Posted on 08/07/2008 11:25:11 AM PDT by Maelstorm
"And ultimately, the best corrective to overly negative campaigns are the American people, who are not interested in a lot of bickering, but are interested in who's got the best answers for the country."
I think everybody would agree to that last point.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Roger Wicker would be losing in Mississippi right now if he took this approach. He's not because of his substance and because he is fighting. If we were taking a more scorched earth approach more liberal Democrat incumbents would be in jeopardy right now. Durbin, Levin, Rockefeller, Reed all are far to the left of their constitutes. If letting the people know what Democrats want to do to them is negative then so be it. They want to raise taxes, they want to grow government, they want to satisfy environmental activists, they want to satisfy sexual activists and those goals are indeed negative. Letting the people know is not negative it is a public service.
Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game. The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone the player is in.
Example of use: Negative campaigning is perfectly fine, until that type of ad starts to hurt Obama. At such a point, a rule against negative campaigning will be issued by the media.
I am.
The American people adore bickering.
Mr. Broder thinks this is a “nasty” campaign? Well, he’s not as well informed as I thought he was.
He should take a look at what the Democratic press was calling Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 campaign. That rhetoric would revolt him.
Me too..Politics are soap operas sometimes IMO.
And there's the little problem of what's negative. Liberals think they never are negative, but they think conservatives who simply contrast their positions with the liberal positions of their opponent are being horribly negative.
Absolutely correct. This type of politics is about as American as it can get and it's been going on ever since people started bickering about that illegitimate child of Jefferson's. I really grow tired of the usual media whining about negative campaigning.
The left has never campaigned on issues.
Unless they made them up themselves (eg, healthcare crisis in 1992).
This notion of bypartianship is ridiculous.
Until the liberals believe in individual liberty and economic freedom, we should fight them tooth and nail. Whenever we reach ‘across the aisle’, we become ‘Bloody Stump Republicans’ because the leftists’ issues are not based in freedom!
The current display in the House is an example. Here we are practically on our knees begging our reps to ALLOW us to drill our own oil. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at the thought of the government having this much control over commerce!
The next republican he votes for will be the first.
Obama has also made overt references to McCain's age.
He KNOWS Americans love, love, love, bickering....battle....competitions...contests....and they love it..
Dems like Broder write this propaganda because libs HATE debate....there side cannot win without unfair advantage of the MSM.
Oh yeah, David Broder is a non-partisan political observer, just like Bill Schneider over at CNN. /s
Negative campaigning is more fun...and it works!
Thanks for your note.
Broder runs around bleating this same trope every election cycle. It’s nonsense. This is the tamest I’ve seen (so far).
If it’s the truth, it ain’t nasty.
The fallacy in the argument of people like Broder who don’t want “nasty” campaigns is obvious. The candidates themselves will NEVER!!! bring up their own failings, so it’s up to the opponents to point them out. Again this should be obvious to anyone with a scintilla of brainpower, but again the libs have a problem. Obama has so many negatives that they’re left with the strategy of hoping his opponent doesn’t point them out and accusing him of being nasty and deceitful when he does.
Good analogy. I think we saw the same thing when Hillary started gaining momentum in the later primaries. All of sudden, media polls were obsessed with which candidate's campaign tactics were viewed as "negative." Hillary's were, of course, but that stat had no correlation with actual votes.
I think everybody would agree to that last point.
I disagree, Texans LIKE mud-slinging campaigns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.