Are Republicans dirtier campaigners?

If so, what is the Democratic equivalent of these?:

Eight years ago this month, John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic.
Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

Seven years later, who is running McCain’s South Carolina campaign? Charlie Condon, the former State Attorney General who in 2000 helped spread the innuendo targeting Bridget. If you can’t beat them, hire them–even if they’ve launched racist attacks against your own daughter.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks

Seeking support in Northeast primary states, John McCain urged voters Saturday to reject attempts by “two Texas cronies of George W. Bush to hijack an election” with $ 2.5 million in new anti-McCain television ads.
“Tell 'em to keep their dirty money in the state of Texas, my friends,” Mr. McCain told a crowd at Copley Square in Boston. “Don’t spread it all over New England and America.”

http://www.boycottgreenmountain.com/mccain-ads-dallas.html

The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most brutal ever. On the one hand, Bush switched his label for himself from “compassionate conservative” to “reformer with results”, as part of trying to co-opt McCain’s popular message of reform. On the other hand, a variety of business and interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.
The day that a new poll showed McCain five points ahead in the state, Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having “abandoned the veterans” on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: “He came home from Vietnam and forgot us.” Incensed, McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton, which Bush complained was “about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary.” An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like. These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains’ dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a “Manchurian Candidate” traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days. The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with these attacks; Bush said he would fire anyone who ran defamatory push polls. During a break in a debate, Bush put his hand on McCain’s arm and reiterated that he had no involvement in the attacks; McCain replied, “Don’t give me that shit. And take your hands off me.”
Bush mobilized the state’s evangelical voters, and leading conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh entered the fray supporting Bush and going on at length about how McCain was a favorite of liberal Democrats. Polls swung in Bush’s favor; by not accepting federal matching funds for his campaign, Bush was not limited in how much money he could spend on advertisements, while McCain was near his limit. With three days to go, McCain shut down his negative ads against Bush and tried to stress a positive image. But McCain’s stressing of campaign finance reform, and how Bush’s proposed tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, did not appeal to core Republicans in the state.
McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote against Bush’s 53 percent, allowing Bush to regain the momentum.

He’s America’s Joseph Goebbels. As a 21-year old Young Republican in Texas, Karl Rove not only pimped for Richard Nixon’s chief political dirty tricks strategist Donald Segretti but soon caught the eye of the incoming Republican National Committee Chairman, George H. W. Bush. Rove’s dirty tricks on behalf of Nixon’s 1972 campaign catapulted Rove onto the national stage. From his Eagle’s Nest in the West Wing of the White House, Rove now directs a formidable political dirty tricks operation and disinformation mill.
Since his formative political years when he tried to paint World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern as a left-wing peacenik through his mid-level career as a planter of disinformation in the media on behalf of Texas and national GOP candidates to his current role as Dubya’s “Svengali,” Rove has practiced the same style of slash and burn politics as did his Nixonian mentor Segretti. Many of us remember the Lincolnesque Senator Ed Muskie breaking down in tears during the 1972 campaign over Segretti-planted false stories in a New Hampshire newspaper that accused Mrs. Muskie of being a heavy smoker, drinker, and cusser and accused Muskie of uttering a slur in describing New Hampshire’s French Canadian population. Rove’s hero also forged letters on fake Muskie campaign letterhead, disrupted rallies and fundraising dinners, and spread false stories about the sex lives of candidates. Segretti’s brush also smeared George McGovern, George Wallace, Shirley Chisholm, and McGovern’s first vice presidential choice, Senator Tom Eagleton. Segretti of course did not go on to a high-level White House job – he was sentenced to six months in federal prison for distributing illegal campaign material.

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html

Probably something like this, or this. The point is, if one has the time, you can always comb the blogs for scandal and assume that there are no counter-examples on the other side. Then the “debate” is won by whoever has the most free time, or the most folks on his side helping him out. Combine that with the trusty “no true Scotsman” argument and you are all set. I haven’t got that kind of free time, or that many Dopers to help me out with my research.

Add to that the tendency on both sides to say “that isn’t nearly as bad” to examples of dirty campaigns from your side, and the problem of selective perception is even more marked. Is Swiftboating bad? Is it worse than a memo from ABC News telling reporters to slant their coverage against one side in an election?

Right or wrong, people on both sides tend to perceive things coming from their side as justified. And we end up with the endless “he hit me back first” arguments that pop up in threads like this.

Regards,
Shodan

Another thing is that the national GOP machine believes implicitly in party discipline. Conservatives have a natural tendency to respect hierarchy and subordinate their own opinions to the group, making them much more effective in acting as a mass bloc. Democrats, even the team players, are often held back by individual conscience. Unless there is a big-tent issue all can get behind, this is always going to blunt the force of their numbers.

Perhaps the OP might contain such information…

:wink:

It does appear that the GOP mud slinging is done by the GOP, while any equivalent actions in favor of the Dems comes from independent groups such as MoveOn.

That’s a laugh. You should see our county party committee meetings. But more to the point - if conservatives valued party discipline so implicitly as you claim, then things like primary dirty tricks, or even primary opposition, become mighty hard to explain.

Conservatives ought not to be confused with the sum total of Republicans, any more than liberals with Democrats.

See above.

I’d call them “independent” groups or affiliated groups. We know they don’t have true independence - they have affinity and common membership with the Democrats. That doesn’t mean Democrats control them, though - and that can create headaches for the party, as well as plausible deniability at times.

:smack:

-XT

In the 2004 elections in Minnesota…an example of a Democratic candidate playing VERY dirty was unearthed. He was an encumbant and looked seriously challenged by a fiscally conservative Republican.

He had a friend of his create a ‘No New Taxes’ party in order to splinter his opponents vote. Fortunately, a newspaper broke the story a few days before the election and he was sunk. Even so, the No New Taxes party got IIRC 24% of the vote. However, people were disgusted with this behavior and he still lost.

So, yes, Democrats can play very dirty.

Remember the 2004 party conventions? At the Democratic Convention, Bush was hardly mentioned; it was all about John Kerry.

Whereas as the Republican Convention…Bush was hardly mentioned; it was all about John Kerry.

Dirtier than Obama yes, dirtier than a Clinton? no.

I’ve noticed that Democrats tend to use dirty tactics all the time… against other democrats. They also use it constantly against Republicans, although they suck at it. Although I vote Republican mostly, I see no difference in the use of aggressive campaigns on either side.

I think people are divided into two camps: those who think people are basically good and those who think people are basically bad. If you think people are basically bad then you tend to be authoritarian and more in line with today’s Republican party. One result of thinking people are basically bad is to think you have to fight dirty because the other guy is going to. You saw this with Nixon: he was so convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Kennedy had stolen the 1960 election with dirty tricks that he did it himself when he ran in '68 and '72.

Wow. What a simplistic view of the world. Not much of a scale of gray there, huh?

For my part, I regard people and the institutions they set up as flawed - and they are flawed to many different degrees. Accepting this and planning for this certainty isn’t evidence of any sort of authoritarian streak - but ignoring it would be a sign of a dangerously naive utopianism.

Heh, I dunno, Nanny-state liberals tend to be pretty authoritarian too. I think both parties have their authoritarians.

Thank you, shadowfacts.

The repubs turned dirty politics into a business. They built organizations and developed financing to play very big scale dirty. They will pound the airwaves with swiftboat crap .

No, that’s not why he did it. He did it because he was simply fundamentally dishonest and because he had a shrewd grasp of exactly what it would take to win. (In 1968, that is; in 1972, his persecution-mania did come back into play.) At least, that’s the distinct impression I got from this excellent new history of the period.

So an example of two individuals up to no good, found out by their superiors, and reported to the FBI (as opposed to promoted within the Republican ranks) and Filegate where the players were ultimately exonerated (and how does it relate to an actual campaign?)

Since Obama came up through the Chicago Democratic Party I have every faith he and his proxies can give as good as he gets.

ETA: However, as he is a classier guy in general than McCain, Obama will look and sound Presidential as he does it.