Negative Campaigning

[Michael Z]

Every time I look at the discussions here it's basically Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans. How about this: you guys concentrate on what your party's doing right, and not what the other party's doing wrong, and what's more, you guys do it without resolving to childish name-calling and/or arguing over who's more/less patriotic. Deal?

[A18]

You obviously just aren't as patriotic as we are.

Damn Democrats...

[Patunia]

Every time I look at the discussions here it's basically Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans. How about this: you guys concentrate on what your party's doing right, and not what the other party's doing wrong, and what's more, you guys do it without resolving to childish name-calling and/or arguing over who's more/less patriotic. Deal?

Ok. I think it starts with Kerry having the balls to come out and denounce 527 gruops (which have spent so much more money on the left then the right its laughable) as Bush did. Next, Kerry can stop hiding from the media and come out and discuss his past actions concerning Viet Nam and not sling mud at those hes upset. Finally, how about the left addressing all the concerns raised in Zell Millers speech instead of trieng to attack his character?

Now you tell me what you think the right should do. I dont think you have anything though becuase this is just a smoke screen to try and hide the fact that you despise Kerry as well and only want him because hes not Bush.

[A18]

If a Republican senator showed up one day and ran for president against an incumbant, I would vote for him.

Unless he lied about his fellow soldiers, and unless he was opposing a war against terrorists. I honestly do not understand how anyone can vote for this guy.

[MODU]

With how diverse our nation has become, it seems that we've unfortunately settled on attack ads in order to make the candidate doing the attacking "better" for one reason or another.  Debates and ads on the actual issues and plans for the future don't show up until the last two months of the election cycle.  It is unfortunate, since I think months of public debates on it would give the voting population a better idea of whom they'd rather vote for.

[Patunia]

With how diverse our nation has become, it seems that we've unfortunately settled on attack ads in order to make the candidate doing the attacking "better" for one reason or another.  Debates and ads on the actual issues and plans for the future don't show up until the last two months of the election cycle.  It is unfortunate, since I think months of public debates on it would give the voting population a better idea of whom they'd rather vote for.

I would disagree. I think campaigns are the same now as they were 200 years ago. But 200 years ago slogans were far more imprtant, and the general populace probably knew very little about the person they were voting for. In todays world if people have no idea where people stand thats only because they choose to be ignorant. With all the sources of information available to each of us we all know where these guys stand months in advance of the election. The only thing to be decided is whether or not we can trust any given canidate when they promise what actions they will take once in office.

[A18]

I agree with you MODU, but the postitive ads are actually worse than the attack ads. They never contain any facts, they're just a candidate saying something or giving a speech...it's purely aimed at an emotional responder.

If candidates ran ads that actually attempted to make a point, then positive ads would be good.

Until then, keep the attacks coming. It's fun to watch.

[A18]

But the sad thing is, then they'd go up in the polls.

[Shira]

Unfortunately, a negative campaign is the most efficient one.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The Democrats' problem is that they aren't attacking Bush enough!  Where's the discussion of increased poverty, lower wages, and the administration's total inaction toward increased health care a tuition prices?  These are the issues affect our country far more than terrorism, and Bush has failed at every single one!  Yet the Democrats (or at least Kerry) seem unwilling to form a coherent attack against what should be an easy target.

[MODU]

You have to be coherent before forming a coherent attack.    

[Michael Z]

Every time I look at the discussions here it's basically Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans. How about this: you guys concentrate on what your party's doing right, and not what the other party's doing wrong, and what's more, you guys do it without resolving to childish name-calling and/or arguing over who's more/less patriotic. Deal?

Ok. I think it starts with Kerry having the balls to come out and denounce 527 gruops (which have spent so much more money on the left then the right its laughable) as Bush did. Next, Kerry can stop hiding from the media and come out and discuss his past actions concerning Viet Nam and not sling mud at those hes upset. Finally, how about the left addressing all the concerns raised in Zell Millers speech instead of trieng to attack his character?

Now you tell me what you think the right should do. I dont think you have anything though becuase this is just a smoke screen to try and hide the fact that you despise Kerry as well and only want him because hes not Bush.

Erm, no. I'm just sick of reading all this childish "My group is better than your group"-nonsense from both sides. This forum - which used to be a place where Republicans AND Democrats were able to have civil discussions without descending into partisan bickering - has deteriorated of late, and it's mainly because of people like you.

[English]

The thing I don't like are the personal attacks on someone's character. It's policies that are the important thing, not if someone smoked weed 30 years ago or had an affair with a teacher in 1975. What difference does it make?

[Patunia]

Every time I look at the discussions here it's basically Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans. How about this: you guys concentrate on what your party's doing right, and not what the other party's doing wrong, and what's more, you guys do it without resolving to childish name-calling and/or arguing over who's more/less patriotic. Deal?

Ok. I think it starts with Kerry having the balls to come out and denounce 527 gruops (which have spent so much more money on the left then the right its laughable) as Bush did. Next, Kerry can stop hiding from the media and come out and discuss his past actions concerning Viet Nam and not sling mud at those hes upset. Finally, how about the left addressing all the concerns raised in Zell Millers speech instead of trieng to attack his character?

Now you tell me what you think the right should do. I dont think you have anything though becuase this is just a smoke screen to try and hide the fact that you despise Kerry as well and only want him because hes not Bush.

Erm, no. I'm just sick of reading all this childish "My group is better than your group"-nonsense from both sides. This forum - which used to be a place where Republicans AND Democrats were able to have civil discussions without descending into partisan bickering - has deteriorated of late, and it's mainly because of people like you.

And thank you for demonstrating  for us how not to attack someone. But on another not; I love me and Im always right. And so I would be frustrated with me to if I were you.