Do Voters Really Dislike Negative Campaigning?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. Surveys of voters routinely return results indicating that the voters detest negative campaigning and wish the "politicians down there in Washington would stop all that bickering and work on the issues". This election season will be a real litmus test of whether or not voters really mean those noble sounding sentiments or they were just trying to look good for the pollster.

    It's pretty clear which party has campaigned from the sewer. We have Foley 24/7 from Democrat spokespeople and their captive media. We have the ridiculous macaca coverage, the N word claims from 30 odd years ago, we have whispered allegations about a Senator's jewish grandfather.

    We have Democrat leaders who proudly march in gay pride parades with NAMBLA officials decrying a gay man sending emails to 17 year olds. The same Democrats who confused the Oval Office with their neighborhood glory hole now demand that the Republican leadership resign over one gay man who sent some creepy (to normal people) emails.

    And did you know that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian?
     
  2. Voters dislike negative campaigning about as much as they dislike getting the latest dirt on a co-worker or former classmate. Let's be honest. Who here is disappointed when that long traffic jam was the result of a stall rather than a REALLY GORY fatal crash?
     
  3. AA... the problem is sending emails to a 17 year old, not the fact that foley was gay. Please stop mutilating facts... but then you vote for the klans... you are programmed to do it. Shame on you.
     
  4. No , the problem is that Democrats see nothing wrong with marching in parades with NAMBLA but want the House leadership to all resign because one guy sent a few emails to people he could have legally had sex with. Foley is out, the story is over.

    I have yet to hear Pelosi or any other Democrat denounce NAMBLA.
     
  5. just to set the record straight - your position is that it is ok for an adult male to send sexually-suggestive messages to 16-yr. old boys?
     
  6. I think his position is that Democrats think it's okay - except when it's a Republican who does it.

    As for neg ads, I think liberals dislike them more than conservatives, simply because it's easier to pan libs with them than vice versa.
     
  7. I think his position is that Democrats think it's okay
    What makes you think so?


    except when it's a Republican who does it.
    When republicans adopt a holier than thou attitude in order to win elections it's only fair that they get crucified when they don't live up to their self-proclaimed holiness.

    it's easier to pan libs with them than vice versa.
    Absolutely, and the good part is that republicans don't even need to stick to the facts, they just make things up as they go, the corporate media disseminate these lies and the gullible public swallow them hook, line, and sinker.
     
  8. The republiklans, in power, knew of Foley and his pedophilia, yet gave silent approval by doing nothing for years...

    So how does AAAinthepukeway handle this, seeing the party of "morality and virtue" look the other way at one of their own?

    By attacking the dems...

    So typical.

    Oh, and what else do we see recently from one of the members of the "party of morality and virtue"?

    A convicted repubniklan congressman (by his own admission of guilt) refusing to resign...

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 — Representative Bob Ney, the first member of Congress to confess to crimes in dealings with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to corruption charges Friday but said he would not immediately resign.


     
  9. Because he sees Dems siding with NAMBLA types.


    Fair enough. But it's not his hypocrisy they're crucifying him for, is it?
     
  10. Because he sees Dems siding with NAMBLA types.
    Please provide specific examples with your accusations. Before you do though, consider the following quote posted on a right wing website.

    marching alongside NAMBLA members at a local homosexual pride parade.”

    Loathe though I am to discomfort you with facts, Pelosi was not “marching alongside” NAMBLA. She was riding on a float, four floats back from the NAMBLA people. Among gay groups, NAMBLA is universally despised, and only gets into parades by threatening lawsuits. Pelosi has nothing to do with them.

    http://rightwinghowler.com/2006/10/10/nancy-pelosi-the-hypocrite-of-hypocrites/


    Fair enough. But it's not his hypocrisy they're crucifying him for, is it?
    As a matter of fact the dems are not crucifying Foley at all, they are hardly ever talking about him, they are crucifying Hastert and the republican leadership for the cover up though. And yes, hypocrisy is a significant part of it.
     
    #10     Oct 14, 2006