Negative Attacks
2012-03-16 - by
Every day we move closer to the primary in May more punches and elbows are thrown by politicians.
Now, in politics there are three kinds of negative attacks.
There’s ‘The Blunder’ – this attack is so outrageous (and untrue) it backfires and destroys the attacker. People take one look at it and say, I don’t believe it – it’s a smear. Elizabeth Dole’s TV ad calling Kay Hagan an atheist is an example.
Next there’s the ‘Well, maybe’ ad – the ad people look at and say, ‘Well, that may be true. I’m not sure.’ What happens next (how the attacker answers the negative ad) determines the effectiveness of that kind of attack. Paul Coble’s attack on George Holding is an example. When Coble says Holding is the hand-picked candidate of liberals people say, That doesn’t sound right – but since Holding is a new face they add, But I’m not sure. Then they wait and see how Holding responds to make up their minds, and that determines whether the attack works or dies on the vine.
Finally, there’s the ‘It’s probably true’ attack – the attack where people are inclined to believe it’s true (whether it is or not). Here’s a recent example: Newt Gingrich had an affair. Newt Gingrich has been married three times. Newt Gingrich’s second wife says he wanted an open marriage. It may not be true. But it sounds true. And Newt better prove it’s not.
So, how does a candidate respond to each attack?
Well, if your opponent calls you an atheist you hardly have to respond at all. Just sit back and watch your opponent self destruct.
If you’ve got to answer a ‘Well, maybe’ attack, you have a lot of options. You can simply prove the attack’s untrue, then you can explain why your opponent launched a mudball (like, for instance, pointing out that he’s dropping in the polls).
Or you can respond by proving it’s not true then countering on another issue. You answer his attack, then move from defense to offense. George Holding did that in the Civitas Debate by pointing out Paul Coble had voted to give a low interest government loan to one of his contributors.
And of course, you can simply attack your opponent on a different issue completely. That’s called a diversion – you divert attention from his attack with an attack of your own on a different issue.
Either way, the bottom line on negative attacks is simple: If it’s on radio or TV, unless it’s ‘The Blunder,’ you’d better answer it – then counterattack.
Negative Attacks
2012-03-16/
Every day we move closer to the primary in May more punches and elbows are thrown by politicians.
Now, in politics there are three kinds of negative attacks.
There’s ‘The Blunder’ – this attack is so outrageous (and untrue) it backfires and destroys the attacker. People take one look at it and say, I don’t believe it – it’s a smear. Elizabeth Dole’s TV ad calling Kay Hagan an atheist is an example.
Next there’s the ‘Well, maybe’ ad – the ad people look at and say, ‘Well, that may be true. I’m not sure.’ What happens next (how the attacker answers the negative ad) determines the effectiveness of that kind of attack. Paul Coble’s attack on George Holding is an example. When Coble says Holding is the hand-picked candidate of liberals people say, That doesn’t sound right – but since Holding is a new face they add, But I’m not sure. Then they wait and see how Holding responds to make up their minds, and that determines whether the attack works or dies on the vine.
Finally, there’s the ‘It’s probably true’ attack – the attack where people are inclined to believe it’s true (whether it is or not). Here’s a recent example: Newt Gingrich had an affair. Newt Gingrich has been married three times. Newt Gingrich’s second wife says he wanted an open marriage. It may not be true. But it sounds true. And Newt better prove it’s not.
So, how does a candidate respond to each attack?
Well, if your opponent calls you an atheist you hardly have to respond at all. Just sit back and watch your opponent self destruct.
If you’ve got to answer a ‘Well, maybe’ attack, you have a lot of options. You can simply prove the attack’s untrue, then you can explain why your opponent launched a mudball (like, for instance, pointing out that he’s dropping in the polls).
Or you can respond by proving it’s not true then countering on another issue. You answer his attack, then move from defense to offense. George Holding did that in the Civitas Debate by pointing out Paul Coble had voted to give a low interest government loan to one of his contributors.
And of course, you can simply attack your opponent on a different issue completely. That’s called a diversion – you divert attention from his attack with an attack of your own on a different issue.
Either way, the bottom line on negative attacks is simple: If it’s on radio or TV, unless it’s ‘The Blunder,’ you’d better answer it – then counterattack.