Your Voice: Ron Paul's Rise and Negative Ads

With Iowa voters ready to cast votes in the statewide caucus on Tuesday, we asked our team of pundits to weigh in on the latest from Corn Country. In the last two weeks, Texas Congressman Ron Paul rose to the top or near the top in polls. Not coincidentally, Newt Gingrich, who received a significant bounce in November and early December, saw his numbers plummet. Gingrich’s fall came largely as a result of blistering attack ads run by the Paul campaign. Now, Ron Paul finds himself on the receiving end of such ads.

So, we asked our team about Ron Paul’s staying power and the effectiveness of negative ads. This week, they’re joined by Karen Martin, one of the leaders of the Spartanburg Tea Party.

We’ll start off with Karen. You can follow her on Twitter @karmartin.

On Ron Paul:

I think the Iowa surge for Paul is largely made up of independents and college kids. Less independents in Very Red SC, and colleges here in SC tend to be more traditional/conservative than those in Iowa, not so prone to be attracted to a libertarian (legalize drugs etc.) so less surge in SC. For that reason he will not sustain. The GOP will be horrified and embarrassed after Iowa if Paul does well, and he will be brought down, instead of being tolerated as he has been so far.

On negative advertising:

I think the definition of attack ads, and the slinging of that term as with many in politics vague and cliché.  An “attack ad” that merely points out factually a candidate’s record is not an attack ad. Of course many are not factual.

I scoff at all the people who say they do not like attack ads. Unless they are obviously lies (which reflect poorly on the attacker, or repetitively boring, or aimed at your candidate, human nature being what it is, people want to see the other guy skewered.  We’re a competitive nation. And politics is a fight.

The thing I don’t like about attack ads is their implication that Americans are stupid enough to believe the skewed attacks. The other thing I don’t like is that Americans ARE that stupid.

--------------------

Next is Bill Pomeroy. Earlier in the campaign season Bill gave some great insights for us on video. You can watch it .

On Ron Paul:

The pendulum continues to swing in the GOP prelims. Ron Paul's financial philosophy can and has touched many Americans that know our country is in an extremely bad financial situation. I cannot agree with Paul on his foreign affairs views. Eventually the voter will have to make a decision on what criteria they are willing to "compromise on" with the GOP nominee. All Ron Paul supporters are staunch supporters!

On negative advertising:

I believe negative ads hurt in the long run, but certainly get the attention in the short run. Conservatives have to be in this for the long haul.

-------------------

Following Bill is James Akers, a realtor with the Marchant Company in Greenville. You can follow James on Twitter @jamesakersjr:

On Ron Paul:

Ron Paul says a lot of things that people like, the problem is the other 15% of what he says. He will not be able to sustain his rise, mainly because he is carrying an "opposed" rating of over 40% in one of the polls. His core group of supports are very vocal, but, to be honest, he scares a lot of people. 

On negative advertising:

Attack ads work. People say they hate them, but they raise enough questions normally to hurt a candidate. I think attack ads are important... as long as they are honest. You can call them attack ads, but if they are factually accurate in pointing out a candidate’s previous views, thoughts or words, then the voters need to hear or see them. 

--------------------

Finally we hear from Jane Kizer, who closely follows all things political at the local and national level. You can follow Jane on Twitter @JaneKizer:

On Ron Paul:

Ron Paul's surge is likely because of him being the next in line after so many other candidates have been at the top and fallen. His ideas to fix the fed might inspire some but his anti-war and isolationist ideas will bring people back to reality. Leaving everyone else in the world alone and hoping they will do the same just isn't practical. 

On negative advertising:

The negative ads are disliked by a lot of voters. I think it is important to tell voters about candidates' past stances because no candidate will come out and tell you themselves. But the facts need to be truthful and unslanted. If the purpose of the ads were to educate the public instead of cutting someone at the top, the ads would look quite different. 

What do you think? Chime in in our comment section below.