HOW TO MAKE A TRUTHFUL ATTACK AD

I just read an analysis by CNN commentators about attack ads. They mention a few things that were misrepresented by some Romney ads. What would it take to make the ad's correct?

McCain Ad "Future"



CNN says "But the ad distorts the position of the Arizona Republican... McCain's compromise legislation introduced last summer... would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries and pay a fine for breaking the law before applying for legal status."

However, the Washington Post Saturday, May 14, 2005; Page A20, clearly states that the McCain and Kennedy bill, before the upheaval of last summer's changes, had a provision allowing illegals to stay in the U.S. If McCain and Kennedy made the original agreement - then McCain did push to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently! It was only AFTER other politicians stepped in that the "send everyone home first" was inserted.

The Washington Post says, "Most controversially... the bill allows illegal immigrants already here to regularize their status, but not easily; they would have to go to the end of the line, and that only after paying a hefty fine, staying employed for a prescribed period and paying back taxes. The bills' authors argue that this is not an amnesty, because it requires a recognition of wrongdoing."

How to correct the ad? Simply state McCain "championed" a bill to let every immigrant remain in the U.S. permanently. Oh, looks like they already did.



Either way you stack it, Howard Kurtz is wrong on this one. McCain did champion a bill and did push for legislation that originally allowed illegals to stay in the country, not to mention the bill currently allows illegals to accrue Social Security benefits while they are here illegally.

Huckabee Ad



Kurtz in this case points out, "Secretary of State Rice, however, did not call Huckabee's foreign policy "ludicrous." Rice was responding to Huckabee's criticism of the Bush administration for what he called an "arrogant bunker mentality" on world affairs in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine."

Technically, this is correct, but I for one construed her comments to mean Huckabee has a ludicrous grasp on foreign policy. Kurtz did forget to mention that the quote came from the Associated Press, and they are the ones that interpreted Condi's statement. USA Today has the conversation written out - in fact, what Condi really said about Huckabee is "And one [Huckabee] would only have to be not observing the facts... to say that this is now a go-it-alone foreign policy." Basically, Huckabee has no grasp on foreign policy, or in other words, his foreign policy is ludicrious!

Conclusion
Howard Kurtz' article is almost laughable when he says, "McCain is fighting back by using criticism of Romney from editorial writers, which has the effect of making him seem less negative." Did Kurtz even watch the ads? If you look closely you can see the source of the editorials that Romney is quoting against both McCain and Huckabee - so why is it that Romney's ads are attack ads, when they also rely on editorial writers?

So much for CNNs Reliable Sources host!