Where do you draw the line with negative campaigning?

[wtmusic]

IMO...

There is no reason for a candidate to actively publicize negatives of his/her opponent's positions. If questioned about differences on issues, it's fair game to point out an opponent's positions and their disadvantages, as long as it doesn't get personal. Anything beyond that only reflects poorly on the candidate doing the publicizing (in response to Hillary setting up Obama attack websites).

[MNDemNY]

1. That which leads to death, organ failure, or massive scars.

[wtmusic]

2. Sounds like cagefighting rules

that would make it simpler, wouldn't it?

[Mz Pip]

3. Yeah

if it's not okayed by the Geneva Conventions, it probably shouldn't be done.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[MNDemNY]

9. All candidates should be waterboarded in a televised "debate".

[magellan]

4. When it's a lie of any magnitude

If we were truly interested in democracy we'd have an independent watchdog group to adjudicate campaign ads before they're allowed to air, with the power to give them a thumbs down if any untruth is conveyed, no matter how subtle.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. That wouldn't be democracy, it would be the dictatorship of an independent watchdog group

[magellan]

8. You'd rather have a dictatorship based on lies? n/t

[MNDemNY]

6. What if it's an embarrassing truth? Is that OK?

Such as BHO's admitted cocaine use.

[magellan]

10. Of course, why not?

People who run for public office should know that every corner of their lives from birth (and in some cases before) goes under the microscope. Embarrassing truth should be acknowledged. No one is perfect. I'd much prefer someone who can admit ugly truths gracefully than someone who pretends to be a messiah.

[ccpup]

7. wonderful idea

but not feasible. Groups are rarely truly "independent" and that's a great deal of power to give to a dozen -- or less -- people who may or may not have agendas we're unaware of.

[magellan]

11. It's done in the UK

...and their election campaigns are a far more pleasurable experience for it.

[ccpup]

16. we're not the UK

-- a place I enjoy, by the way -- and our political discourse for eons has been predicated on who's powerful and who isn't and those with power grinding those without into the ground with their heel.

I don't like it either, but you're asking a whole Country to change a "winner takes all, dog-eat-dog" mentality.

[bpeale]

12. negative campaigning tells me that you have NOTHING constructive

to say about anything, including your own campaign. yes, it influences me...away from the negative campaigner.

[TwilightZone]

13. Who decides what is "pointing out a disadvantage" and what is an "attack"?

Secondly, who decides what is considered "personal"?

I suspect that you will get a wide variety of candidate-specific answers to each of those questions. I also expect that interpretation will be based largely on one's candidate preference.

Is calling another candidate "Bush-lite" personal? Is it pointing out a disadvantage?

[wtmusic]

14. The criteria for ad hominems (personal attacks) are pretty clear

"Obama is stupid." etc.

IMO "Bush-lite" is fair as long as it is qualified.

[TwilightZone]

17. Ah, but there's the problem.

Who decides what is "qualified?"

I'm being intentionally obtuse, of course, but the problem of definition is not as clear as you make it sound. There are thousands of qualifiers, and it is up to the individual to decide whether or not he or she accepts them as valid.

Calling a candidate Bush-lite because of one issue may be easily disqualified (in many minds) by pointing out non-Bush stances on dozens of other issues.

Example: "Hillary is Bush-lite because she supported the IWR."

Well, what about abortion rights? Health care? Civil rights? Environmental issues?

She certainly isn't "Bush-lite" on those issues, so is the statement qualified?

The same could be said about many of our candidates. Many of them have been branded as Bush-lite for one reason or another at some point, and I'd argue that the statement is true about none of them.

[wtmusic]

19. Not a problem

That's just where you draw the line, and I suppose mine would be very close to that.

[TwilightZone]

21. True.

Sorry, I seem to be looking at the issue from a larger scope than your OP really intended. In re-reading it, I realized that.

We all have our own interpretations, of course. My response was more in relation to how we'd apply standards as a whole. That's where finding a consensus would be difficult, if not impossible. One person's "attack" tends to be another person's "constructive criticism."

[wtmusic]

23. .

:thumbsup:

[tabasco]

15. No lies, no distortions.

Seems simple enough.

[porphyrian]

18. I don't, but I pay attention to how far they're willing to go. -n/t

[warren pease]

20. At the exact second that a GOP loss becomes a sure thing...

...which, given their voting machines, is probably an impossible dream these days anyway.

So keep it up until they develop facial tics and their hair falls out, their families suffer nervous breakdowns, their creditors call in their notes, their friends shun them, their church kicks them out, the police round them up on morals charges, they're convicted on all counts and they're doing 10 to life at Leavenworth and sharing a cell with some giant, shave-headed weight lifter named Bruno. That's not nearly enough to atone for all their sins, but it's a start.

And yes, after watching the massive damage inflicted on this country and the rest of the world by BushCo and its GOP loyalists, acting on behalf of their employers in corporate America, the ends do in fact justify the means. The people who think that ends can never, ever justify means are, imo, the very people who would have written letters to the editor deploring the "terrorist tactics" used at the Boston Tea Party and supporting British colonial monetary and taxation policies.

Do we become them by engaging in GOP-like tactics? No. We become the people who can finally win elections again. I can't think of a gutter too low or a scheme too malicious if it has the end result of removing another republican hand from the levers of power.

Are progressives too pure to use Flynt-style measures? Then we're too pure to run this country in this century and we might just as well admit it and save ourselves a ton of frustration and misery.

There's plenty of time play "what if" morality games once these madmen are safely out of the way. For now, let it rip and I'll gladly deal with any ethical consequences.

So flame away, would-be occupiers of the moral high ground. Just don't forget that your tax money pays for torture, among hundreds of other BushCo outrages, that should guarantee the whole lot of them multiple life sentences deep in the American gulag.


wp

Edited to add: Maybe we could require that they dress like NASCAR drivers, with the logos of their top 20 corporate "donors" plastered all over their clothing. Maybe that could replace negative campaigning simply by showing the truth about their agendas right where everyone can see it.

So when, say, Obama claims to be a man of the people and you can see that he's actually the darling of Wall Street because he's wearing the logos of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Citadel Investment Group, UBS AG, UBS Americas, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse Group -- well, who needs to attack him on phony grounds when he wears his vulnerability right on his sleeve -- and everywhere else.

[question everything]

22. Yes and No

Negative comments can later be used by the Republicans in the general elections.

Ignoring negative comments however, can catch the candidate off guard during the general elections, as happened with Kerry with the Swift boats and with other appearances of "flip flopping." Remember "I voted for it before I voted against it?" His defense of right for abortion was weak and lack sincerely.

Perhaps if the process were longer his rivals would have exposed him. For a while it appeared that Edwards was the only one who had a chance and Edwards went out of his way to be nice.. which earned him the spot on the ticket.

This is why talking about Obama's drug use and Muslim upbringing and even mentioning his middle name is important preparation, if he is the candidate. If Rove brings it up, it will be old news that the voters will shrug off.

[jpgray]

24. The Lincoln Douglas debates would have really sucked with those rules