The Positive reason for Negative campaigning

[Tom Rinaldo]

Anyone can verbally make any claim that they think others won't or can't effectively question or counter. I prefer hearing about the positive plans and vision for America offered by candidates seeking my support for office than hearing about the shortcomings of their opponents. Ultimately the former is what counts - if the promises being offered voters are genuine commitments and the person making them is competent enough to deliver on those promises.

But I am savvy enough to know that I just can't take a person's word on it alone. Otherwise we will devolve to a state where we elect the most tantalizing con artists to office every time. I believe in the power of words. I am a blogger and for me blogging employs the power of words toward useful social ends. But obviously words aren't enough, we need to examine actions and capacity to achieve also. Since candidates always present themselves in the best light possible, there is a positive role played by negative campaigning, like it or not.

[Rock_Garden]

1. Agreed.

And I've noticed, in this campaign, that even honest questioning is labeled negative campaigning by the recipients. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the negativity of campaigns past, and I think it's prevented some honest dialogue about issues.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. True, but it also is a negative campaign tactic

to paint someone as unethical or bullying simply because they try to highlight what they perceive to be deficiencies in another candidate's campaign, ability to govern, to get elected, or whatever. There is so much judo played in politics that it is dizzying.

It is really the hypocrisy part, when everything is presented as a one way street angels vs the devils that I get really bothered.