ATTACK ADS TOUTED TO WORK

It has recently been said by many pundits that the reason attack ads are used is because they work.  Thus continue the rationalizations.  The assumption is that they work, as though the candidates themselves have no part in their own success..  One must ask how?  Do they work because they attack, or do they work because the attacker has done homework and is exposing another candidate.  The use of attack is to obfuscate that the attacker hasn't a clue how to run the country or straighten out the mess GW left us in.

A BBC News headline is: Republicans attack rival Ron Paul in Iowa.  Under a heading of 'serial hypocrites'  The article goes on to say: "Former Massachusetts Governor Romney said on Wednesday in Muscatine, Iowa: "One of the people running for president thinks it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't."  Another statement:  "You don't have to vote for a candidate who will allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," Mr Perry said. "Because America will be next."

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, joined the onslaught.l 
"Ron Paul would be a dangerous president," she said. "He would have us ignore all of the warning signs of another brutal dictator who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. I won't."

The Los Angeles Times accused the candidates for threatening Democracy  by bashing judges. The article by Erwin Chemerinsky

Some of the candidates are really frightening with clear promises to circumvent the Constitution and decisions by the judicial appointees.

INNER DEBATE: WATCH THE REPUBLICANS LIE OR THE HOCKEY PLAYOFFS?

Normally I am not a sports fan.  Normally I will watch any political debate.  Why then do I draw an inner 'ho hum' when I choose hockey over the opportunity to evaluate the Republican presidential candidates.  After thinking about it for a while, I realize we are in the Internet age and all it provides media for coverage.  There is little I haven't heard about the candidates, picked apart from every bias and other perspective possible.

It seemed to me in hearing as much of the debate I could stand until the danger of retching took over, I realized that if we voted any one of them into office, we were in danger of turning back the clock socially and morally to at least fifty years.

Mitt Romney has changed his tune so many times he is hardly worth watching.  He will say whatever he 'thinks' the New Hampshire electorate wants to hear.  He did it with a smooth smile that didn't change throughout the debate..
Tim Pawlenty, one of the least charismatic candidate around.  He is against the4 new Healthcare plan and will only argue that it is "Obamneycare"  That tells the public nothing about he might best serve them in the White House.  He is with the established Republicans.
Michele Bachmann was the scariest.  She believes that life is a God creation at the point of conception until natural death.  That means no abortion or death with dignity on her watch.  She has no background for history, foreign affairs, and little else that it would take to lead this country.  She has some naive, limited ideas that support the Teaparty but comes out with a firm conviction mostly on moral issues.
Newt Gingrich has run a ridiculous campaign that has in many ways thumbed his nose at the system   Word is out that he is led by his wife.  That is enough among the Republican leaders to count him out.
Herman Cain, articulate and a good salesman but who has said some very unpopular things such as he 'wouldn't be comfortable having a Muslim in his cabinet.
Rick Santorum, also an  ultra-conservative claims to listen to everyone's issues but neglects to say that it will be with a deaf ear.. 
Lastly, Ron Paul who makes some sense when he isn't being provocative,  may not be far enough right for those who would be his base.

 All of them were in favor of having the States handle the issues they felt the government was not taking in to control such as immigration, protecting against abortions, welfare, education, budgets; in other words, they are talking about working to roll back the laws we have lived with for years that they don't like and giving the states more freedom on the basis that the government hasn't done the right job.

Most of their time was spent ranting against Obama.  I did not hear anything constructive they have to offer other than running our lives with more religion as a foundation.  Admittedly, I did not follow every moment.  I heard nothing about raising income for running the government nor getting more jobs or helping the middle class raise its standard of living.

To read BBC's take, click here.  

Despite the fact that this should be a good debate for laughs, I think sticking with the Hockey game offered a more stimulating evening.. The Bruins even won the game as added attraction.