Are Attack ads a good thing for democracy?

It's the lowest possible denominator of PR, from the lowest, dishonorable PR advisers. You wouldn't buy a product from one of these slime buckets if you met one, don't buy a candidate just on their say so.

as long as they dont try to

us

And besides, they suck!

But that bunny made me laugh. :P

Because most contain exaggerations or outright lies.

If the manipulate truth, they degenerate and denigrate the whole process.

They are effective so they have become a staple of our political life. But lies and distortions offend reason and reasonable people deciding whom to support deserve better. They deserve objective analysis. Rhetoric rooted in reason is ideal. We are far removed from that today.

Ads should endorse what a candidate stands for, not blasting someone elses position. Unfortunately most candidates don't want really their positions known either - so this is what we have degenerated into.

*OR*

America has become such a cynical, negative country that we only hear and remember the negative. The positive just doesn't get through anymore. I point to the constant rhetoric of the right vs. the left as the problem here. Those people actually seem to hate each other and have forgotten that first and foremost we are all Americans and we are all in this together.

should be rather self explanitory

No, no, a thousand times no. Attack ads are so often untrue, feature words spoken out of context, and downright smear tactics. They are used to send subliminal messages and not real information. Attack ads rely on making voters FEEL something rather than informing them.

It doesn't tell us what the candidate has done or would like to do in office, it only tells us what the other candidate is doing wrong.

To me, if that's all a candidate has to say, then he/she's got nothing to say. It's attack adds that caused me to switch sides (Republican to Democrat) and I'll never switch back!!

They are par for the course.

The Greeks invented democracy. It was about debating issues, not personality. Campaigns should inform us what the candidates stand for--what they will do in office if elected, what legislation they will support and what legislation they will not. Romney's convention speech was empty on specifics. He spoke about "success" and "failure", which are subjective and not objective. This is probably why he is losing in polls--the voters really can't latch onto anything he stands for specifically--only "success" or "failure"--which is not appealing enough to make you want to vote for him. Ryan, on the other hand is easier to define--he wants to end Medicare, he wants to restructure tax code to favor the rich and take more from the Middle Class. He is clear.

They are very close to being bully attacks and need to be stopped by everyone who might use them.

Personally I believe those attacks are a sign that the candidate(s) do not have nothing good to offer.

Some attack ads do point out differences between candidates so I'm okay with some of them.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of them for the last two elections have been funded by pacs and super pacs and don't have to have any resemblance of truth since no candidate is tied to them.

I am so sick of ads i know are bull on my tv when all i want to do is watch the news. Bring back truth in advertising and apply it to political ads.

No, truth is what we want

And they never really explain much about the issues when most are misleading.

I think it makes that candidate look desparate and I'm inclined not to believe the ad at all, but that's just me.

No. Too much divisiveness already.

But they seem to be effective. Newt Gingrich released a slew of positive ads, and no one paid attention.