Certainly the presidential nominees are aware of the general consensus held against attack ads. Any reasonable person in the United States would say, if asked, that the political arena can be a vicious place and much of this viciousness is apparent in commercial television advertisements, regardless of party or person. This election season it is easy to find anecdotal evidence proving that the public is quite sick of any political advertising, negative or positive. Politicans still spends hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, however, and almost all of it are ads attacking the opposition.

Mitt Romney has a peculiar campaign ad running on YouTube and across the country. In it, he provides proof that Barack Obama uses deceit to shore up his own political advertising. “Barack Obama has a history of attacking his opponents with lies” its says, “and his attacks against Mitt Romney are simply not true.” Romney shows footage of Hillary Clinton also denegrating the use of attack ads, saying Obama spends millions of dollars on disparaging ads and that he should be ashamed of himself. There is a quote from the Washington Post saying, “on just about every level this ad is untrue.” Romney finds notoriously non-conservative sources to shore up his argument that Obama uses attack ads more frequently and in an abnormal manner.

The ad goes on to say Romney “has a plan to get America working.” This in and of itself implies that Obama does not have a plan. It goes on, quoting the Department of Labor Statistics that Obama has the worst job record since the Great Depression.

In a thirty second span, the Romeny advertisment criticizes Obama's use of attack advertising by attacking Obama for using it. Hillary Clinton is shown forcefully waving and pointing, saying, with much conviction, “So, shame on you Barack Obama”. Towards the end of the commercial, the Romney endorsed voiceover outright attacks Obama on his job stance. Under the guise of factual information, this ad shows that attack ads are the routine in contemporary television political campaigns. By showing Clinton and the Post (notorious liberal institutions) as having a bipartisan connection with Romney, the anti-mudslinging stance, Romney kills two birds with one stone: showing his ability to work in a bipartisan way against things he disagrees with and that he is “better” than Obama because he disagrees with political attack ads.

The Department of Labor Statistic he uses is meant to be proof that Romney knows better that Obama in terms of jobs for the American working class. Instead, this last bit of information only proves that Romney is not above also using disparaging remarks against his opponent. Instead of showing how bad the President is at something, if Romney were truly against attacking him, he would simpy show some idea he himself had to improve the job situation in the US. By adding this remark and statistic in the last ten seconds of the commercial, Romney seems to use that campaign tool which he initially has said was beneath him, the attack stance. However, if we analyze the commercial more thoroughly, it is the entire thirty seconds which is attacking the POTUS, even though Romney means to say he is above that common political tool, the attack ad.

As much as we, the people claim to hold certain beliefs and standards opposing using harsh criticism towards others, these ads would seem to show otherwise. Who wasn't taught in childhood that the way to "get ahead" was by proving yourself and earning respect, that those who put others' down in order to make themselves look better were bullies and therefore, underserving of any respectable position. Politicians use this money because the advertisements work. The commercial described above shows that these ideas are common knowledge, but the practice still remains the same. This ad is achingly transparent. Although Romney claims that he does not use the attack strategy, he is in fact using an attack against Obama. This is somewhat of a catch-22. If a politician goes on television to denounce the use of attack ads, is he, by default, criticizing all other politicians who have not made the same statement? Furthermore, these attitudes are only perpetuated by the greater society who can concurrently complain about attack ads and yet support the candidates who use them exclusively.