Rossi is still the smarmy character he was 4 years ago. I am not fooled, my wife isnot fooled, my 19 year old daughter is not fooled and my 88 year mother is not fooled. Four people who vote for Chris.

good morning again.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? how can you be so blind to the truth. look at the presidential negative adds. facts are obama has spent four times more money on negative adds yet the poles say the public thinks mccain has been more negative. ? WHAT? ??????????? i am dumbfounded.

You think you can change campaign laws? Politicians are allowed to outright lie in their ads, as ruled by the Supreme Court. They are protected by their free speech rights.

How on earth would we be able to stop them from "negative" ads???

Mike did you even read the report on that negative add report? Obama spent more money on ads as a whole with 60 percent of his ads negative and 40 percent positive while all 100 percent of the McCain ads were negative. Maybe iff you did more research you would not be so dumbfounded? As to the actual question asked to us all. Yes they do demean the offices that these persons are running for. Unfortunately for Rossi he is more guilty of running a Negative ad campaign and a Factually lacking one at that. On a side note in regard to his Casino ads. After being at below the poverty level for over a hundred years I'm all for them Keeping the money and using it to build their infrastructure. Let's let the build a decent school, hospital, and other necessities that the have been sorely needing and have not been provided. We nearly wiped out the native american culture. $400 million is the least we can let them have to rebuild it. we've Given other countries we've done far less too billions more than that.

Mike did you even read the report on that negative add report? Obama spent more money on ads as a whole with 60 percent of his ads negative and 40 percent positive while all 100 percent of the McCain ads were negative. Maybe iff you did more research you would not be so dumbfounded? As to the actual question asked to us all. Yes they do demean the offices that these persons are running for. Unfortunately for Rossi he is more guilty of running a Negative ad campaign and a Factually lacking one at that. On a side note in regard to his Casino ads. After being at below the poverty level for over a hundred years I'm all for them Keeping the money and using it to build their infrastructure. Let's let the build a decent school, hospital, and other necessities that the have been sorely needing and have not been provided. We nearly wiped out the native american culture. $400 million is the least we can let them have to rebuild it. we've Given other countries we've done far less too billions more than that.

Mike, Unfortunately you are an example of people who do not know what they are talking about. You make statemnets without knowing or caring to know the facts. Obama did not spend 4 times as much money on NEGATIVE ADS. Please educate yourself before you make any more FALSE statements.

So how do you feel about these ads? I hate them and ignore them at all costs.
Do they demean the office the candidates seek? Yes they do.
Is it time to limit the amount of negative campaigning by changing election laws? YES please do.
It takes too much energy for an EDUCATED voter to really figure out if the ad has any truth to it. You spend a lot of time researching who is lying so you can cast an educated vote. Unless of course you are one of these people that vote party line no matter what. Which is crazy to begin with.........It is way too easy for this type of voter to get caught up in the emotion of the spin and lies of the ads. Which in turn just spits more negative energy into our world. The whole thing is really very sad

FYI, an independant company that keeps track of negative reporting by the media, has reported recently that during this presidental campaign the news media has reported negatively towards the McCain campaign 57% of the time, and for the Obama campaign there has been negative reporting 29% of the time. Gee, this is a little lopsided isn't it, but not surprising.

One result of all the negative ads is that I voted as soon as I got my absentee ballot. Call it peace of mind but I can shut out the ads much better now.

Here's the link to that anlaysis that Ruth refers to: http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

There is a lot more nuance to it than Ruth suggests.

Having been subjected to weeks of political ads with charges and counter-charges ad nauseum, here is my question: If a candidate is trying to sell me his product, and persuade me with his information, why do truth in advertising laws not apply? They lie, they lie, they lie -- in print, on the air, in the voter's pamphlet, and no one holds them accountable. It is hard enough for the voter to make an intelligent, responsible choice based on very little information, without half that information being false! But the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth be damned if there's a way to deliberately deceive the voters.

KING wouldn't knowingly advertise fraudulent products, nor would any responsible newspaper. So why not refuse any ad that can't be supported on a "whole truth" basis (burden on advertiser)? If they scream about their first amendment right to lie, simply follow each ad with a brief "whole truth" rebuttal from KING. Get the other stations to join in, and the problem would clean up in a hurry. Maybe even find some ad agencies and production facilities with the integrity to refuse to produce lies. KING could lead the way in being part of the solution.

Or we can carry on as usual until there is not a shred of faith in the election process left.

I would love to see a line at the bottom of each of the commercial spots that say how much each of the spots cost. "The DNC paid $573 for this advertisement." That would give the viewers a real feel for the amount of money the different sides are happy to spend to grind their negative messages into your heads.

KING, and the other affiliates, make a pantload of money from all of the crap that we have to put up with. I know that KING/KONG/KIRO/KOMO don't care about losing viewers, but when my DishNetwork subscription runs out in January, I done with it. They have allowed their viewers to be pounded with this crap since JUNE. After all, in January we will already be three months into the 2010/2012 campaign! No more.

Is the "negative" claim/information
in an ad true? And, is it relevant?
For that matter, is ANY information
in ANY ad true and relevant?

If not, or if it can't be verified,
I forget about it.

I want the whole truth, or as much
of it as possible, whether "negative"
or "positive."

I am so tired of hearing the he said she said blah blah blah, always about slinging mud at each other, why not get down to the issues at hand, how each individual cndidate will deal with them and what thier planned fixes are and how they will work (are they really executable) then people coould decide better. Just saying, I will reduce taxes, is political BS, all candidadtes say that... jeez come up with something new! we have alot of problems and no one to fix em, it's all just crisis management, day to day.

I am also tired of the naysayers in the media, like KOMO news, Ken Schram, what a bitter, bitter man. I no longer listen to KOMO because of him. I will pray for him though.

I have to echo the sentiments of many above. The only thing negative ad campaigns have done for me is make me change the channel each time I hear one. I did go and check the facts on one ad though; the one regarding claims that Marcy Burner misled people on her educational background. Clearly the ad has been spliced together to have her say, "...from Harvard" regarding the study of Economics and a degree. It shows that candidates cannot merely stand on their own virtues and campaign promises, track records and plans to get the vote. Do they seriously think that trashing an apponent puts them in a good light? It does not with me or others around me. We are tired of negative ads. As a matter of fact, it would be refreshing to have no ads for a solid week before the elections to clear our heads and decide for ourselves who we will vote for. Enough slamming and spamming.

Nothing but the facts, including past experiences, and qualifications of any canidate should be shown on T.V. ads. With a oversight committee monitoring the whole process from beggining to end.

Nothing but the facts, including past experiences, and qualifications of any canidate should be shown on T.V. ads. With a oversight committee monitoring the whole process from beggining to end.

What is most disappointing is all the negative
adds that attact a person personally instead of addressing the real issues they stand for.
Everyone keeps urging people to vote, but if it all becomes too negative more like smear campaigns then I fear it will actually turn people off and away from voting. I will vote, but I am getting to the point where it's like watching kids fighting. If you can't determine who to really believe both get disciplined. Well, here if it gets to the point where you can't tell the truth of the campaign through the personal smear campaign then neither get my vote.
Is that really what the politicians want? Maybe we should go back to talking about the issues at hand and make an intelligent decision based on the issues and leave the smearing behind.

Still be sure and vote. Your vote really does make a difference and you owe it to yourself to speak up!

It just seems like we have lost the focus on the issues and have turned to personal smear campaigns
to the point where a person can become so tired and sick of it all that you really don't wish to vote for any of them. I would love to go back to the way it used to be where the candidate sticks to the issues they are for and against. It is ok to speak up against your opponent based on the issues at hand. You can disagree or even prove that person wrong on the issue at hand, but let;s stay to that and not stoop to attacking a person or candidate personally. I think most voters are fed up with that kind of add. We tell our children not to call names and that's what's going on. Even they can see it when they are watching too and ask, Daddy, why are those people calling each other names?

Go vote anyway. Let's vote against negative ads.