logo
Is this:

a negative ad? The Globe says yes.

Republican Scott Brown fired back today at his rival's first negative ad of the campaign for US Senate, releasing his own television spot that blasts Democrat Martha Coakley for ducking issues and going on the attack.

"By now, you've probably seen the negative ads launched by Martha Coakley and her supporters," Brown says as he stands in a kitchen during the 30-second ad. "Instead of discussing issues like health care and jobs, they decided the best way to stop me is to tear me down."

[...]

In Brown's ad, the camera lingers on a photograph of Coakley with two fellow Democrats: Governor Deval Patrick, who has struggled in recent public opinion polls; and former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who is fighting federal corruptions charges.

"The old way of doing things won’t work anymore," Browns says in the ad. "Their attack ads are wrong and go too far."

Brown looks into the camera and says, "I'm running in the name of every independent thinking voter to take on the political machine and their candidate. And with your help, I intend to win."

If the Globe is suggesting that the choice to link Coakley to Governor Patrick and House Speaker DiMasi is the negative part of the ad, I find that reasoning questionable. In comparison to the standard negative ad template in which one's opponent is depicted as possessing murderous intent toward puppies and kitties while citing some press report that confirms the opponent was in favor of resolution 4815162342 that denied funding to puppy and kitty rehabilitation shelters as part of the state's omnibus spending act of June 2006, Brown's ad is weak tea. He mentions that he was attacked. Tells the viewer the old ways of attack and tearing down don't work anymore and then affirms that he is in it to win it. The anti-puppy and kitty ratio is way, way off.

Also no mention that Martha Coakley can't spell Massachusetts, which makes her uniquely unsuited to represent Massachusetts, which would have been awesome.