Not only do they work they work better for conservative candidates.
Most would think the proper response to a dirty trick would be to debunk it for the bullshit it is. As it happens debunking seems to increase a person’s belief in its truth (some liberals do too but moreso for the conservative mind). Truly astounding…show someone something is provably false and they become even more committed to its truth.
I merely note that it would be a far better start to such a discussion to be bipartisan about it, even artificially. I’m sure the OP realizes that as well, and perhaps you do too.
No one has said anything even suggesting “banning the other side”. Come on now. :dubious:
The OP specifically refuses to discuss one side cleaning up its act. But, as I already said, if the facts point to that being at the nature of the problem, it is *necessary *to discuss it - refusing to do so would be exactly the partisan sniping you purport to deplore.
Did he have a DUI? Were the records false or recklessly misleading? Then no, it was not a dirty trick, and even if one assumes that the illegality of the leak were just, it’s still not as bad as constructing deceptively inaccurate propaganda.
There’s a selection effect, here: We don’t reward all dirty tricks, just successful ones (tautological, of course, since “successful” is defined as the ones that we reward). It’s just that the successful dirty tricks are the only ones that get much media attention.
As for other examples, what party were George Smathers and Claude Peppers (he’s an acknowledged Homo sapiens, his sister is a thespian, etc.)?
What’s astounding? The more something gets mentioned on “the news”, the more impression is created that it is factual, or that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire, so there must be something to it”. That’s true even when you have media reports tacking on “The other side denies it” as a token nod to this “neutral report of the facts” stuff that old fart back at J-School yammered at them about.
Yes. And Cheney had 2.
Actually, this is the sort of doublespeak partisan nonsense I was hoping to avoid, but you simply will not let it go.
The point of asking that the thread not be slanted to telling one side to clean up their act is to address the entire issue. By you trying to re-focus on addressing only one side, you are avoiding the overall issue so that you can pretend that only “their” guys do it.
This assumes that it was done by someone in the “Bush campaign”. But there are a lot of independent political operatives who have their own interests in mind. What’s your evidence?
Both were Democrats - the race was the Democratic primary for U.S. Senator from Florida. And while this particular incident didn’t actually happen, Smathers did mercilessly accuse Pepper having pro-Communist leanings.
This was retaliation for Pepper’s support of a dump-Truman effort among Democrats in 1948.
Common sense/Occam’s Razor.
For it to be otherwise you have to think someone in the McCain campaign had the bright idea to trash McCain which would then have the effect of enraging Carolina voters (who are totally cool with candidates having out-of-wedlock interracial babies) such that they will rebel against Bush and vote McCain.
That’s so preposterous on the face of it I do not recall even Rove making that accusation (and he is hardly a guy to shy away from such things).
Where’s your evidence it was a hit job by McCain supporters?
Problem is, both Smathers and Peppers denied that famous “dirty trick” ever happened. And it didn’t. It was a hoax made up by a bored reporter.
And from this article on Smathers:
The truth is more interesting than fiction in the Smathers-Pepper incident. Smathers was recruited to take Pepper down by Truman, and did so by calling him a Red over all of Florida’s counties in 1950.
There’s no way you’d let anybody get away with that in a Great Debates thread without some evidence, Bricker. Spill, or that throwaway phrase seems dangerously close to a reportable post.
Well, I would regard the “Burkett memos” to be a dirty trick - though one that backfired on CBS rather than helping any campaign.
The McCain campaign? 
I specifically suggested “indepenent political operatives who have their own interests in mind”.
To make it simple, if that helps, there are generally a lot of people other than a candidate and his/her campaign employees who have an interest in the outcome of political races, and they frequently take action on their own initiative. Surely you must be aware of this type of thing, if you follow politics even slightly.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.
Geez…
Fine.
Point is the effort was meant to smear McCain and not in some brilliant piece of reverse psychology give McCain a bump by smearing McCain but making it reflect worse on the Bush campaign.
More likely is someone was trying to help Bush. It was something that, when asked, Rove repudiated and said he had nothing to do with. That despite Rove being a control freak and that despite Rove, while distancing himself from it, did nothing to put a stop to it.
It’s like a mafia don. He lets it be known he really wants that other guy gone (wink/nod) then claims innocence when someone…who knows who…puts a bullet in that guy’s head. Mafia don shrugs and truthfully claims he knows nothing about it.
Neat trick albeit an old one.
The point is, Rove may have controlled the entire Bush campaign, but he didn’t control everyone who supported Bush. The push-polling could have been done by a supporter of Bush who wasn’t part of the campaign and wasn’t under Rove’s thumb.
I don’t think you can stop negative campaigning or dirty tricks so long as people care more about “character” than they do competence. To someone evaluating a politician on the issues, and their proposed solutions to problems, having a Black baby, cheating on your wife, doing coke, etc. doesn’t matter nearly as much. I’m not so sure people are willing or able to look past those things though.
The whole point of my painting only “my side” in the OP was to avoid this kind of nonsense, but at the same time acknowledge that the answer to my question shouldn’t simply be, “Republicans need to clean up their act.”
But fine.
Burkett’s memo, as Mr. Moto mentions.
The “Nixon Deed,” incident during the Kennedy-Nixon elections.
The smashing of the Denver Democrats’ headquarters, blamed on the right wing but actually committed by a Democrat.
Salon’s claim that George Allen used the n-word at college, and gave a friend the nickname “Wizard,” because the friend shared a last name with a KKK leader.
Both sides do it.
What’s the answer? More specifically, I propose strengthening libel laws. What say you?
I don’t say anything, I was just surprised by your offhanded comment that “of course, the other side does this too, but I won’t mention names.”
Of course I am shocked, shocked, that politicians might try to do some dirty tricks. I mean, we hold them in such high esteem!