I am happy that the election is over and for two years we will be free from the constant barrage of nasty, sometimes childish and largely useless campaign ads.
They are useless in convincing those of us who have already decided for whom we will vote, and I simply push the mute button or change the channel.
The ads are too short to really tell us who candidates are, what their backgrounds are, what they stand for, what they would do differently than their opponents, and, most important, how they intend to do it.
Focusing on how bad he thought his opponent was and telling us little about himself, as Mitt Romney did during the campaign, gave President Obama an advantage.
Because Obama was the incumbent, we knew a lot about his programs, who he is and what he stands for on many issues.
Romney, for me, was an unknown quality. All I knew about who he is was what the Obama ads told me.
Romney told us he would create 12 million jobs, yet his background was given as a corporate raider and a jobs outsourcer. This would be the wrong person to create jobs.
Basically, Romney’s focus on attacking his opponent gave his opponent the opportunity to define who Romney is, when Romney should have done that himself.
As the campaign went on and Romney’s supporters aired even nastier and more irrelevant ads, such as the National Rifle Association ads that claimed Obama was going to take away our guns, or the ads from the millionaire Hungarian immigrant suggesting that we will become like the Soviet Union, did little to help his cause because the focus was on unemployment.
Painting oneself as a true-blue extreme conservative or liberal doesn’t mean much to those who have lost their jobs or homes.
Letting your opponent define who you are if you are relatively unknown ignores the fact that given the choice between a candidate voters know versus one they know little about, they tend to choose the one they know.
I hope that this is the lesson that both parties learn when they analyze the results of this year’s election, resulting in more civil, more adult and more informative TV ads.
They could be a little longer but far fewer and less frequent.
More of us might actually listen to the ads in that case, rather than be annoyed, push the mute button or change the channel. They might actually be worth listening to.
Keary W. Crim
Stepping up ?for veterans
I would like to give special thanks to U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown and staff in Cleveland for helping me with my service-connected Veterans Affairs disability claim.
Everyone worked diligently for me and didn’t stop until I was awarded the benefits I had earned.
I would recommend any veteran seeking assistance with their VA claims to contact Brown’s office for help. If anyone has ever dealt with the VA , it’s deny, deny, until you die.
Brown has been working with the VA to streamline claims, taking months instead of years for approvals. He has also been working to raise benefits for Ohio veterans who, incidentally, rank 49th out of the 50 states in benefits paid.
Brown has done a great deal for the veterans in Ohio, and I applaud him for that.
I think the veterans of Ohio should be glad we have a senator who cares about them.
American Indians were offended by the Indian-style headdress which was being worn by one of the Victoria’s Secret models.
That is certainly their prerogative. The “headdress” will not appear in the show.
Well, as a Christian, I am offended by the “Angel Wings” which adorn the almost-nude Victoria’s Secret models.
But, oh, I forgot, Christians are the “last men standing” as the group people are permitted to offend.
That’s all right, we’ll pray for you.