By Michele Richinick

It is anything but fun when commercials continually pound my brain with the best cleaning product to relieve pet odors, the most sturdy paper towel brand (that can beat any test, really) or the healthiest cereal that can lower anyone’s cholesterol.
But most recently, the commercials that have forced me to close my eyes and increase the volume on my iPod  to a deafening level at the gym are the endless campaign advertisements that solely seek to attack opponents. For the past several weeks, every time I glance at a television, a candidate running for office in the Nov. 2 election is attacking the opponents, all of whom are just “totally unqualified,” “clueless” and “inexperienced,” apparently.

I never understood the effect of repeatedly attacking opponents in advertisements on the television and radio. Personally, I think having a series of ads only focused on bringing another person down doesn’t affect or change which individual will win my vote.
Commercials aggravate me anyway, and when they’re aimed at taking hits at another person, I simply want to gag. A dramatic narrator usually describes quotes from newspapers, often taken out of context, or stresses certain downfalls of a particular candidate. Can they ever just focus on the improvements the given candidate will contribute to the state?

Let’s face it:  There is always room for improvement in each elected position, no matter who currently holds the spot. With the state of the economy, I think it is safe to say most of the public doesn’t see the world through rose-colored glasses. We certainly don’t need Democratic candidate Gov. Deval Patrick lecturing us about how GOP candidate Charlie Baker and Independent candidate Timothy Cahill could potentially ruin the state, or vice versa.

Candidates across the nation spend millions of dollars on attack ads, attempting to persuade the public. I understand advertisements are a vital way for candidates to spread their ideals and messages, and they see attack ads as an effort to enhance their campaigns. But, enough already. Really.
Candidates in Tuesday’s election have fueled an environment for attack ads, specifically in Massachusetts. Most people watch television to relax and forget about worrisome topics, not to increase their stress levels about the current condition of the country.

On the other hand, not all campaign ads focus on the disapproval of opponents. I saw an older ad in which Patrick attempts to reassure the public that his administration “wants to keep moving forward.” Instead of attacking his opponents, he recognizes “these are tough times, and you’re having to make tough choices in your families.”

In one of his earlier campaign ads, Baker says, “We can change the status quo. And I have a plan to do it, and the will to make it happen.” Great. Now use that ability to alert the public of ways you can help the state. Not ways other candidates might harm it.
It’s good that the public is being exposed to the potential leaders of our state and country. Obviously candidates have disagreeing views from their opponents; otherwise, election competitors wouldn’t exist. But we don’t need endless attack ads to tell us that.

Voting is an important right each citizen of the United States should take seriously. And I think many people do. I understand campaign ads are a major factor in boosting support. But the endless attacks set a negative tone. It’s difficult to clear my mind when the attacks are clouding reality with endless lists of reasons one candidate could be worse than the others. Hopefully the day after elections will bring some relief.