Ads Going Too Far

According to social etiquette, one should refrain from talking about politics and religion. Unfortunately, this blog post will be breaking that rule.

We are in the midst of election season for the 2012 presidential elections. In just a few short months, the United States will again decide who our next president is going to be. With this election fast approaching, candidates are doing everything they can to get noticed.

It is standard practice that politicians fight dirty. Each politician uses every misstep and skeleton of their fellow candidates against them in advertisements and debates to try to persuade the public to vote him or her.

I am sure that you are familiar with this type of slander, name-calling, and childish behavior that occurs every election season. Everyone is aware of (and begrudges) those annoying advertisements where one politician climbs on their soapbox and chastises their competition. They talk about how so and so voted against this and that, which proves they would be a lesser candidate. They are also concluded with "I approve this message" spoken by the candidate.

However, despite how annoying they may be, politicians stand by this tried and true method of campaigning.

This type of campaigning, while negative and unproductive, is expected. It has become tolerated and accepted in our current political arena, despite how foolish it makes every politician who participates in this type of campaigning.

Personally, I feel that calling out the faults of others makes the candidate look weaker. Why can't politicians focus on their strengths, and show us in a positive, constructive way why they are better than their opponents? Why do they need to sink to bullying, name-calling, and negativity? But, I digress.

Negativity and name-calling seem to be accepted in politics, despite how immature and weak it makes all those who partake in it look. At times, Washington looks more like a playground run amuck with children throwing temper-tantrums rather than the hub of political activity for the United States of America.

Some childish behavior and attacks of candidates is to be expected. However, in this current election season, this type of behavior has been taken a step too far.

In the DC Metro station, there is an ad that criticizes Obama's healthcare system. The advertisement is for a documentary entitled "Sick and Sicker: When the Government Becomes Your Doctor." While there is nothing wrong with advertising, it is the way in which the message is displayed that has many people in an uproar. The entire advertisement looks like this:

Regardless of your political or religious views, telling anyone to "go to hell", especially in such a public way, is uncalled for and hitting way below the belt. This type of language, sentiment, and allusion is really crossing a line, even for the less than unprofessional nature of political debates and elections.

Why did someone feel the need to go this route? Certainly they are getting attention, but not the type of attention they should be receiving. Instead of starting a discussion on the pros and cons of Obama's healthcare, making a clear point about the opinion of this healthcare, or generating excitement about the documentary, people are now focused on the crude, uncalled for remark made to Obama.

Even if you do not like Obama and are not planning on voting for him in the next election, there is no reason to tell him to "go to hell". This ad is entirely disrespectful of this nation's president. That is who he is, whether you agree with his policies or not, and to direct this message to our leader is anti-American. Besides, one would think that they could come up with a better argument with more eloquent language to get their point across without resorting to this type of insult.

It is one thing to point out the faults of candidates, such as their voting record or personal scandals. It is another thing entirely to attack someone for no real reason at all.

Despite how disrespectful the advertisement is, it does not look like it will be going anywhere anytime soon. The language is permitted within the accepted limits of American law and thus protected by the First Amendment.

The Metro authority had this to say about the issue: "WMATA advertising has been ruled by the courts as a public forum protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, and we may not decline ads based on their political content."

General Manager of the Metro, Richard Sarles, does not like the advertisement but due to the laws protecting it, cannot do anything to remove it. He stated that, “Like many of you, I am deeply offended by this ad and find it disrespectful to President Obama, and the nation." However, his hands are tied on the matter.

While the people that created this advertisement had every right legally to write what they did, I feel that they made an error in judgment. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should, and I think this sentiment is highlighted in the uproar over this controversial advertisement.