Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 23 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Dirty political ads stand in way of issues
Published Sunday, November 4, 2007
The video clip is downright creepy. The camera pans to the right, crossing a tombstone inscribed with “Mr. Taxpayer.”
A weasely voice asks, “Why did Jamie Franks vote twice to support the death tax?”
The camera then cuts to a swarthy looking guy wearing a black suit. He’s standing in what appears to be a cemetery as he answers his own question.
“Because you can’t complain, when you’re dead,” the man says gesturing to the ground.
Then Mr. Creepy rails about the “death tax” and accuses the Democratic candidate for Mississippi Lieutenant Governor of voting down an economic development bill, blocking millions of dollars that “could have created thousands of jobs for the Gulf Coast.”
As the character speaks the screen fills with two photographs apparently taken after Hurricane Katrina.
“Vote ‘no’ on Jamie Franks, before it’s too late.”
Sounds awful, doesn’t it.
What kind of a dirty rotten scoundrel would vote down aid to the coast, you might ask?
Well, that’s where it gets interesting.
The fine print on the TV ad refers to a 2004 newspaper article as the “source” on the economic development issue.
Interestingly, in case you missed that, Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005.
Hmm, so Mr. Creepy fibs a little, — or at least misleads —in addition to clomping through a cemetery. While the ad’s message may be factually truthful, it implies things that aren’t true.
It implies that Franks knowingly held money back from Hurricane Katrina victims. That’s a ridiculous notion after you consider that it was nearly a year later when Katrina struck.
Franks’ opponent, Republican Phil Bryant, the state’s current state auditor, can distance himself from the issue. You often see such attack ads, but they rarely have the name of the challenger attached.
In this case, the ad was credited to: Paid for by the Republican State Leadership Committee Mississippi PAC.
Such near deception is commonplace as Tuesday’s election nears.
But it’s always burned me up.
Jamie Franks came by our office this week as he toured through this part of the state.
He didn’t appear to have horns coming out of his head, as such negative attack ads might indicate. And he didn’t seem like the kind of guy who would tax me when I’m dead.
But such shenanigans aren’t unique to the lieutenant governor’s race.
The race for central district transportation commissioner has been peppered with accusations about the incumbent’s wasteful spending — allegedly buying a helicopter for his own use.
In another ad, Commissioner Dick Hall flat denies the copter caper.
Ads on behalf of Attorney General Jim Hood poke fun at his challenger’s record as being a lawyer that “only handled pig and cow cases.”
The crap the candidates spew on TV — and that’s exactly what most of it is — is shameful.
But we don’t need a guy in a cheap, black suit slinking through a cemetery to tell us that.
Perhaps the other truly amazing statistic is the amount of money candidates raise in an effort to win an office. In the lieutenant governor’s race alone, the pair of challengers reportedly has raised a combined $3.2 million — for a position that pays $60,000 in annual salary. That boggles my mind.
Imagine what $3.2 million could do for the state’s improvement?
It’s time we bury this kind of campaigning and get to discussing real issues, rather than trying to spin a tiny truth into a huge issue with a massive price tag.
Kevin Cooper is publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com.
Comments
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Kevin, but these kind of political ads are not going away any time soon (unfortunately). What we do need is a law requireing "truth in advertising". A political commercial should not be allowed to run without the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But in order to have that done, a law must be passed and since the ones running these stupid ads are the lawmakers, I guess that type of law is out of the question. Can I market a product I created, let's say...a magic wand made of a special wood. I make claims that waving this wand around your feet would make your calluses go away. We all know there is no truth is such. So why should these daggum politicians be allowed to "wave their wand" around? It just dosn't make any sense.
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 2:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kevin, you used two phrases in your article that makes me wonder exactly what you were saying. You said that "while the ad's message is factually true.." and then you said, "spin a tiny truth into a giant issue". This sounds like the ad is telling the truth, but using a macabre way of telling it and using an old economic article to illustrate it.
The way I understand the death tax is this. A person works hard and makes money. They die and the tax comes in and takes a large part of what they wanted to leave to their loved ones and gives it to bums who don't work at all.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG, frogprincess!
Kevin, is that true? Can you tell us about the death tax?
Great article, by the way.
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I understand the economy, the 3.2 mil that was raised has been or will be used to pay for ads in papers such as the ND, television ads, sign and billboard companies, pollsters, lawyers, office personel, and refreshments for the many volunteers used in the campaign. In other words, it begins the trickle down cycle on which our economy is based. It turns over in grocery stores, service stations, doctor offices, school fees, etc. Putting that kind of money in the coffers of the state, where many will try to put it into give-away programs for their voter base, would not benefit Joe the Worker as much.
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NtzMom55, you made a posting on Nov. 2 at 9:33p.m. about Alexander Tyler. You need to stick it here also. Very good.
Posted by supertrucker47 (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
KEVIN GET A GRIP MAN.POLITICS IS A DIRTY GAME.EVERY ELECTION IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE LAST ONE.MUD SLINGING,AND RUMORS ALWAYS TAKE PLACE.WHY DONT YOU RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE KEVIN IF YOU HAVE A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE CAMPAINES????YOU SEEM TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS ON CERTAIN POLITICAL ISSUES.YOU SOUND LIKE A POLITICIAN.COME OUT OF THE CLOSET MY FRIEND.ALL YOU CAN DO HERE KEVIN IS PERMOTE POLTICAL DIRT AND MUD SLINGING.GET ON THE CAMPAINE TRIAL MAN.MAYBE YOU SHOULD RUN FOR MAYOR??IM SURE YOU WOULDNT TARE DOWN HISTORICAL LANDMARKS AND DO AS THE PILGRAMIGE GARDEN CLUB TELLS YOU TO WOULD YOU????WOULD YOU BRING JOBS TO NATCHEZ?EVERY MAYOR AND EVERY SHERIFF AND EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS SAID THEY WOULD BRING JOBS TO NATCHEZ.THEY ALL LIED DIDNT THEY.THE ONLY THING THEY CARE ABOUT IS TOURISM BOTTOM LINE.NO I DONT THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA YOU RUN FOR OFFICE KEVIN.YOU LIE TO MUCH TO.OR SHOULD I SAY,YOU PRINT TO MANY LIES.BUT THATS WHAT A POLTICIAN DOES ISNT IT???YOU DECIDE!
Posted by Crazynms (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
stuportrucker, do argue with everyone on everything? Man, learn how to use your keyboard before jumping into politics. It is called a Caps Lock button, use it!
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on November 4, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
frogprincenessntz: Thank you for requesting one of my previous posts to be posted again. Here is the post I placed on Nov. 2nd. I truly believe that everyone needs to read this carefully and heed the warning:
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new Constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.
I believe we are somewhere between complacency to apathy (#6 from the list above) because some forty percent of the nation's population has already reached the "governmental dependency" phase. I stated earlier on a recent post from a different article that it was not a good thing to have health care provided by the government. This explains why I feel the way I do about the government taking over our lives, one person at a time.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. Not a happy thought. Help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
The bottom line is, everyone should exercise their given right and obligation to cast their single vote in the next election because one vote at a time adds up to millions and would insure that we continue to live in a free and prosperous U.S. of A.!!!! May God continue to bless America.
Posted by brynhilde (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to correct frog princess and all the others who do not understand the "death tax". It does not mean that if you die your spouse will be burdened with a tax. This "inheritance tax" applies only to the very, very, very wealthy who can afford it. It recirrulates wealth and supports the very programs that many folks in natchez count on. If one inheritates a billion dollars i doubt that one million would be missed. In fact, the bums that don't work are the very ones paying the tax. Only the very, very, very wealthy want this gone. Why anyone not required to pay it but reaps benefits from it would be against it is beyond me. But i'm sure Paris Hilton could use a new pair of Ferragamo shoes more than your child needs a year of schip coverage.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Other than income tax and property tax the middle class dodge the other taxes. Politicians scare us with the rest to protect the wealthy. Corporate taxes, you will loose your job, inheritance tax you will loose everything your family worked for. Import taxes you won't be able to afford that new TV. Sometimes it is difficult to understand who will be hit with new or increased taxes. I know I pay more than my fair share, I only wish it benefitted the citizens of Mississippi and the U.S.A.
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With so many taxes, maybe it's time for some good old fashioned Boston style tea party in the Mississippi River.
I'm sure someone will try and "tax" my comment on this post.
Posted by Modiemas (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SuperTrucker say's, EVERY SHERIFF AND EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL HAS SAID THEY WOULD BRING JOBS TO NATCHEZ.THEY ALL LIED DIDNT THEY.
Modiemas say's, SuperTrucker, you should come by the restaurant one day. I would love to meet the area's "Village Idiot" and offer you/him a one way ticket on a slow boat to China.
Modie Mascagni
Piggly Wiggly Parking Lot
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lol..... Weren't we all wondering where supertrucker had went to??? WHAT the heck were we thinking????? He makes my head hurt...
Posted by xenon314 (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ahhh...supertrucker. You're back! I'd thought we'd seen the last of you...but to paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of your death were greatly exaggerated! How I've missed the "shouting" in all caps, the randomness of your musings, the conspiracy theories...the only surprise is that you didn't manage to fit Binkey into your post.
Welcome back!
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somebody, please, stop him...... lol
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love Modie's remarks. HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!! Hope you join our "family". I look forward to more you have to say!!!! By the way, your lasagna is OUT OF THIS WORLD.
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hummmmm... I wanta TRY your lasagne...
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the post by NtzMom55 on Nov 4 @ 4:39pm
Redistribution of wealth will rapidly take you to where Russia is today. The free market system or capitalism is one of the reasons we Americans can enjoy our level of choices, instead of having to work where we are told to work, live in housing, not owned by us, where we are told to live, and eat the bare basics if we can get it.
Thinking it is ok to take others wealth just because they have alot of it, is called greed and envy.
Posted by CitizenSane (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This editorial was about mud-slinging political ads, but the comments reveal that very few people understand the so-called "death tax," so I thought I'd post a couple of links for interested folks to check out.
Here's an easy overview from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_....
The Estate Tax has been around since the early 1900s. As mentioned in one post above, it really only affects the wealthiest of the wealthy. An entire body of law has grown up around the Estate Tax in the past century and it is the basis for many charitable gifts to non-profit organizations.
Basically, if you are extremely wealthy, a certain portion of your estate will be paid to Uncle Sam in estate taxes UNLESS you give it away to the charities of your choice via your will.
In the 1990s, some very smart and wealthy people who oppose the Estate Tax began a campaign against it and started referring to it as the "death tax" because the terminology used in discussing a political issue affects popular opinion.
Today, supposedly 70+% of us oppose the Estate Tax (called Death Tax by opponents) though very few of us even remotely understand what it is or how it works or who it benefits.
Here's a slanted website pointing out reasons to oppose the Estate Tax: http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/faq.htm...
Here's an opposite point of view from the Christian Science Monitor that claims that the repeal of the Estate Tax would be a huge plus for the idle rich, return us to the class structure of the gilded age, and cost the US Treasury $1 TRILLION dollars. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0612/p17s0...
Before deciding that the Estate Tax is based on the greed and envy of the US Government, as posted above, remember that many of the wealthiest of the wealthy have earned their wealth and power on the backs of less fortunate citizens by not paying a living wage, not providing benefits or by destoying our natural resources or polluting the air that we breathe.
In some instances, the path to success and great wealth is a ruthless one.
The Estate Tax gives these individuals an opportunity to "give back."
That's one way of looking at it.
Posted by brynhilde (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Froggie, read a history book. wealth being controlled by a few is how the romanovs got shot in the basement. Free market and corporatism are not the same thing. Free market is good for the population. Corporatism is not. An inheritance tax promotes the recirculation of wealth not redistribution. wealth controlled by a few is not free market it is corporatism. and then these idiots that inheritate this money without a tax get bored and cause problems. i.e. king george 43.
good article kevin.
Posted by scarlettohara (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Xenon,
Now this is TWICE that I've had to respond to you in one day...But I had to! I laughed out loud (and I needed a laugh) at your "welcome back" message to Supertrucker!:-)
I too thought we had seen the last of this charming wordsmith, and was puzzled as to why no one had yet mentioned his return. Now, I'll have to check more regularly to get my jollies!!
P.S. to Modie....I scrolled back up and saw your "hello" to S.T. You gave me a giggle, as well!
Thanks guys!!
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not tax the dead? Some of them are still voting!
Posted by natchez1 (anonymous) on November 6, 2007 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The estate tax can hurt small businesses and farmers, The estate tax only comes in to effect at estates over a million plus -- this sounds like you are rich but if you own a family farm that has lots of acres it can be worth millions but to have the cash on hand to pay the "death tax" often means selling off of land to pay the taxes. This makes the farm less viable and leads to less family owned farms.
The estate tax also harms small businesses for the same reasons. I know there are ways of avoiding the tax and these are normally used by the super-rich not the people who really need the break.
In regards to the Ad - it was not the best way of highlighting this problem.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)