Should the Democrats go negative in '06?

Great Debates
21

The point would be to say, first, that this is how seriously we regard Bush’s offenses: that we regard the gap between what the Administration told us, and what they knew, in the run-up to war, to be impeachable. We regard Bush’s willingness to spy on Americans without statutory authority, and without oversight, by claim of essentially unlimited wartime C-in-C powers, as impeachable. We regard the creation of a secret overseas prison system, hand in hand with the all-too-frequent use of what we once called torture, as impeachable.

There comes a time to say these things are serious shit, whether or not we can do anything about them. For years before they took control of Congress, the GOP took stands on a whole bunch of stuff they were going to lose at. That’s what you do if you’ve got any guts.

Because, second, if you’re out of power now, and you want to get back in, you’ve got to let people know what matters to you, what your values are.

Part of those values is that there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. Impeachment resolutions make it clear that you believe those lines have been crossed, and it’s time to do something about them.

22

Did you spend the whole Clinton Administration in cave on Mars?

23

Since when is “telling the truth” considered “going negative”?

24

Since Rove’s campaign for Bush was declared “positive” by executive fiat. :wink:

25

That’s pretty much where I am. We believe contemporary GOP is bad for America. The approach is to say where we believe they’ve taken this country off the rails, what the consequences have been, and what we’ll do instead.

If you believe the facts and the issues are on your side, the best campaign approach is always, “If you want A, B, and C, then vote for me. If you want X, Y, and Z instead, then by all means vote for the other guy.”

The differences between the two parties are huge, on a whole host of major issues: Iraq, the war on terror, the economy, Katrina, the safety net (Social Security, health insurance, pensions), the environment, balanced budgets v. tax cuts for the rich, the minimum wage, the right to unionize, and on and on. If the Dems can’t pick five or six issues to try to nationalize the election over, to give the electorate a clear choice, then they’re not trying very hard.

If anyone’s still wondering, this is what I mean by the Dems opposing the GOP without having to move left to do so. With the exception of Iraq, this list is all about expecting the Dems to actually make a stand over some things they already claim to believe in, but tend to do so rather halfheartedly.

In doing so, they get the worst of both worlds - they get painted as being way left and out of touch, without having actually stood for much of anything. And that’s how you lose elections.

It’s time for them to figure out on which issues they can agree they really mean what they’ve been saying all along.

26

Well, that’s just the problem, isn’t it? In Congressional elections, how many voters think and vote in such terms?

27

I don’t think the Democratic Party should exploit the corruption of the Republican Party. I think they should quietly develop some surrogates to do the hatchet work, while maintaining plausible deniability. I’ve heard that is an effect campaign technique…

28

Sure…look how well it worked for the Dems in the '04 election. :wink: This is really pretty funny how a lot of the Dem supporters in this thread can look the other way at the kind of negative shit they pulled in the last election while rightfully pointing at the Republicans…who did the exact same shit. Seriously guys…neither side better pick up that rock unless you want a brick to come through your own glass house.

Of course the Dems will have negative aspects pointing out the myriad flaws, faults and foibles of the Republicans both in the '06 and '08 elections (and probably every election until the US finally shuffles off this mortal coil). Just like the Republicans will. Hell, even MY party runs negative adds (there were some pretty funny Libertarian anti-Bush/Kerry adds, at least here in New Mexico). The key is the ratio of negative adds dissing your opponent to positive adds actually saying what YOU are going to do thats way better.

-XT

29

Which Democratic corruption are you referring to? I do hope that wasn’t just the tradtional tu quoque response - that is doubly fallacious without a quo.

30

[maxwell smart]

Missed it by thaaat much!

[/maxwell smart]

31

I suppose you can name all that “negative shit” you are referring to. Sounds like the usual false equivalence the PUbbies like to engage in: “You’re JUST as bad as WE are!”

Um, no. Not even close.

32

Using the standard ‘tu madre’ response ( :wink: ) I’ll just say…er what are you talking about? Did I mention corruption? I talked about negative campaigning, specifically about using ‘quietly develop some surrogates to do the hatchet work, while maintaining plausible deniability’. You know…like say Moveon.org? Or the myriad other third party negative bashers the Dems used (or were self motivated…whatever)?

As for Democratic corruption…what, you figure the Dems don’t have any corruption in their ranks? :stuck_out_tongue: !! If you want to find out simply open a GQ thread and ask the penetrating question “Has anyone in the Democratic party ever been accused/proven to be guilty of corruption?” Should be worth a laugh at least.

-XT

33

Actually I like to think of it more as ‘a pox on both your houses’. Can I name some of the ‘negative shit’ I saw in the last election coming from the Democrat (or their surrogates). Um…yeah. I could fill pages with the shit in fact. Was it as bad as what the Republicans were dishing out? Well, thats a matter of perspective IMO…to me both sides seemed to be slinging the shit far and wide. As to who was worse, well YMMV and all that…to me it was a matter of a pretty subtle degree.

-XT

34

Actually, not even by that much [coughOhio*cough], but never mind that . . . it’s all over and done with . . . we’ve all gotten over it . . . [growl . . . grumble . . . seethe . . .]

35

Oh, okay, you’re just equating statements of facts with swiftboating. Got it. Still a tu quoque without a quo, ya know.

Could, but won’t even start, huh? What should we make of that?

Of course not, but there’s that tu quoque shit again (and of course we’re going to see it quite a bit more from you guys, as the names Abramoff will name get hauled off. Any excuse at all to say “They all do it, a pox on both their houses”, for you, right?

At some point you have to start to accept a little responsibility as a citizen.

36

Should they? When have they ever not? And sadly, the Republicans are starting to do the same crap more than before.

I, for one, am tired of the politics of destruction. I’d really like to see a campaign run by at least one of the parties that focuses on issues, not gutting the opponent.

37

Classic! :stuck_out_tongue:

Perhaps you should make of it that whatever examples I would use would simply look like ‘statements of fact’ to one so, er fervent as yourself about your party. Its all a matter of perspective Elvis…something you never seem to get.

Well yeah…I LOVE to snub my nose at both of your stupid ass parties. To me its nearly impossible to tell them apart…and they are both equally full of shit and full of nutballs who love to point fingers at the other party while turning a blind eye to their own house (motes and eyes and all that).

Er…huh? My ‘responsibility as a citizen’ is that I get out and vote, that I stay within the law and that I live free and happy, leaping over the green fields in this capitalist paradise, etc etc. I do all that and even trod on the peasantry every chance I get completely fulfilling my obligations as a citizen (even going that extra mile by serving in the military AND buying US savings bonds :wink: ).

What other obligations do I as a citizen have? Are you saying I have some obligations as a citizen for Republican rule? Unless you are willing to also take that same responsibility I fail to see your point.

-XT

38

This would be a good point except for one thing…you were running against BUSH for gods sake! :stuck_out_tongue: Talk about the Republicans heavily handicaping themselves. Using negative campaigning against Bush should have been a no brainer…hell, he’s a target rich environment! Yet he still won. Sure, he barely squeeked it out…but even THAT was a major win for him. He SHOULD have lost in a landslide of epic proportions! (and I lost $20 bucks because of it…THATS something to really grumble over IMHO :stuck_out_tongue: ).

-XT

39

:dubious: What makes you think there is any difference? The things the ruling party has done with its power are issues.

40

That’s another one the GOP honed to a fine edge; the “lowered expectations” gambit, it’s a no lose proposition. Are you sure you aren’t a Repugnican?