Henry Bonilla tries to link his opponent to “Islamic radicals.”
As we wait for the ballots to be counted, we look back on some of that ads that caught our attention for other reasons. We offer these FactCheck.org awards just for fun.
Candidates from both parties, as well as the parties themselves, have been releasing ads meant to convince voters that the other guy won’t be tough on child predators and sex offenders.
GOP Rep. John Sweeney’s ad goes after his opponent, first-time House candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, with a half-dozen accusations layered over a soundtrack that’s somehow both scary and sad. The ad tars Gillibrand with everything from taking illegal contributions to hiring a consultant tied to the Abramoff lobbying scandal to making children cry at a Sweeney rally, and more.
Gauging by the attack ads flowing from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s House contenders are running against Exxon, Pfizer and Bush. The ads tie Republican House candidates to unpopular industries and an unpopular President. Some of these ads are exaggerations.
Both political parties are functioning in the 2006 House races as factories for attack ads, but the National Republican Campaign Committee’s work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers.
The Republican National Committee’s latest ad – a 2006 version of President Johnson’s famous 1964 “Daisy” commercial against Barry Goldwater – invokes the threat of a nuclear attack by al Qaeda.
Several ads being aired by Republican House candidates try to frighten both old and young away from supporting their Democratic opponents, who, the Republicans claim, will “cut benefits for seniors” and “raise Social Security taxes” on workers.
The DCCC’s evidence that Florida Republican Clay Shaw took part in a “drug deal” when he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan is flimsy at best.
Two ads in Iowa attempt to damage congressional candidates Bruce Braley and Mike Whalen by critiquing Braley’s stance on energy and by pointing out Whalen’s radical endorsements, but both are misleading.