You guys covered it well above, so there’s not much more to add.. The problem is that the average right-wing hard core partisan will never be able to make the distinction between “fact” and “fabrication”, nor will they ever concede that “nagative light sheding facts” are nothing like “viscious lies and distortions”.

To the ruling elite, it’s a game. And they intend to win. They don’t care about playing nice, or obeying rules. They just want to win. ….. which is why WE are supposed to be running the country. Instead, through their viscous games, they have wrested control away. … perhaps we’ll get it back.

Her husband was appointed to chair the Fed because he is a 100% republican.

Anyone who believes that Andrea is not 100% republican with a veneer of impartiality must also believe that James Carville and Mary Matalin are not the couple from hell! But then again, you may also believe that Joe Scarborough & Tom Brokaw are also impartial observers.

The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project classifies negative ads as any ads that attack the candidate’s opponent, whether they are true or false. In that context, you can’t deny “90%” is a negative ad, but as Slammy says, they don’t bother wondering whether the attacks are true or not. Declaring the truth or falsity of an ad’s content would inevitably end with the network being accused of bias.

However, this means any polling they do on what impact negative ads are having on the race is inherently skewed since they don’t make this distinction. I’d wager most of the people turned off by negative ads are voting for Obama, and see the adjective “negative” as used to describe libelous claims rather than just attack ads.

It’s also very telling that voting with your party’s leader is seen to be “remarkably negative”.