question their opponents' business records. Others are of the stop-lying-about-my-record variety. But few are harshly personal in the style of the worst Republican spots.

Slate's liberal editor, Jake Weisberg , is revolted by some of what was on the tube during a trip to Phoenix:

"The first commercial I saw, for Rick Renzi, a vulnerable Republican congressman, was an effusion of pure political poison. In a voice rancid with contempt, the announcer declared:

'Over 100 Democratic elected officials are opposing Democrat trial lawyer Ellen Simon. Liberal Ellen Simon served as the president of the ACLU, a radical organization that defends hard-core criminals at the man/boy love association, a national group that preys on our children. One Democratic mayor called Simon's actions 'utterly disgusting.' He's right. Ellen Simon: radical, liberal and wrong for Arizona.'

"While hearing this, the viewer sees just key terms superimposed on the Democrat's face: 'LIBERAL' ... 'Served as the President of the ACLU' ... 'Radical Organization defends hard core criminals Man/Boy Love Association' ... 'ACLU Defends Child Molester Group' ... 'Preys on our children' ... 'utterly disgusting' ... 'radical, liberal.'

"Dutifully performing the fact-checking function expected of responsible newspapers, the Arizona Daily Sun analyzed the content of the ad. It could not 'independently verify' that 100 elected officials had endorsed Renzi, though 55 are apparently members of a Navajo tribal council whose gambling interests Renzi has championed. Ellen Simon was not the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, but a volunteer lawyer in Cleveland who represented the group in precisely one case. That case had nothing to do with NAMBLA or child molesters. The 'Democratic mayor' who called Simon 'utterly disgusting' is effectively a Republican. Simon, who supports school choice and cracking down on illegal immigrants, is by no means a 'radical liberal.' In other words, not a single claim in the ad is actually true.

"This spot is, however, entirely characteristic of the mud that Republicans are raining on their Democratic opponents in the closing days of the campaign. Buggery is probably the top theme. In California, Republican incumbent John Doolittle has similarly accused his challenger, the unfortunately named Charlie Brown, of being pro-NAMBLA because he's an ACLU member. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican candidate for governor in Ohio, charges that his opponent opposed a resolution condemning sex between adults and children. Sonny Perdue, the Republican governor of Georgia, accuses his opponent of putting 'the interests of the radical homosexual lobby ahead of our Boy Scouts.' "