Are Republicans dirtier campaigners?

Great Debates
1

To preface this question, I consider myself a conservative (whatever that means), and the first time I ever voted I voted for George W. Bush – a decision I regret now and didn’t repeat in 2004. I will also be voting for Obama in the upcoming elections, but I certainly won’t be the lone conservative on the blue team.

I grew up in the South in a conservative family, but throughout college I definitely started to lean much more to the left. Over the last five years, I’ve lived abroad four times in Asia and in Europe. Many of my experiences have changed the way I look at the world and my country’s place in it.

As I mentioned, I consider myself a conservative, but more often than not, I feel that I’m smack in the middle of these groups, being wholly part of neither. The strange thing, though, is that I often find myself disgusted by conservatives/Republicans and their tactics. I get annoyed by democrats and liberals, but many Republicans make my skin crawl. More specifically, as the elections approach, I can’t help but think that the party and the group who is supposed to be the “values” party is the very group that is cultivating the most sordid stratagem, ready to pile it on Obama as needed.

I’ve still yet to see a chain email debunked on factcheck.org, for example, that accuses McCain of anything remotely comparable to the absurdities being diffused by republicans (which I often receive from my family members).

I’ve yet to see anything of the sort from Obama supporters, which is my question. Are these sort of tactics being used by Democrats and I just don’t know it, or am I right in assuming that Republicans have the market cornered when it comes to mud slinging.

NOTE: I’m speaking specifically of Obama supporters spreading malicious information about McCain, NOT Clinton supporters doing so against Obama. MOREOVER, I’m only interested in this election. I don’t want to get into the mud slung in other campaigns.

To be clear, I know that Obama and other Democrats have stretched the truth or made misleading comments about McCain (for instance, insinuating that McCain wants or expects to be in Iraq for 100 years). That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if there have been concerted attacks against McCain’s character. Where is the liberal version of The Obama Nation on the bestseller list?

2

To my knowledge, the dirtiest meme that has been spread about McCain – that he was brainwashed while a POW in Vietnam and is a Communist “Manchurian Candidate” – was spread by far right conspiracy theorists. So as far as I can tell, the answer to the OP is yes.

3

“Dirty” is objective. I think the Republicans do whatever it takes to win elections. Does that mean that the Democrats don’t? Yes. There seem to be lines that don’t get crossed.

4

There was an excellent political satire from from England called Yes, Minister. (Minister, in this case, is roughly equivalent to a cabinet secretary in the U.S.; Minister of Defence, Minister of Education, etc.) One of the characters was advising the minister to give a speech on some policy he had no intention of following through on, "the less you plan to do about something, the more you must talk about it."

Remembering that advice has helped me interpret much of american politics.

5

I think that over the past decade or so, the Republican Party has been more willing to sling mud and fight dirty. I don’t think that most individual Republicans endorse or engage in these tactics, but the higher-ups have decided that this is the way to go. It seems to have worked for them in the past couple of elections, so I suspect that we’ll continue to see it this election.

Frankly, I think the reason why the DNC doesn’t engage in more of this is not because they hold the moral high ground, but because they don’t seem to have their act together enough to put together a really effective smear campaign.

–burundi, unaffiliated voter who doesn’t trust either party farther than she can throw them

6

I also don’t think most individual Republicans engage in these tactics (beyond the recitation of inane, sound-bite talking points).

But I do think they endorse them, implicitly at the very least (cf: “recitation of inane, sound-bite talking points”).

7

The existence of Karl Rove might skew the data somewhat.

8

Which is another thing that smear merchants on the right are more than happy to promote, that everyone is equally sleazy. It makes their job easier.

I call it the thief’s justification - how often do you hear a thief who gets caught justify his actions by saying, “Everybody does it, they just do it on larger scale!” They can’t conceive of a world where ‘other people’ really aren’t criminals. Same with the smear mongers, in their minds everyone is a sleazy as they are.

9

Don’t underestimate the continued effect and legacy of the late Lee Atwater, either.

10

Yes, Republicans do more dirty campaigning.

But they have more incentive too do so – they have more to gain from it. So even as a Democrat, I can understand why they do so.

In addition to the basic (some people believe the dirty ads, and thus vote for your candidate), other people get upset at the dirty campaigning, decide ‘all politics is dirty, and I won’t participate in it’ so they don’t vote at all. But the people in that second group are mostly Democratic voters!

So the dirty campaigning, even when exposed as lies & dirty, has the effect of decreasing voter turnout. But since most of those who decide not to vote would have voted Democratic, this still helps Republican candidates. So for Republicans, there is not much downside to dirty campaigning.

11

Here’s what happens when a Republican uses a dirty trick: the MSM will ignore it. Most Democratic politicians will ignore it. A few left blogs will complain about it, and several Democratic politicians will call those blogs radical or loony or something like that.

Here’s what happens when a Democrat uses a dirty trick: the Republicans raise a hue and cry about it and the MSM joins in. And then the Democratic party leaders and pols race to see who can be the fastest to condemn the dirty trickster. The same things also happens if its not really a dirty trick, but just mildly offensive or maybe a boorish way to phrase things.

So, we get a whole season of Swift Boat smears against Kerry with nary a peep from the Democrats or the MSM. But MoveOn refers to General Petraeus as “Betray Us”? I’m surprised the Democrats in Congress didn’t sprain an ankle racing to condemn them.

When the Democratic Party happily ingores Republican dirty tricks while constantly condemning their own allies for any language critical of the Republicans, is it any wonder that some Republicans might continue to use dirty tricks? After all, there aren’t any consequences to them, either from within the Republican party or without.

12

I know I’m not going to get much agreement here but what the …

Republicans have a greater “need” to bring up “dirt” because they aren’t going to get much help from the MSM. Case in point… John Edwards “love-child”. Rumours since last November and his denials hold up until weeks ago. Some of us believe tha ABCNNBCBS could have goteen to the truth along time ago if they had really wanted to.

Unfortunately, some of the biggest conservative efforts are mishandled. There was plenty of truth in Kerry’s Viet Nam record to sway certain voters but the untruths overshadow them.

I know very little about The Obama Nation but it’s certainly not 100% bullshit and the inaccuracies are going to overshadow the truth that is in there for some anyway.

13

Pitted here.

14

This sounds like one of those “Does a wild bear shit in the woods?” questions.

15

You are deliberately shorting your memory, I think. If you’re inclined to examine the Swiftboat events of 2004, you probably have to examine the Rathergate affair of that same year.

I don’t think an argument about equivalence can be won here, frankly - people see more blood on their own gored ox. But perhaps we can at least dispense with the fiction that some would set up that one side is on the side of angels - beset always by corrupt and immoral partisans.

(Partisans on both sides tend to construct these.)

Even if one party behaves better, you’d still have two semi-corrupt organizations battling each other for power.

16

Well, you WOULD say that…it’s your side that fights dirty more often!

:smiley:

17

Mr. Moto is correct - this is selective perception.

Regards,
Shodan

18

Come, now, you can’t cite that as an instance of dirty campaigning by the Dems, nor even as reflecting badly on the Dems in any way. For one thing, Rather (unlike Jerome Corsi and the Swiftvets) was working as a journalist (seriously), not an agent of the DNC or the Kerry campaign. Second, although the authenticity of the Killian Documents is dubious, what they document is real enough.

19

Certainly I can - because as I noted in the other thread Corsi is a 9-11 truther who thinks Bush should be impeached. He certainly isn’t operating as part of any kind of Republican operation - yet this didn’t stop Obama from explicitly calling his book an attack fron Bush-Cheney forces. That doesn’t parse.

In the same way, all the evidence suggests Bill Burkett was a lone wolf himself, working out of an abundence of animosity toward Bush himself.

In both of these cases, what happened in the end looks to be a backfire that discredited the perpetrators of the attack and to a degree did some collateral damage to others as well. In Burkett’s case he brought down some journalists at CBS, and if the Kerry campaign hadn’t been more careful (to their credit) this could have burned them. And similarly numberless Democrats are attempting to tie Corsi to any walking Republican, even if that association doesn’t fit (like with Bush and Cheney, mentioned above.)

The parties might be relatively blameless in these actions or they might be ass-deep in them. Doesn’t matter much in the end - perceptions matter greatly in politics, more than facts oftentimes. That’s why this Corsi matter might ultimately hurt McCain, even though there is no evidence that he had anything to do with it. I don’t think it can be argued that Rathergate ultimately helped Bush and hurt Kerry, and Kerry had nothing to do with those events either.

The OP did mention actions by “lone wolves” so this is worth talking about.

20

Are we talking currently or in the past? And which specific time period are we talking about, if in the past? If we are talking currently, then I’d have to say it seems fairly even to me…and vastly less mudslingage than in previous elections, at least by the two main contestants. If we are talking about what seems to be ancient past for some 'dopers (a.k.a. the term of Bush the Younger) then I’d have to say that, at least from my perspective, the Republican’s would edge out the Dem’s, though I don’t think either side is exactly a wilting flower when it comes to mud slinging…so, it’s a pretty near thing. If we are talking about REALLY ancient history (a.k.a. BBY or Before Bush the Younger), then I’d have to say that overall the Dem’s have the clear lead…they were the stronger party for much of that period and I think the Dem political machine was far more likely to take a dirty tricks route (especially at the local level) than the Republican’s…mainly because they could.

All that said though, I have to agree with Mr. Moto…it’s all a matter of perception and gored oxes. Also, it’s all in where you are drawing the lines. Official party stances only? Quasi-affiliated groups? Completely unaffiliated groups (like SwiftBoaters or MoveOn)? The raving lunatic fringe?

-XT