What is a "negative ad"?

Heath Haussamen has picked side on the issue of negative campaigning, link. To date no one on the backside has wondered; what is negative campaigning?

There is no comprehensive answer. The more people you ask,
the more opinions you will get, much like the word, ethical.

I once argued that we should not even try to compile a comprehensive definition of the word ethical; that we should satisfy ourselves instead with agreeing upon the most important few.

The most important ethic of course, is truthtelling.

The most important aspect of campaigning must also be truthtelling. Whatever else might constitute negative campaigning, any campaign ad that is untruthful is negative.

What is "truthful"? There is a mindset who will rush immediately to "the law" in order to define the term. It is precisely the wrong direction to look. The law is the lowest standard of conduct acceptable among civilized human beings, and not nearly a high enough standard to protect the public interests in government and politics.

In defining truthful, as reasonable a place to begin as any is
the standard we set for our children, link. It reads;

(Truthtelling) precludes all acts, including half-truths, out-of-context statements, and even silence, that are intended to create beliefs or leave impressions that are untrue or misleading. (emphasis added)

We are going to have to look to our guts in defining truthtelling. If in our guts, in our consciences, we feel that an ad or a campaign is manipulative; then we must follow our gut. We must act upon it.

We must hold accountable, those who have attempt to mislead us.

There an inexorable correlation between the honesty of a campaign ad and the honesty of the candidate who runs it.

Someone else first wrote; the best predictor of future performance is past performance.

If candidate will deliberately mislead you in order to get elected, why would you be surprised they would deliberately mislead you after they are elected?