STORM2K

I am already so sick of the mud slinging by both parties. I know I'm dreaming, but I'd love a campaign that stuck to the issues and didn't dig up real or imagined dirt on the candidates.

You and me both, sunnyday. Political mudslinging is very immature. You would hope that people grow up and stop acting that way once they get out of high school. But most politicians would rather make the other candidate look bad than talk about the good things they can do.

It is because of John Kerry... plain and simple. This guy is a walking target. He has so much crap in his record. This may end up being a landslide for the Bush admin. if Kerry wins the nomination.

I can't see that it is Kerry who causes the mudslinging because Clinton, Dean, etc. have been attacked, as well. Bush is currently receiving mudslinging, too, for various reasons such as his military record and his possible lying or exaggerating about wmd in Iraq. It's not that a person is a 'target,' as you say. It's that others attack the person because they don't like them or what they supposedly did. To me, we should remember that the Bible says, 'He who is without sin let him cast the first stone.'

Hi sunnyday! I know, but Kerry is just an example of a "prime target". If you have lots of skeletons in your closet then they will be exposed, regardless of party affiliation. I don't like it... but it is kind of standard procedure.

Don't you think everyone, no exceptions, has things he/she wouldn't want aired in public? This mess with the possibility of Bush lying to the American people is terrible to me. Who is totally clean?

wx247 wrote:It is because of John Kerry... plain and simple. This guy is a walking target. He has so much crap in his record. This may end up being a landslide for the Bush admin. if Kerry wins the nomination.

Here's a prime example...

sunnyday wrote:Don't you think everyone, no exceptions, has things he/she wouldn't want aired in public? This mess with the possibility of Bush lying to the American people is terrible to me. Who is totally clean?

Noone.

Stephanie wrote:

sunnyday wrote:Don't you think everyone, no exceptions, has things he/she wouldn't want aired in public? This mess with the possibility of Bush lying to the American people is terrible to me. Who is totally clean?

Noone.

Once again...its the Liberal "Everyone is doing it" defense. It is soon to be renamed "the Clinton Defense".

EVERYONE does not cheat on their wife. EVERYONE does not run off to Canada to avoid service. These are decisions, not a disease like alcoholism. Yes, people do things they regret, but there are things that rise to the question of fitness for office in the eyes of the electorate.

If Pres. Bush was AWOL, which ALL the facts (though liberals don't care about that) point to him not being, I could not vote for him. If Kerry had an affair, which we are not sure of, then because he spouts the moral high-ground, he shows weakness as a potential candidate. I would not vote for Kerry because he is liberal but especially because he is a hypocrit and a potential liar.

There is no "everyone does it" excuse.

sunnyday wrote:Don't you think everyone, no exceptions, has things he/she wouldn't want aired in public? This mess with the possibility of Bush lying to the American people is terrible to me. Who is totally clean?

Lindaloo.

stormchazer wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

sunnyday wrote:Don't you think everyone, no exceptions, has things he/she wouldn't want aired in public? This mess with the possibility of Bush lying to the American people is terrible to me. Who is totally clean?

Noone.

Once again...its the Liberal "Everyone is doing it" defense. It is soon to be renamed "the Clinton Defense".

EVERYONE does not cheat on their wife. EVERYONE does not run off to Canada to avoid service. These are decisions, not a disease like alcoholism. Yes, people do things they regret, but there are things that rise to the question of fitness for office in the eyes of the electorate.

If Pres. Bush was AWOL, which ALL the facts (though liberals don't care about that) point to him not being, I could not vote for him. If Kerry had an affair, which we are not sure of, then because he spouts the moral high-ground, he shows weakness as a potential candidate. I would not vote for Kerry because he is liberal but especially because he is a hypocrit and a potential liar.

There is no "everyone does it" excuse.

You're right - everyone doesn't do it - but EVERYONE is fallible and has faults. That's what Sunnyday was referring to.

Consider this an anti-anger edit. I am now seeking counseling!!

with the press doing kerry's dirty work for him, i think bush is done. bush is on the defensive, and looks very weak right now. i still think he drop out and let someone else get the nomination.

i got this from news max:

"GOP chairman Ed Gillespie says Democrats "don't want a debate on the issues, and they don't want to run on Senator Kerry's record. I guess I can't blame them." He warns that Kerry's campaign will falsely accuse President Bush of paying for an ex-girlfriend's abortion. "

gillespie must be worried. if a story comes out about bush paying for an abortion, he is history. mind you, i have no idea if its true or not, but it doesnt matter. the press and the dems will attack bush on that till he is run out of office

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe sunnyday was simply stating that political mudslinging as a whole is wrong. Which I agree with.

How refreshing would it be to see candidates who simply stressed the things that they would do if they were elected or where they stand on issues, versus digging up dirt on the other candidate(s)? I have seen WAY too many commercials prior to elections that are nothing but slamming an opponent. Half the time, you don't even know who the commercial is trying to get you to vote for - only who to NOT vote for. I think this is very immature.

See edit.

I wish there wasn't mud-slinging but there is a difference between that and talking about an opponents voting record. That should be fair game

I agree, Marshall.

stormchazer wrote:Consider this an anti-anger edit. I am now seeking counseling!!

LOL!!! Hey, sh*t happens!

John & Marshall - I agree with what both of you said.

is as old in the US as the Constitution (well maybe not quiet as old since George Washington didn't get muddied but after him it was gloves off) The contests between Andrew Jackson and John Qunicy Adams were especially vitrolic and they were the first campaigns where a candidate's sex life became an issue. Bottom line, anything goes in American Politics-who can forget the Grover Cleveland campaign?

Steve

Aslkahuna wrote:is as old in the US as the Constitution (well maybe not quiet as old since George Washington didn't get muddied but after him it was gloves off) The contests between Andrew Jackson and John Qunicy Adams were especially vitrolic and they were the first campaigns where a candidate's sex life became an issue. Bottom line, anything goes in American Politics-who can forget the Grover Cleveland campaign?

Steve

Uh, I don't know what happened with the Grover Cleveland campaign - what happened?

I know it is as old as the hills - and it just gets "old" period. I think that most people would just like to hear what the candidates have to say and offer. I think mudslinging occurs out of desperation - and it usually doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Good to see you here!