And I approve this message

O.K., grab your remotes. Put your fingers on the fast forward button. It's about to start. The flood of presidential political ads on television is beginning for real right now. And chances are it won't let up much for the next solid year.

Until recently, millionaire-Mitt aside, there haven't been many presidential TV ads outside of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani hasn't bought one second of TV time and he's the national GOP front-runner. But, of course, he had all that free TV time around 9/11 to build his image.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney had a lot of name recognition to assemble. So he has, spending more than $8.6 million on more than 11,000 ads in those three states. And guess what? He now leads in the first two voting states and is coming on strong in South Carolina where Massachusetts attitudes can seem very far away.

Do the ads work? One August poll of South Carolina Republicans by American Research Group found Romney at 9%. A month later after the former governor spent $350,000 on TV ads, Romney registered 17%. You can watch some of Romney's ads here on his website.

Barack Obama has spent $2.3 million on TV so far, Hillary Clinton $1 million less on her TV ads. Bill Richardson has invested about $2 million (you may recall his job interview ads). Here's his overwhelming video collection.

With little money to spend until recently, libertarian Ron Paul has counted on his Internet guerrilla troops, often over-zealous fans and boosters and on YouTube to get out his message of less government and no war. But with his recent record-breaking fundraising, he's looking to start a TV campaign in New Hampshire at least.

TNS Media Intelligence has done a study showing that more than $530 million has been spent on political and issue advertising this year with expenditures during the remaining weeks of 2007 expected to increase to $700 million as candidates start addressing other states, including the 20 that will vote on Feb. 5. TNS puts total TV spending next year between $2.5 billion and $3 billion.

Fred Thompson, who has a lot of ground to make up, has just gone up with his first TV ad, "Consistent Conservative," in Iowa and, nationally on the Fox News Channel. It's a combination biography-values ad that has good old Fred looking straight into the camera or showing quick views of Americana while the candidate, well, shucks, he just sort of talks about his career and longstanding conservative values. He even uses the name of the Almighty at one point. You can see it here.

Or maybe you'd rather wait and watch it on real TV. With 17 candidates still in the race, chances are we'll have ample opportunities in the coming months to see them over and over and over. For a fascinating sample of president campaign ads over the last nearly six decades, click here.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Robin]

Hmmm. Let me see if I've got this right:
You guys want me to check back on your blog frequently because you're adding new treasures at all hours of the day and night and you want me to read them.
But if I'm looking at blogs and articles about Ron Paul, I'm over-zealous?
You, as journalists, are up at all hours working on your blog and that's a good thing.
But if I, a Registered Nurse who works evening shifts, surf the net after work, I'm over-zealous?
Could you please do me a favor and define over-zealous?
At what point does being a supporter, a contributor, a concerned and informed voter, turn into being a zealot?
In the last few days, because I support Ron Paul, the media has labeled me: looney, over-zealous, noisy, a moonbat, a guerilla, etc.
I'm just an RN.
My husband is a Bronze Star, Purple Heart decorated Viet Nam Vet.
We're both getting tired of being attacked by the press.
Someday, I hope to find you at the end of my hypodermic needle - I plan to make sure it's dull, and injected slowly through that tough hide of yours.
(Just kidding - two wrongs don't make a right.)
Unlike you guys, I don't enjoy hurting people.

(Take a look through this or any other blog and see if you encounter the kind of vituperation, venom and veiled threats, masked as support for Dr. Paul, from those in favor of other candidates. Click on Ron Paul in the subject list to the right here and just read the comments. People see right through it. You've built a reputation and it hurts your man, no matter how many babies he kindly delivered.)

[Robin]

To whoever added the post in parenthesis to my comment above:
I sincerely apologize. Really. My remark, the attempt to "needle" you, was lame and rude, and I shouldn't have said it. I reacted in anger to being called a guerilla trooper in the article above. But my being tired of being called names is no excuse to be mean to you. I cannot speak for those others you mentioned who have commented elsewhere, but please know that I am sincerely sorry.

(Thank you. Your commitment to your candidate is admirable.)

[Tannim]

Don't sweat it, Robin. Dr. Paul's supporters are doing something that is anatheme to modern American politics--we get involved and stay involved, and we refuse to take the status quo's word for anything. That and the critics really can't address the issues he raises to rebut them because he is correct, and when they do they get their so-called logic totally destroyed in moments. We threaten their so-called superiority and stranglehold on information. They're running scared. They also have no idea what to make about Dr. Paul's campaign because there has never been anything like it before. When they get fearful and confused, they react by lashing out. I see it all the time all over the Web. It's the big difference between Dr. Paul's supporters and his detractors: positive knowledge and hope vs. negative ignorance and fear. Are we supporters superior to them? No. But we are two things they aren't: we're hopeful for the future with our candidate, and we are royally MAD at how things are goung and are motivated for real change. I have yet to see that from any other candidate's supporters. We also see detractors as being in bed with the problem, either accidentally or deliberately, and we don't like the garbage that is thrown at us just because we choose to support an honest man to lead us.
Now, let's see how long it takes for anti-Paulistas to jump on this truth and belittle it. It's truth because it hits them right in the nerves and they react. If it wasn't they wouldn't react, and we all know it.