A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

Good question. Here's the answer.
In clean politics, your opponent isn't evil.
He's merely misguided. His policies aren't dedicated on destroying the United
States, making us a vassal of France, or handing the keys to the White House to
Osama bin Ladin.....they're just not a effective as the policies you are going
to implement in their stead.

Members of the opposing political party aren't "traitors and socialists" or
"war mongers and fascists", they're fellow Americans with a different, but
legitimate point of view.

It's OK to point out the deficiencies in the
opponent's record. It's wrong when you assassinate character in the process.

Good example (of dirty politics) is a radio ad running here recently. It's an
anti-Bush ad. In this ad,
they point out how George Bush campaigned for governor in Texas by stating he
was in favor of a Patients Bill of Rights. When he took office, one of the
first pieces of legislation he was asked to approve was a newly passed
Patients' Bill of Rights, and he promptly vetoed it. When the legislature got
together enough votes to override his veto, he then went around taking personal
credit for the passage of the bill! While publicly crowing about how he had
fulfilled his promise to create a Patient's Bill of Rights, he ordered the AG
to go to the Supreme Court to see if it could be overturned. Assuming the facts
they outline are true, the dirty little jab in this radio ad is an
out-of-context quote by Bush at the very end, "That's the kind of leadership
style I bring to Washington."

I think the ad is sponsored by Americans for Family Values, or some such group,
but we all know it's really the Democrats in disguise- just like Viet Nam Vets
against Kerry is a Republican group.

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Senators are generally unelectable.
After long careers in the Senate, they have too long a voting record and even
though times and conditions change from decade to decade, it's so elementary to
pick out different positions a Senator adopts during his service and say, "See!
He has a character flaw! In 1984, he voted against abortion rights, and in 1999
he voted for a woman's right to choose! He changes his mind (over 15 years)! We
can't trust this guy to run anything except his mouth!"

This Senator might have a chance. I think a lot of conservatives would be
surprised to discover that outside of the Limbaugh and Hannity radio shows,
somewhere around half the country thinks militant conservatives are FOS. It's
been funny (sort of) watching this current group of clowns who lost the popular
vote govern as if they had a landslide mandate.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Giving your partisan crystal ball a go at it again. Too bad it is
giving
you false outlooks.

Want to wager?



Wager what? That GWB and or Cheney will smear Kerry/Edwards at the
Republican
convention?

What stakes did you have in mind?

Some Washington salmon vs whatever-it-is-you have back there?
I'd be up for something along that line.


I don't think you'd want what passes for fish in the 'Cleveland' area!

I don't think you'd want what passes for fish in the 'Cleveland' area!

It might be novel to have food that glows in dark.

Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A political campaign for political office is by nature a fourm for attack
politics. How else are you going to point out the other guys failings.

Good question. Here's the answer.
In clean politics, your opponent isn't evil.
He's merely misguided. His policies aren't dedicated on destroying the
United
States, making us a vassal of France, or handing the keys to the White
House to
Osama bin Ladin.....they're just not a effective as the policies you are
going
to implement in their stead.

Members of the opposing political party aren't "traitors and socialists"
or
"war mongers and fascists", they're fellow Americans with a different, but
legitimate point of view.

It's OK to point out the deficiencies in the
opponent's record. It's wrong when you assassinate character in the
process.

Good example (of dirty politics) is a radio ad running here recently. It's
an
anti-Bush ad. In this ad,
they point out how George Bush campaigned for governor in Texas by stating
he
was in favor of a Patients Bill of Rights. When he took office, one of the
first pieces of legislation he was asked to approve was a newly passed
Patients' Bill of Rights, and he promptly vetoed it. When the legislature
got
together enough votes to override his veto, he then went around taking
personal
credit for the passage of the bill! While publicly crowing about how he
had
fulfilled his promise to create a Patient's Bill of Rights, he ordered the
AG
to go to the Supreme Court to see if it could be overturned. Assuming the
facts
they outline are true, the dirty little jab in this radio ad is an
out-of-context quote by Bush at the very end, "That's the kind of
leadership
style I bring to Washington."

I think the ad is sponsored by Americans for Family Values, or some such
group,
but we all know it's really the Democrats in disguise- just like Viet Nam
Vets
against Kerry is a Republican group.

And this is where Bush wins. Kerry has spent so many years in the US
Senate
and has done a damn thing but run his mouth.


Senators are generally unelectable.
After long careers in the Senate, they have too long a voting record and
even
though times and conditions change from decade to decade, it's so
elementary to
pick out different positions a Senator adopts during his service and say,
"See!
He has a character flaw! In 1984, he voted against abortion rights, and in
1999
he voted for a woman's right to choose! He changes his mind (over 15
years)! We
can't trust this guy to run anything except his mouth!"

This Senator might have a chance. I think a lot of conservatives would be
surprised to discover that outside of the Limbaugh and Hannity radio
shows,
somewhere around half the country thinks militant conservatives are FOS.
It's
been funny (sort of) watching this current group of clowns who lost the
popular
vote govern as if they had a landslide mandate.

Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

Why are conservatives always justifying something that is crooked or screwed up
by pointing out something that is or was worse?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould you need to do some reading up on the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century. The nastiness of today doesn't compare to then.

Why are conservatives always justifying something that is crooked or
screwed up
by pointing out something that is or was worse?

Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

There are some so blinded and consumed by negativity they cannot see what is
right before their eyes.

It was absolutely obvious he was talking about:

the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century.

Why do conservatives so often look for any excuse to lash out with an insult
like:

It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Were the "libs in this NG" involved in the campaigns in the early to mid 19th
Century? If not, you just took a lame excuse for launching an insult and rode
it all the way to Mars.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

There are some so blinded and consumed by negativity they cannot see what
is
right before their eyes.

It was absolutely obvious he was talking about:

the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century.

Why do conservatives so often look for any excuse to lash out with an
insult
like:

It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.



Because it is true. Just read the replies from Krause, jps, Kanter and
Basskisser....they are filled with hatred and personal insults.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"jim--" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Edwards managed to get through his entire speech without mentioning
George
Bush
by name.

Raises the bar pretty high.

Let's see if Kerry can also rise above attack politics here on out.

If he does, the nation will notice the contrast when the R's use their
convention to badmouth and smear Kerry and Edwards. The technique is
likely to
backfire on the side using it- if the other side doesn't reciprocate.



Giving your partisan crystal ball a go at it again. Too bad it is
giving
you false outlooks.

Want to wager?

Absolutely!! I'd LOVE to wager that the Republicans will smear the
Kerry/Edwards ticket at their convention. Just what would you like to
wager?

There was plenty of smearing of the Administration last night. So I guess
Chuck has lost already.

You can send the salmon (smoked and on ice) to me anytime Chuckster.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Conservatives? It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Jack

There are some so blinded and consumed by negativity they cannot see what
is
right before their eyes.

It was absolutely obvious he was talking about:

the campaigns in the early to
middle
of the 19th century.

Why do conservatives so often look for any excuse to lash out with an
insult
like:

It's clear he was talking about the nastiness of the
Democratic Party, and the Libs in this NG.

Were the "libs in this NG" involved in the campaigns in the early to mid
19th
Century? If not, you just took a lame excuse for launching an insult and
rode
it all the way to Mars.

Brushing all this aside for the moment, Mark Twain wrote an essay or two
about campaign antics in his time. Pretty funny stuff.