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!

[ntnychik]

Surprisingly sensible editorial from a liberal paper in upstate NY.

[LisaMalia]

Come on candidates, take the gloves off. Let's have a spirited exchange of views

I agree. I would LOVE to see President Bush in a FAIR, head to head debate with coward Kerry. Bring it on!!!!

[hole_n_one]

Could you please provide the name of the paper, and, if possible, a link to the article.

[ntnychik]

This is today's editorial in the Finger Lakes Times. It was not included in on-line version of the paper.

[cmsgop]

I read the "Toe Pond Tribune" myself, but.......

[Prince Caspian]

Democrats wouldn't complain so loudly about Bush "using 911 for political gain" if they weren't so afraid of the effectiveness of such a campaign. GOP needs to quit worrying about offending their opponents.

[hole_n_one]

Thanks!

[greasepaint]

The stupid party (Republicans) must stop
listening to people that will never vote for them.

[hole_n_one]

My paper today was printed in green ink.

[palmer]

Just remember that the liberals want a negative campaign so they can paint Kerry as deserving a sympathy vote. I listened to Kerry tonight and he comes off as very nerdy and could be easily painted as the underdog in a negative campaign. Furthermore his attacks against Bush while mostly based on lies, were abstract, confusing and self-contradictory. They will not really register as attacks while still doing their damage. Meanwhile his goons will be attacking in force.

So go negative, but be careful about it. Attack his liberal voting record for example, not his personal character, etc.

[Reactionary]

"Democrats wouldn't complain so loudly about Bush "using 911 for political gain" if they weren't so afraid of the effectiveness of such a campaign. GOP needs to quit worrying about offending their opponents."

Indeed. When the piggies squeal, you know you've hit a soft spot. Hit them harder.

[LisaMalia]

Just remember that the liberals want a negative campaign so they can paint Kerry as deserving a sympathy vote.

The Bush/Cheney campain is not negative. It's actually very positive. The mainstream media may try to spin it that way, but I am very proud of my president, and I hope he does everything possible to get the word out about the scum that is trying to run against him.

[SCHROLL]

There's no need for negativity when the truth's damning enough.

[MNJohnnie]

Just remember that the liberals want a negative campaign so they can paint Kerry as deserving a sympathy vote. I listened to Kerry tonight and he comes off as very nerdy and could be easily painted as the underdog in a negative campaign.

Nope. Every Kerry speech is a foaming at the mouth rant on a PERSONAL level about Bush. Given the completely negative campaign the Democrats are running, there is NO way to spin Kerry as a victim. They can try but the people are not going to buy it. CBS poll this week. 57% of the respondents felt the Kerry camps attacks on Bush were unfair and excessive. About 30% felt the Bush attacks were unfair to Kerry. The worse thing in the world would be for Bush to back off. He can put Kerry away by June if he defines Kerry NOW.

"Furthermore his attacks against Bush while mostly based on lies, were abstract, confusing and self-contradictory. They will not really register as attacks while still doing their damage. Meanwhile his goons will be attacking in force."

I disagree, I think the people just tone out most of what Kerry is saying. They expect candidates to attack each other but they see the difference between attacking Bush's Character vrs attacking Kerry's RECORD.

So go negative, but be careful about it. Attack his liberal voting record for example, not his personal character, etc.

OH I AGREE, I misunderstood you to be saying NOT to go negative at all. Kerry has a glass jaw politically. He is far too arrogant and pompous to roll with an opponent's punch. Attack him on his record or on his recent press statements and he loses it. The best example is his reaction to being asked tough questions by a voter at that Pennsylvania town hall. Here is a link to the latest Bush ad. I think we would agree this is just what the Bush people should be running? Especially in a State like WV that has 15% veteran population?

http://www.georgewbush.com/

[Common Tator]

Negative ads have only one purpose. That is to reduce the turnout of a candidates base.

Do you think that pointing out the shortcomings of kerry Will keep conservatives from Voting for Kerry?

Conservatives will not vote for Kerry no matter what.

Will negative ads cause the center to refuse to vote for kerry? Hardly.

The center votes on two factors. About half the independents vote for the man they like. How many times do they have to say they vote for the man and not the party, before we believe them. If they like the man, they vote for him. Running negative ads, mostly makes the independents think the side that ran them is unlikable. Negative ads are counter productive with the indpenedents.

the other half of the independents vote for the man who will do the most for them. If Kerry can be painted as a man who can not be believed, then it does not matter what Kerry promises.. they won't believe him.

If Bush wins the likability contest and kerry loses the I promise you contest, Bush has a lanslide victory.

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

[F.J. Mitchell]

The definition of "attack" covers a lot of paper in my Webster's Dictionary, but telling the truth is no where defined as "attack".

Only liars and their enabler's would ever refer to "truth" as negative.

To Kerry and his attack dogs: If the accusations fit, you really should quit.

[Viking2002]

'Going negative' - more Orwellian doublespeak. Since when is it 'negative' to point out absolute truths in your opponent's words and deeds?

[palmer]

The mainstream media may try to spin it that way

That's the crux of the problem, Bush has to overcome media spin getting his positive message out while they paint his campaign as a smear machine. I have also not seen the type of direct attack on Kerry's overall ultra-liberal voting record that I think it deserves.

[LisaMalia]

Negative ads have only one purpose. That is to reduce the turnout of a candidates base. Do you think that pointing out the shortcomings of kerry Will keep conservatives from Voting for Kerry?

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

[palmer]

Every Kerry speech is a foaming at the mouth rant on a PERSONAL level about Bush.

I listened to his reaired speech tonight on C-SPAN radio. There were no personal attacks. He did however try to mix praise for Madeline Albright and General S. with attacks on Bush's policy. You are right that most people would tune that out, it was very difficult for me to understand what he was actually attacking and mixing it with applause lines for A and S was tactless.

He is far too arrogant and pompous to roll with an opponent's punch.

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%.