As I watch the ever-growing number of political ads, I am having difficulty believing some of the messages. I’m not referring to any person, party or candidate, just making observations.
A person, claiming to be a schoolteacher, appears on TV and states that a candidate cut over $1 million from education funding and should not be supported because our schools can’t afford them.
A few days later, another person appears on the same TV channel saying she has 31 years experience as a schoolteacher. She states the same candidate (mentioned in the other ad), added a similar amount to the education budget and supported teachers’ retirement funding.
How can two different people make opposite claims and both be telling the truth?
What a poor example for students. How can they be expected to respect their teachers after seeing two people, claiming to be long-term educators, make such contradictory statements?
Other ads just don’t make sense. The one with the Koch brother’s truck spewing black smoke throughout a neighborhood is one. The camera shows the truck from the rear and it is so clean it appears to have just left the car wash. All that black smoke didn’t smear up the name on the back of the truck at all. The ad goes on to say the brothers that own the company that is contaminating our air are said to be contributing large sums toward the election of a candidate.
Let’s consider this; if trucks are leaving clouds of black smoke and soot behind them, why didn’t the Michigan Department of Transportation take them off the road and levy a big fine? Perhaps the owners of those trucks should spend their money repairing the trucks or paying the fines they must have received. The same brothers are claimed to have closed a plant up north that left 80 Michiganders without jobs and they are supporting China’s industry. These brothers cannot be very popular and it’s surprising anyone would want to mention them in an ad.
Another questionable ad is the person who is saving us money by letting his family pay for an ad for him. He wears a torn, tattered shirt and has holes in the soles of his shoes. We are asked to vote for him to represent us in the U.S. Senate. Why would we?
I don’t understand how people can run for a responsible position and let ads, using their names, air with such misconception. If a candidate, according to his family, won’t buy a new pair of shoes — what will he do when we need new weapons? Will he vote to pay our troops or will he claim he wants to save taxpayers money and deny his support.
As I see it, we have two, very qualified men seeking election to the same position in Huron County. There has been no name-calling, false claims or smears. It’s too bad they both can’t be elected.
Many of those seeking office claim they want to control tax increases. Are they the same candidates who plan to raise our sales tax 1 percent to repair roads? Who will control these substantial, additional funds? I still believe tolls or special license tags should be applied to fairly collect from those who tear up our roads.
Why advertise Pure Michigan as a destination for family vacationing and turn them away with higher taxation on all their needs.
The change to the limit of contributions as well as the limit of how many candidates one organization or individual can support has provided undue influence. I suppose for someone who wanted to buy a position, it would be a benefit, but it brings into question who owns the candidate?
Don’t spend all your contribution funds on this election, remember the big election, that does not appear to have any candidates for the top spot, is only two years away.