Go negative...please!

[ntnychik]

Go Negative...Please!

When did it become politically incorrect to correct your opponent's politics? Who decided that legitimate differences of opinion over issues could not be dealt with by, dare we say it, arguments?

For the sake of argument, our view is that the politically incorrect police have ordained that any attempt to point out a political opponent's shortcomings is viewed as "going negative"...a tactic that can't even be discussed in polite circles.

Imagine what the headlines would be after the first Lincoln-Douglas debate if they were held today: "Lincoln goes negative...candidate says Douglas not best man for presidency."

The first thing wrong with the preceding paragraph is that the Lincoln-Douglas debates would not be held today because their campaigns would be airing on television in ads.

It would be foolish to think that candidates' reliance on television ads for their campaigns will change anytime soon. So, we won't wish for that. But we have to question what is wrong with a television ad that challenges an opponent's stand on issues or his or her fitness to serve.

Take the current presidential campaign. President Bush launches his relatively benign ad campaign with images of 9/11. "Oh my!" detractors wail. "Bush is using images of 9/11 for political gain." Let's be realistic. Bush's presidency has been defined by 9/11. If he believes his performance in the post 9/11 world has been the right course of action, why can't he say that? If John Kerry believes otherwise, why can't he say that?

Instead, the first time a candidate challenges his opponent, it is viewed as going negative in attack ads. Kerry proclaims that he is braced for the Republican attack machine and their attack ads.

Frankly, armies attack. Thugs attack. Candidates who accuse their opponents of flip-flopping on issues or going to war on false pretenses are not attacking, they're asking voters to pick them because the other guy will do the wrong thing.

From mayors and town supervisors to senators and presidents, officeholders have to weather storms (some of their own creation). Not everyone will like what they are doing, and many are not shy about saying so. Candidates have to be able to stand up under pressure. Why not find out how they measure up with a spirited give-and-take on the issues?

Have you ever heard a candidate say: "My opponent is well-qualified, and I can't find a thing to say against him." What the candidate is thinking is this: "I can't believe this idiot is even in the race. He's wrong on the issues, and he's not nearly as good as I am."

Come on candidates, take the gloves off. Let's have a spirited exchange of views...the kind that takes place wherever people gather. Challenge each other. Let the voters know what disqualifies your opponent, as well as what qualifies you.

And may the best candidate win!

[maxwell]

Bwahaha... There was one clip of a Kerry rant that I saw or heard recently in which he was pontificating for the people about how the American people don't want a negative campaign, or some such dreck. First of all, how would Kerry know what the American people do or do not want? And secondly, am I the only person who sees how ludicrously hypocritical such a statement is, coming out of this man's mouth?

However: as far as I can tell, it wouldn't matter if the man ate little children for breakfast. There are a goodly number of folks in this country who 1) hate Bush and/or 2) are really stupid. That's where Kerry will get his votes...

While I am on the subject: I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE G-DBLESSED THING that Kerry will supposedly ACTUALLY DO if dumped into office. I've heard rants, raves, criticism, mudslinging, namecalling, taunts, wild accusations, and an awful lot of whining. Where is the plan? Where is Kerry's masterful proposition for dealing with "unemployment" or "obesity" or national security? Or: is he smart enough not to articulate the fact that yes, America, if you hire me, the first thing I WILL do is raise every single last one a yer taxes...

[maxwell]

bullied intellectual geek

Hawgwarsh. He's a pompous ass, and a Yankee to boot. No more in touch with America than Couric and Sarandon and Striesand et al.

[palmer]

That's true, but that's not the image he was trying to project in today's speech. I expect his true nature will be very hard for him to supress and he will probably flip-flop on strategy as well.

[maxwell]

Yeah... I have alot of inner rage about this Kerry thing, and it is only getting worse. Just hearing the man's name renders me spitting, anymore. This is gonna be one he!! of an election, especially if my personal predictions about a close race come true...

I better see about getting on some blood pressure meds or something...

[palmer]

If he keeps speaking like he did today, it will be a very close race. He came across as a liberal policy wonk who knows all about war from Vietnam (he mentioned a few times by the way). That image will be very attractive to liberals and the liberal media and could pick up some people in the middle if he promises them some bread and circuses.

As Common Tator said above, it all depends on whether he can overcome his natural lying instincts with help from the media. One example of a lie in today's speech: he talked about how he talked with some members of the armed forces (IIRC) and then quickly said, well I didn't talk with them, I read about them. It was absolutely amazing how easy and natural it was for him to lie.

[MNJohnnie]

"Bush needs to present Kerry as a man who cannot be believed. It that gets done, then Kerry is toast."

Which Bush can only do by running what is defined as Negative Ads. Bush has to run ads that spotlite Kerry in a Negative way. I think the problem here is we have too different understandings of Negative Ads. Too me calling Bush a liar who sent the troops into Iraq unprepared is a personal attack. Its an unsubstatiated accusation made wholly to attack the other candidate on a personal level. Pointing out that Kerry voted to send the troops to Iraq and then voted to cut off the funds needed to properly equip them is a Negative attack. It points out something negative about the candidate as opposed to something positive about the advertising candidate. The argument that Negative Advertising doesn't work is nonsense. Kerry went from 23% to 55% in one poll in 30 days solely on the basis
of negative attacks. Kerry has YET to make one positive speech or ad! His whole campaign is one of attacking Bush.
Even when he trys to say something positive it inveriably is something like "Well this administration wants to starve your kids but I will go to Washington and save you" Kerry starts even his positives off with a negative attack.

[MNJohnnie]

"That may gain him sympathy votes. He may try to portray himself as a bullied intellectual geek. Maybe shed a false tear or two. Remember that media will back up any such ploy 100%." Nope, not going to work in the least. Latest CBS poll shows 57% polled think Kerry's attacks on Bush are excessive and unfair. After spending the last 6 months tearing Bush a new one in every speech, Kerry is wholly incapable of NOW spinning himself as a victim. I am curious why you are so eager for Bush not to go negative? Could it have anything to do with your pro Kerry tag line? You really should change it to one that conforms with the Truth-in-Advetising laws. "Slogans, but No solutions" John Flip-Flop Kerry.

[Krodg]

Getting the truth out about Kerry is not, or should not be considered negative.

The act of getting the truth out may not be negative...but the truth itself certainly is!

[palmer]

Well if the satire of my tagline isn't obvious then maybe I should change it. Perhaps the problem is that I was quoting him almost verbatim so it might not appear to be satire. As for my negativity about negativity, we are all aware of the power of the liberal media, but not just how eager they are to make Bush lose. The lies they will spin about the "mean" Bush campaign are going to be astounding. Kerry won't need to spin himself as a victim when he will have so many people doing it for him. Also remember that Kerry spent the primaries tearing at Bush because that is what is required to get democratic votes in the primaries. But now it seems to me at least from yesterday's speech that he was taking a new tone.