Just wondering what the public opinion is of politicians who base their campaign on their ability to smear all of the other candidates names?

I, for one am very turned off by that behavior. If you don't think you can win without slinging someone Else's name through the mud, then perhaps you shouldn't be running.

You can debate issues, compare your views / policy ideas to someone Else's, but to attack someone personally I think is out of line.

But like almost everything else in politics, it will never change

 

Look at any of the democratic presidential candidates, they have nothing to offer, just critisisim.

 

Well let's face it, the Republicans were in the same boat 3 years ago. Whichever party is vying for the White House will be the one slinging mud. For the eight years Clinton was in office the Republicans were on his heals, the last 3 years the Democrats are on Bush. Like Aegissailor said, some things will never change!

 

Throughout the world, American Politics is ridiculed and ignored, because of the crazy behavior of the candidates - All that seems important is slinging mud at each other. That is hardly adult behavior, more like junior high school. And these people get to rule the most powerful country..

That is truly ridiculous, scary, and worrisome.

Theo

 

When compared to some other countries ruled by electorial processes, our political campaigns are very civilized. I remember listening to political candidates in New Zealand and Australia who viciously attacked their opponents ancestry, household pets and then got really nasty on the political issues.

My experience with what the world laughs about regarding our politics is the importance we place on our democratic system and the resulting apathy of the US voter. Check the voter turnouts in your community. 20-25% is common. Few votors would know if a convicted mass murderer was running for office if the opposing party didn't publicize it. Even then, with a big enough TV advertising warchest, who knows what the results might be.

 

The point is that when a party has nothing to offer, nothing to say, and no independent solutions, attacking your apponent is their only option.

At the present time, liberals are in this boat, in the 1930's and 1940's the Conservatives were in this boat.

In fact, at one time, Democrats were considered the conservative ones and the Repubs were the "reform everything gang", very similar to what we apply to modern liberals.

Things change from time to time. If you want to be President, you can't afford to agree with your apponent. If you do, it's like endorsing your apponent. You will never get elected that way.

Ex: If the Republicans would be against action in Iraq, the Democrats would be for it. It's the law of American Politics; there always has to be two sides.

 

There is an industry in this country whose product is campaign strategies. They are mostly apolitical available to any one who holds the cash although many specialize on one side or the other. They compile and review data, conduct polls, review trends and tell candidates what to emphasize, what to downplay, what to avoid, what to wear at what function. Sometimes when a candidate is told to emphasize a key word or phrase, it is almost funny to listen to. Example - Mr Candidate, do you drive a Ford or a Chebby? I'm glad you asked that , Harry, as I was driving just today I was thinking about Social Security and a lock box. But what about Ford or Chebby? An excellent question, Harry, I know I speak for most working Americans when I speak about protecting their Social Security in a lock box - and on and on and on. They understand they only have to win a majority of the 18% of the voters that swing an election. They know that most voters are robots they can count on to vote as they always have. Politics is a game and some play it better than others.
Dono in 04

 

Man, do I agree with the above posts! It's pretty sad to think that our elected officials can't think and speak for themselves without relying on a poll. I know there must be some honest and honorable people out there, but I also firmly believe that if they were elected, they would be outcasts among the long termers already in office. They could stand up and make speaches or introduce the most logical and sound legislation ever uttered or written, but as long as they don't bow down and kiss the hind ends of the "elders", anything they say or do would be moot.

As for the apathy in the U.S., I have been concerned about this for a very long time. I've gone so far as to write letters to the editor of the local newspaper, asking for someone who doesn't vote, to write in... anonymously even.... and give the rest of us a good explanation as to why they don't vote. But then later, I think about some of what has already been said and I think that's the answer. (And bythe way...no one has ever responded.) Too many politicians blindly following the so called "party", doing as they choose rather than what a good and honest man or woman would do. I guess I can't totally blame people for not voting when we've been treated to so many fools in the past. What the heck's the use, eh? (blah, I don't buy it.)

Nevertheless, I am still a voter. I have voted since old enough and will continue to do so untill I no longer am capable of pressing a button, not creating a dimpled chad or am so old and senile that I've reached the point where I say..."Go ahead... vote for either one of the dumb guys.... yer the ones that gotta live with the results."

Rant off! ( or is this a rave?)

 

Well when i run in 2016, you'll all be assured i'll stop the current trend of mudslinging....Just remember everyone....Ryan in 2016

 

I like to smear cream cheese on bagels.

It's easy to see why politicians smear each other. People focus on the negative aspects of EVERYTHING. If a person tells you that he likes the color of your truck, he is also inclined to tell you what colors he doesn't like. " I like that fuschia color on your F-350, Phil, but you know what color I hate? Seafoam Green." Think about it. How many times a day do you find yourself giving an unsubstantiated criticism of something? Politicians and Ad execs play into that kind of thing. The people that advertise for those Swiffer Wet Jet thingies don't ask you how much you like a clean floor, they remind you how much you hate a dirty floor. And so on.
So it's much more impactive to point out the flaws and negative traits of another than to outline the positive, attractive traits of yourself, because people remember the bad stuff and filter out the good.
BDV

 

That's a standard business operating technique. You always look at the potential downside to ensure your capital and reserves are adequate. Same thing with personal decisions, and advertising just puts the words in place.

 

The republicrats (republicans and democrats) want it that way. If they can keep us fighting over two parties that are nearly identical we wont notice that neither of them is doing the job we elected them to do.

 

Good God, where's Harry Truman when we need him? I think he's the only 20th-century President that everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, agrees was a great leader. A politician, yes, but I don't think he ever stooped to the tactics they use today. I am keeping my eye on Gen. Wesley Clark- it appears there's some real potential there for a decent candidate. People talk about his lack of political experience as a detriment. Hell, I think it's his biggest asset!