This ad is deceptive. There has to be a scope for political ads.

There are several aspects to these 'swiftboat type' ads that are deceptive advertising.


To begin, no one is asking Mitt Romney to disavow the hostile tone of the ad.  During the 2004 campaign, George W. Bush was asked to disavow the ads both in their tone and in the lack of factual content.  Bush won't do it and therefore provided permission for the viciousness of the campaign that attacked a Vietnam Veteran.  Simply providing ads that 'I approve this message," while interesting, isn't disavowing the other ads.


Secondly,  President Obama never made the statement the former Speaker would be his choice to run against.  Quite the opposite, President Obama stated he would expect all the debates be robust.  He never stated there would be one candidate or another he would prefer to run against.  That aspect of the ad is nothing but supposition and lies.  They aren't even legitimate suppositions if one understands the actual statements by President Obama.


Thirdly, these ads can't simply be ignored, but, they should be met by plenty of questions from the electorate as to the 'answers' the former Speaker made regarding these allegations.  The former Speaker answered all these allegations in the debates.  Debates which cost money as well.

The fact the ads don't include the answers to the allegations is deceptive and quite frankly immoral.  When the rebuttals provided by the former Speaker were disregarded as legitimate by the producers of these ads, it lead me to believe the rebuttals were more factual than the allegations.  In particular, in regard to $1.6 million from Freddie and Fannie, the former Speaker stated, "His corporation, which had three offices, received those monies and he did not."  If that is the case, then the former Speaker received a salary along with the rest of his staff.  I always thought Republicans applauded small businesses.  Additionally, if there is a corporation they could produce records to validate Mr. Gingrick's answers to the allegations.


I don't believe allegations should stand alone in political ads.  Anyone can do that.  The electorate needs answers, the truth and an understanding of whom they are voting for, not the most deceptive and wealthiest candidate among their choices.


I sincerely believe the FCC has a jurisdiction here along with assistance from the Justice Department.  It is the deception in advertising that is at question.  It is the tone of the deception that provides an 'adult - child' news feed of information in these ads.  These ads are a problem and I consider them to be corrupt.