Nicely said Zev.
I follow your logic, but just compare the 1996 Clinton-Dole race to any of the following:
Bush-Dukakis
Bush-Gore
Bush-Kerry
Compared to these 3, Clinton-Dole was a model of decorum. Why? Each of these guys had a genuine respect for each other. Clinton even advised Dole not to do things that might jeopardize his nomination. The campaign was not dirty at all. Why are the Bush races different? Offhand, I’d say it’s the Karl Rove factor.
This year, the presidential race has put all other contests in its shadow like I’ve never seen before. When you see the rare ad for a lesser race, it isn’t nearly as negative as the presidential ads (at least in my neck of the woods, YMMV). The people don’t necessarily want such a bitter campaign, but you have in Bush a candidate for which there is no ambivalence. You either love him or you despise him. If in 2008 we see Edwards- McCain or Kerry-Powell, it’s going to be much more civilized. Wait and see.
I plan to spend the next week avoiding the radio and t.v. as much as possible. I’ll even unplug my phone if these partisan idiots don’t quit nagging me about their guy.
Where the hell’s my Buffy, Season 1 DVD?
I guess I’m one of the voters that the rabid partisans here presumably are so desperate to convert to their chosen cause. If so, I just wanted to say that I went ahead and voted today, so y’all can stop now.
I don’t think that’s the case either. For example (to pick on the conservatives now), during the 2000 campaign the Democrats chose Joe Leiberman as the VP candidate. If ever there was a Democrat who would appeal to conservatives, it was Leiberman. Yet, at the time, I heard one conservative talk show host turn on Leiberman, in essence taking back every nice thing he said about him in the previous year (although, to be fair, the host didn’t get nasty with him [i.e. there were no “Leiberman (or Gore for that matter) is the devil” comments]) and call him a flip-flopper and that he “sold his soul” to the Democratic Party. And yet, now, Leiberman and the host are buddy-buddy again. :rolleyes:
Zev Steinhardt
Let me add some more applause, Zev. I’ve been trying to make this point as well, but you really said it well.
Listening to the talk shows (and reading Straight Dope threads), the “anti” comments outnumber the “pro” comments by a huge margin. The conversations all seem to go like this:
“{Bush/Kerry} is a {liar/idiot/crook/traitor/evil monster}.”
“That’s a lie, your candidate is worse, and you’re {uninformed/stupid/misled/gullible} for not hating him.”
Even worse than that is when one’s feelings about a particular candidate spread to the whole party and everyone who supports the candidate, the party, or any other candidate in the party (witness the rash of “Bush supporters are idiots” threads here). Looking over the tickets this year, I’ll probably be voting for candidates on both sides of the aisle, because I vote for the person, not the party.
I think one of the reasons it seems so bad this election is that it’s turned into so much of a one-issue election. I believe in a lot of the same things Bush does, and I believe in a lot of the same things Kerry does. I don’t demonize either one for disagreeing with me, and it really is a tough call who to vote for. If the only thing you care about is Saddam Hussein, then it’s easy to pick a candidate. If you care about a broad spectrum of issues, it’s pretty complicated.
I play poker every week with an ex-State senator, and I love having political discussions with him. He’s very partisan, but he has intelligent reasoning behind his positions, and when we disagree, he can explain his positions clearly and calmly. I wish Straight Dope was like that. I have avoided posting anything pro-Bush or pro-Kerry on SDMB, but anything even remotely political seems to be misinterpreted here these days, and every comment degenerates into a wrestling match in the manure pile.
But there are plenty of other possible factors, too. The Clinton-Dole and Bush-Dukakis races were never particularly close, which means that there wasn’t as much interest in it and not as much relevance to it. The Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry races were much closer, which means that they drew a lot more of the media circus. And when the race isn’t as close, one side doesn’t see the need to scream its opinions (why should they? It’s obvious the masses are enlightened enough to approve); when the race is extremely tight, both sides push to be validated and aproved, and that’s when things get nasty.
Also compare the media bandwidth in 1996 as compared to 2000 and 2004. How many more nattering talking heads are there? Cable channels devoted entirely to having as many screaming matches on policy as possible? Messageboards like this for discussion, debate, and trolling/validation?
And as I said, there is a perception of politics=morality that has been increasing with time; stating that “but things were better in the past” actually supports my point, not diminishes it.
I realize you want to blame it all on Rove, but I need you to realize that by blaming it all on Rove, you’re playing into it. You’re demonizing your opponents, and laying all faults of the Republic down upon them. Lots of people are to blame for the current climate- Rove, MacAuliffe, Hannity, Colmes, Coulter, Franken, Moore, Limbaugh- the list goes on. And as long as you’re willing to not give it thought and go for a simple solution- “Rove’s fault”- you’re part of the problem.
I’m glad you have hope for it, but I don’t. Our current system rewards nastiness and demagougery. Laud McCain and Powell as gentlemen, but I’d point out that McCain lost his presidential bid, and Powell has refused to even entertain the thought.
Because everybody knew that Clinton was going to win, so the pressure was off.
Sorry to keep making lame “me too” posts, but this comment is right on the money.
I appreciate the feedback, and to a large extent I agree. But close races do not always turn nasty- witness Carter-Ford. Having both candidates be gentlemen helps a lot. Having both campaign managers be men of scruples helps as well. Perhaps not everything is Rove’s fault, he indeed may be more of a symptom than the problem. But when you look back at this year- remember the lack of venom against Bush at the Democratic convention? The pundits were saying that it was a tactical mistake, that negative campaigning works. The Pubbies had no such reservations at their convention. It seems to me that the campaign started civil until the GOP convention. This is also when the Swifties started the offensive, and as the Times reported, there are palpable ties between the Swifties and Rove. I believe the campaign would have stayed clean had Bush and his people stayed on the high road. And I believe future campaigns can and will be much more civil than this one.
Okay, I’d like some cites on that. Because I do remember nastiness from some speakers at the convention. Not from Kerry himself, and certainly not as nasty as the Republican convention, but there was venom there.
If, by “campaign” you mean, when the conventions started, I might see that you possibly have a point that I don’t agree with. But I tend to consider the campaign as including the Democratic primaries, and there was plenty of anti-Bush venom there.
And keep in mind- what we’re railing against here is not just the nastiness of the actual campaigners and their ads. We’re railing against the nastiness that ordinary people we deal with and ordinary posters make when talking about one side or the other. And the load of “Are Bush supporters morons?” or “Are Kerry supporters traitors” bullcrap didn’t start two months ago, or even a year ago.
Trust me, it isn’t because Karl Rove plays nasty that Stoid, Diogenes, or others run around this board acting like complete asses.
If I recall correctly, the Kerry folks reviewed the speeches and advised discretion. Al Sharpton asked for permission to address a comment Mr. Bush had made and then used that to go off script and deliver a passionate rebuttal to Bush. At the time, that was the talk of the convention as to how he bent the rule on going negative on Bush. But I will look for a more authoritative cite than my recollection.
I concede your other point. The average citizen is indeed nasty and intolerant of his neighbor in this campaign. Like nothing I’ve ever seen. And it wouldn’t be fair to blame this on either candidate or Mr. Rove. In fact, I would not be surprised if violence breaks out on November 2. Neighbors get into fights over yard signs, that sort of thing. But I’m convinced it will be better next time.
I think part of the problem is that this election is solely and entirely about Bush.
Nobody really cares about Kerry. He just isn’t Bush. Practically any other candidate that got thru the primaries without self-destructing would do; Kerry just happened to be in line after Dean went down in flames and everyone realized that they couldn’t listen to Gephardt without yawning.
So the Dems just said, “Let’s see - reliably liberal, no major scandals, nice hair - fine, you’ll do. Get going.” The war hero thing was just icing on the cake, that they could use to point up the notion of “Kerry - he isn’t Bush”. This accounts for most of the screaming when Kerry went thru the standard welcome-to-national-politics background check and Republicans found some cracks in his shining armor.
But there is nothing that he brings to the table other than not being Bush. If he had really identified with some issue, he would have done something about it over the last twenty years in the Senate. Instead, bupkiss. He’s kept a Democratic seat warm, and that is more or less that.
Thus he has no issues that anybody, friend or foe alike, can talk about. Thus pretty much all the campaigning has been about Bush by default - how he is evilnastycowardlyblahblahblah, or his defenders, well, defending him.
Kerry defenders on the SDMB have been more or less upfront that they could care less who the warmed-over 60s Viet Nam protestor in the expensive suit is - if he ain’t Bush, he’s their fair-haired boy.
And I don’t see how you can run a campaign that only talks about your opponent without going negative. What’s Kerry supposed to do, praise him? And Kerry supporters get all pissed off when anyone tries to change the subject away from the only thing they want to talk about - how bad Bush is, and how rotten he is, and how nasty he is, and blah blah blah.
It will go away if Kerry wins. The Dems will gloat for a while, and Bush will become a sort of all-purpose bugaboo like Clinton is for some people, but any attempt in 2008 to do what they are doing in 2004 will be attacked as dreadful and bad. If Bush wins -
The Dems will either realize they cannot beat something with nothing, or they won’t. If they do realize it, then the 2008 campaign will be different. And they will run a candidate with genuine issues. Kerry may not be that candidate, but we shall see.
If they don’t realize it, then every election from now on will be like this one until they do.
It’s like that liberal radio network (Air America?) that was going to be just as successful as Rush Limbaugh, because it was going to be a series of mean-spirited attacks on conservatives. Because, after all, Rush Limbaugh is only successful because of that, right? It doesn’t necessarily work out that way.
Regards,
Shodan
I heard tell she was Portugese…
…born in Lisbon.
I think every re-election campaign (using the term loosely in this case) is a referendum on the incumbent. It was a disapproval of Carter and Bush I and approval of Reagan and Clinton. Only difference is this time it isn’t so universal- Bush seems to have enamored himself and alienated himself from equal populations.
I hate to add a dissenting note to what is obviously such a sensible thread, in so many ways, but…
To be blunt, the reason Bush has been attacked so much is not that Democrats are just negative nellies, or that they cynically decided that negative campaigning is the best, or that Kerry is a particularly uninspiring candidate… it’s that they (we) genuinely despise an incredible number of things about him. OK, he’s not the antiChrist, nor is he, in a literal sense, incredibly stupid. But he has done a number of things as president which large numbers of people in the country violently oppose.
I mean, you’re free to disagree with my position, but as I see it, he lead the country to war under shaky and/or false pretenses. What possible worse charge could there be? He LED THE COUNTRY TO WAR under FALSE PRETENSES.
(Note: he’s also done many other things that I disagree with passionately, particularly involving his approach to science, and his approach to civil liberties.)
Again, I may be wrong about that, and I’m not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot or a bully or a nazi or something, but why SHOULDN’T I be passionate about that? Why shouldn’t I hate the direction he’s taken the country? Why shouldn’t I express that anger and rage and hatred?
Honestly, I think Kerry is a fairly reasonable candidate, about whom I have a reasonable number of reasonably positive things to say… but, bluntly, I also think that Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and one of the worst in American history. Am I not supposed to care about that? Am I not supposed to be passionate about that? Am I supposed to pretend that’s not the case in order to live up to some ideal of positivity?
There is, however, one area in which I strongly agree with the OP, which is when it comes to attacking fellow citizens and dopers for their opinions. I think Bush is a TERRIBLE president, whose actions have been a disaster for this country. Honestly, I’m tempted to even go so far as to say that his administration is evil. I won’t back down from that position, nor will I be ashamed of my passion in stating and defending it. However, that doesn’t mean that all Bush supporters are evil, mean, bad, dumb, stupid, traitorous, rich, greedy, racist, gun-nuts, or any other insult you want to throw in there.
I think it was that way coming in. The vote was split essentially 50-50 in 2000. And, for that matter, in 1996 and 1992 the winner got less than half the vote.
And yet, ISTM none of those three elections were as nasty as this one. Because I think there were other issues to talk about. Or at least that people were willing to talk about.
Regards,
Shodan
I remember people saying I was nuts way back when I said there wasn’t any WMD. Now the same people call me nuts when I tell you we’ll be worse off in four years. Any person that takes the time to truly sift through the data will come to the same conclusion.
Make no mistake, there are informed people, and there are misinformed people.
John Kerry:
-
Supports increased funding for No Child Left Behind and the creation of a college opportunity tax credit.
-
Supports attempting to balance the budget and capping spending.
-
Supports his energy plan, which will provide for tax credits for the development of additional alternative sources of energy, and supports credits for both the automakers and consumers for creating and using more fuel efficient and alternate fuel vehicles.
-
Supports the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and the use of the EPA in enforcement of that legislation and supports the protection of the Artic National Wildlife Reserve.
-
Supports importation of medication and reducing family premiums on health insurance.
-
Supports obtaining more international support to fight the war on terrorism, while modernizing the military and keeping it strong.
etc.
etc.
etc.
I agree a major appeal of Kerry is that he is not Bush. I also agree that if Kerry is elected, most of Kerry’s work for the first few years will be to attempt to deal with the mess that Bush has left, including the staggering fiscal irresponsibility and deficit, the invasion of Iraq, the rolling back the tax breaks on the wealthy, and attempting to get a stronger, more equitable economy.
But part of being “Not Bush” is having a certain stance on other issues also, as I outlined above. I find myself agreeing on the issues, more with Kerry than with Bush. And the issues, while almost forgotten in this election, are what sets Kerry apart from Bush.