CBS's Schieffer Naively Suggests Putting an End to Negative Ads
As he interviewed Iowa Republican Governor Terry Branstad on Monday's The Early Show on CBS, substitute co-anchor Bob Schieffer naively wondered why someone does not act to put an end to negative ads in political campaigns.
After Branstad recounted negative ads that attacked him during his last campaign, Schieffer asked, "Why doesn't somebody change it? I mean, why do you stand for letting this kind of thing go on, these kind of ads?"
When the Iowa governor pointed out that the Supreme Court has ruled that such ads are legal, the CBS anchor continued:
You know, my mother used to say, "Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong." Why don't people just stand up and say, "We're not going to do this anymore. I don't care what the Supreme Court says"?
Below is video of the relevant portion of the Monday, January 2, The Early Show on CBS:
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Just what we need more regulations /sarc
Submitted by dasher on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:13pm.
One mans negative ad is another's info commercial. Who shall be the arbiter of what is negative?
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:55pm.
Not only is Schieffer absurdly naive for a man his age, he's part of the problem. I can't think of an interview he's conducted of a Republican that isn't accusatory in tone if not language. He's antagonistic, even hostile, and this qualifies him as a negative ad.
Its OK, we just let the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 7:52am.
Its OK, we just let the government be the arbiter as is right and natural.
Already Bob?
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:15pm.
We all know the scenario
1:Barack Obama did this, that, and the other thing, and this is why those things are bad for America:
Hostile, negative, attack ad
2:(unnamed Republican)Is a complete shithead that kicks puppies, wants babies to starve, and will throw Gramma out in the street:
Substantive issues oriented ad
Without Negative Ads...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:24pm.
...The "Teleprompter In Chief" has nothing to run on...
Doesn't this senile old bed wetting liberal Schieffer realize...
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 4:41pm.
... that an end to negative ads would mean his hero Obama would have no ads to run for the 2012 election?
Let's put an end to lying
Submitted by Semus on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:04pm.
Let's put an end to lying left wing operatives, posing as News persons. To them morality, honesty, integrity are strange foreign things only useful as weapons to tear down or taunt, those who try to live by these values, and God help them if their foot slips or seems to slip. Conversely if those whose pockets these News persons live in lack these attributes facts are buried, blocked and bastardized later while even if the truth comes out it's too late, people won't care anymore. The damage is done in one case and averted in the other. It's unsophisticated to think morality, integrity and honesty were anything more than something to take advantage of if possible or disregard if necessary.
The Devil would consider the truth to be negative also.
CBS is one continuous
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:26pm.
CBS is one continuous negative attack ad against anything decent and anything American.
So, does this mean that
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:39pm.
So, does this mean that Schieffer is demanding an end to Bill Maher Show, MSNBC, John Stewart, Colbert, etc? LOL
"Something doesn't have to be
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 5:42pm.
"Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong." Why don't people just stand up and say, "We're not going to do this anymore. I don't care what the Supreme Court says"?
Am I reading this wrong or is she implying that because the Supreme found these types of ad to be protected speech under the 1st amendment that that in turn has 'compelled' people to create and run negative ads?
Or is she just saying that people simply shouldn't run negative ads?
If its the first choice, my response would simply be ....."If you are truly that f-ing stupid the only question I have is... how do you make it through breakfast without killing yourself with the grapefruit spoon?"
The second choice would illicit the following response..........."So let me get this straight..are you asking the Democrats to stop lying.....or are you asking the Republicans to stop telling the truth?
Lefty Schieffer
Submitted by Kleenex on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 6:33pm.
Bob actually means only getting rid of negative ads that republicans run. When Obama does it later this year he won't say a thing.
have these unbiased news guys
Submitted by gopsteve on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 7:02pm.
have these unbiased news guys ever used "negative," "nasty," or "fear-mongering" when referring to democrats' words?
HA HA HA!
I'd love anyone to ask the
Submitted by TE on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:42pm.
I'd love for anyone to ask the stupid, stupid, stupid leftist Bob Schieffer to demand that CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, HBO, Showtime, the New York Times-Democrat, the Washington Post-Democrat, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al Reuters, al Jazeera, al McClatchy, Time magazine, et al., stop producing and running their endless attack ads against Republicans, the rest of the pro-America community and the United States of America.
Face it--the republicans will
Submitted by FishFace222 on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:00pm.
Face it--the republicans will run negative ads against Obamma and my guess is they will be too effective for Shieffer's comfort.
Will he demand the president does it?
Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 8:44pm.
We are hearing that president Obama will run by bashing the Republican nominee and the GOP in general. Is he going to do it with positive ads? Somehow I doubt it, as I doubt he is going to run on his record.
CBS's Schieffer on Negative Democrat (Clinton) ads . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:27pm.
I'd be really surprised if Bob Schieffer cared much about negative ads a few years ago, and I doubt he'll be pounding on Obama to stop doing it next fall. This is pure and "temporary" bias on his part.
For fun, here's the "Young Turks," take on that ole Hillary Clinton - 'red phone' - ad:
Clinton Negative Ad Against Obama
(;~/ gary
Poor
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 9:54pm.
old, has been Schiffer is so worried about the up-coming election cycle, someone might say a negative word about his Messiha-in-chief. He wants all things negative stopped now if stated by Conservatives but, when radical libs start in about the Republican candidate, all will be just fine and dandy. His mother must have forgot to tell him to speak nice to all, not just democrats.
he wants Republicans to bring a knife to a gunfight
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:55pm.
They know what's coming and it ain't gonna be pretty. By the end of the election obama will look like a plucked chicken.
If the election is about obama, obama loses. If there are no negative ads it can't be about obama's failures. What the obamaphiles really want is for the election to be focused on is the future where each candidate can spin their own fairy tale about what they will do. This way obama can put his Lightworker supersuit back on and attempt to mesmerizes the gullible public once again.
Bull****
Submitted by nomodrive on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:27pm.
Bullying laws could be beefed up to include all politicians who are picked on for being useless pieces of s***! Why can't this be done?
He's only for eliminating "negative" ads from Republicans.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:41pm.
Sheepskin calls every Republican ad "negative" and every Democrat ad "honest". It's that kind of deluded, demented rhetoric that he knows as a journalistic malpractitioner.
Schieffer
Submitted by GigglingGoogler on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:42am.
I don't know about negativity, but how about some truth!!!
So does this mean you will
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:19am.
So does this mean you will NOT get on the "Romney/Newt/Santorum is a scary right winger" bandwagon?
Ronald Reagan
Look, if I was defending a
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:46am.
Look, if I was defending a President with the record Obama has, I would want an end to negative campaign ads too.
Bull
Submitted by jpalm32 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:50am.
Obama is going to get pounded! If he were ahead, they wouldn't care!
And Bob gets to decide
Submitted by ohio granny on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:05am.
Bob gets to decide what is negative. I am sure that will be impartial. NOT
negative ads
Submitted by angelann1 on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 7:33pm.
If you do away with the negative ads , the dems will have nothing to say !!!
This is where NEWT is just a
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:24pm.
This is where NEWT is just a TWIT along with the Democrats. An add that tells about the failings of the other side is what is called Negative. So what.
Newt has the problem of being paid off by Fannie, so he does not want it to be brought up. Tough S__t
The only thing that should be banned is false fact, and false opinion ads. Definition for false opinion ads -----> see Hard Ball with Chris Matthews