Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
-
MyTwoCents wrote: ..than Gingrich vs Romney?
These guys HATE each other - Obama won't need to campaign, whoever wins the nomination will have spent several months being smeared by another Republican
I still liked when 1980 George H.W. Bush accused Ronald Reagan of espousing 'voodoo economics' regarding Reagan's promotion of 'trickle down economic theory' during the primary campaign, and then later agreeing to be his vice presidential running mate after Reagan won the nomination. Politics are strange things.
-
King Ævil
South Euclid
Ohio
-
Or when GHW Bush's supporters made Willie Horton the centerpiece of his campaign against Michael Dukakis, and Dukakis was too much of a gentleman to point out that the great pioneer of that kind of furlough program was a certain governor of California who later became President....
GHW Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said that what was important was winning, and not being truthful about one's opponent. That sentiment has surely blossomed in more recent elections.
Let's also not forget that the elder Bush ran against Reagan on a pro-choice platform. Compare that to the current crop of rabid anti-choice candidates, locked in a game of one-upsmanship to see who can adopt the most radical stance.
-
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
-
MyTwoCents wrote: ..Has there ever been a more acrimonious primary campaign..
Oddly enough, I just had a conversation in which we agreed that this has been the most polite primary in recent memory. There've been a few charges bantied about, but nothing very interesting. Perhaps this is the first primary you have paid attention to.
-
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
-
robigo wrote: Or when GHW Bush's supporters made Willie Horton the centerpiece of his campaign .
Centerpiece? Centerpiece?
If Bush I had a "centerpiece" in his campaign it was that he wanted to persuade voters he was Reagan Jr.
And it was Al Gore who first used Willie Horton in campaign ads.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
MyTwoCents wrote: ..than Gingrich vs Romney?
These guys HATE each other - Obama won't need to campaign, whoever wins the nomination will have spent several months being smeared by another Republican
I would say it is just more bitter in different ways. It may not have the dynamics of McCain being slandered in South Carolina or Hillary and Barack in a death duel, but it has its share of nastiness. Gingrich and Romney detest each other and Romney's slush fund supported attack ads are pretty extreme. I expect the general election to rival 1800 and 1896 in the nasty department.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
Koldfoot wrote:
And it was Al Gore who first used Willie Horton in campaign ads.
According to Wikipedia, Gore raised the furlough issue in a debate (not an ad), and did not cite the Horton incident specifically.
Bush Sr. first mentioned Horton by name in a campaign speech in June 1988, and the first TV ads were aired in September.
Article here.
-
Learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim..
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
-
Let's not forget George W (or the shadow powers behind the throne) attempting to besmirch the military career of McCain (of all people).
-
Learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim, learn to swim..
United States
Cleveland Heights
Ohio
-
Now that I think about it, it's not really the candidates who are taking cheap shots as much as the media. Not that I want to defend republicans or anything, but from my limited attention paid, it seems much of the really nasty stuff is coming from the talking heads more than the candidates themselves.
-
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
TheChin! wrote: Now that I think about it, it's not really the candidates who are taking cheap shots as much as the media. Not that I want to defend republicans or anything, but from my limited attention paid, it seems much of the really nasty stuff is coming from the talking heads more than the candidates themselves.
Yes and no. A lot of the media attacks are being fed to them by campaign surrogates, particularly the attacks on Gingrich. These attacks are coordinated by the campaigns, often on conference calls with reporters, but done in a way to provide a fake distance for the candidates so they can avoid sounding like they're making the attacks themselves.
All that said, I think Koldfoot's closer to the truth here. Even the personal attacks have been mostly above the belt. Certainly there's nothing I've heard of that compares with push-polls intended to convince people that McCain had fathered a mix-race baby out of wedlock.
-
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
-
I don't even see why these are considered negative ads for the most part.
One's history in relevant areas should be considered when voting for a candidate. Mitt may or may not have cost jobs with his capital investment group. He was governor when his state adopted something with similarities to Obamacare.
Newt certainly was fined for ethics violations. (Congresscritters actually voting for imposing ethics violations is certainly likely to be a political decision more than factual one, but that should be addressed rather than trying to ignore it.) He also worked for Freddie Mac in some capacity.
All of these seem relevant and not attack oriented.
The interview with Newt's former wife is borderline out of bounds, but since we've gotten rid of adultery laws and the topic that she discussed doesn't sound like it was harassment, I am not sure that it's relevant.
-
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
qzhdad wrote: The interview with Newt's former wife is borderline out of bounds
The thing that, IMO, put that interview in bounds was Newt's own campaigning as a champion of family values and his attacks on Democrats for undermining marriage and our nation's moral fiber. Even with that, I think that televising an interview that didn't add much to a print interview from over a year ago and broadcasting it right before a primary in a state with a high percentage of "values voters" was dubious at best...and that fact probably helped Gingrich take the state.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
Wait till the General Election.
That will be nasty.
Darilian
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
MyTwoCents wrote: Darilian wrote: Wait till the General Election.
That will be nasty.
Darilian I can't see Obama being nasty, even if he needs to be, he's too cool, to the extent that he seems not to care enough.
You're naive.
Anyway, it won't be done by Obama himself. It will be done by NGO allies of the President, like MoveOn and the rest of the Soros group.
But the political calculus of the election basically ensures it will be ugly. Negative campaigns depress the turnout of the opposing base. Since neither Obama or Romney really excite their base, depressing turnout on the OTHER side is much easier than trying to excite one's own base. Thus, it will be a race to the bottom, as two unpopular candidates seek to drive the others negatives as high as they can go.
This has nothing to do with the 'character' of either man. This is just pure political calculation. If Obama does decide to not run a negative campaign in the face of a negative campaign from Romney, he's also a naive fool.
Darilian
-
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
-
Having listened to much NPR recently, I find I must modify my earlier comments. I believe the media is taking a few run-of-the-mill campaign comments and blowing them completely out of proportion to create the illusion of conflict where there is little.
I am not implying they are wrong for doing this, it is simply what the media does.
-
|
|
