What do Chuck Norris and Santa have in common? If you ask Mitt Romney, he’d probably tell you that these two are both “good men.” [1]

Then he’d slam Santa on raising taxes.

Okay, so the second part hasn’t happened (yet), but after having the great privilege of watching all of frontrunners’ campaign ads for this year’s upcoming presidential election, I’ve noticed some recurring themes for both sides of the political divide.

For instance, the Democratic candidates Barack Obama [2], Hillary Clinton [3], and John Edwards [4] mention the words “universal” and “health care” in one breath. Obama’s ad asserts that his mother, who passed away from cancer at 53 but “was more worried about her medical bills than getting well.” Hillary makes it clear she isn’t going down without a fight to protect the health of children, senior citizens, National Guardsmen, reservists, and of course, “You.” Edwards is the most ambitious of all: it is universal healthcare or bust by July 2009. There may be hope for the millions of uninsured people in the United States yet.

As for the economy, Edwards stands out in the sheer number of ads he has dedicated to the middle class but for not much else in this area. While Edwards proclaims again [5]and again [6]his dislike for corporations, lobbyists, and PACs and offers to throw the punches for the middle class, he doesn’t come across as visually appealing or convincing as Obama. This ad from Obama also discusses the “reigning in of lobbyists” but does so to thunderous applause and dramatic images of Americans [7]—an obvious contrast to the modest ad of Edwards’ talking head through a camera lens. Style points aren’t everything, but they certainly help to broaden a candidate’s appeal. (Humor helps too: do you know what presents [8]Hillary bought for Christmas? Universal healthcare apparently comes in pretty box.) That is not to say the Democrats only focus on looking nice—there’s plenty of examples of real change [9] making it onto the airwaves, too.

Conservative candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani talk about raising taxes with as much fondness as slugs talk about salt—that is to say, hardly any. In tandem with the promise to bring taxes crashing down in the country is the adamant assertions by all four to stop the unwise and wasteful spending in Washington, D.C.

John McCain is the most caustic, as he comes out swinging against, of all things, Hillary Clinton’s supposed support for $1 million dollars [10] to fund a Woodstock museum, calling it “outrageous.” What I find the most disturbing is that McCain remains silent about the $456 billion needlessly squandered on the war in Iraq, money that could have gone towards more schools, elementary teachers, healthcare, Social Security. Taxpayers in Nevada, who are caucusing tomorrow, could have used the $4.1 billion [11] they paid in taxes for the Iraq War to provide 1,403,038 children with healthcare or give affordable housing to 21,813 residents.

Who is being “outrageous” now?

In contrast, Barack Obama is keen to stop sending out blank checks [12] for the “greatest foreign policy disaster in a generation.” Hillary Clinton is staying in touch by telling voters her ideas [13]to address the troubling economic landscape, like the current mortgage crisis. She pragmatically proposes to freeze foreclosures to help citizens regroup and to halt rising rates on adjustable-rate mortgages.

There seems to be no other economic selling point the conservatives can use except the “promise” to cut taxes. Giuliani and Romney have both proudly announced their willingness to use presidential veto (SCHIP, anyone?) should Congress try to increase taxes. The rhetoric culminates Romney saying “I like vetoes” [14] in his own campaign ad. He can’t wait to veto any budget over $300 billion. It is evident that conservatives are more comfortable with sticking blindly to an arbitrary number than what economic policies could help the American economy.

A quick note on attack ads: the ones already appearing on the conservative side should give the Democratic Party some rather ominous foreshadowing of to what lengths the right is willing to go.

Mitt broadcasts the “fact” that Hillary Clinton hasn’t run anything in her life [15] (he obviously missed the part where she ran a successful Senate campaign), and that she is out to learn to be president as an “internship.” It’s not just partisan bickering either—Romney has also gone after McCain as “not really listening to the American people.” [16] Such blatantly generalized and oftentimes inaccurate statements like these must be taken with not just a grain but an entire container’s worth of salt. There goes the slug theme again.

I’m curious to see how the candidates’ messages and ads will continue to evolve over the next couple of weeks.

Until then, I’m Tracy Huang, and I approve this message.