View Full Version : The Most Negative American Election Campaign EVAR
Divinus Arma
09-27-2006, 00:20
Wheeeeeeee!!!! Is everybody ready for this fun-filled mudslingfest?
AD BLITZ UNLEASHED
Tue Sep 26 2006 18:25:05 ET
The Republican Party has unleashed a long-planned battery of negative ads against Democratic challengers in House and Senate races across the country, employing the fruits of more than a year of research into the backgrounds of Democratic candidates.
Just as Democrats have launched an unusually aggressive barrage of negative advertisements intended to tie Republican incumbents to an extremely unpopular Congress, and portray them as captives to big business, pharmaceutical concerns and the oil industry.
NEW YORK TIMES reporter Adam Nagourney plans a Page One Splash for Wednesday, declaring: "The result has been what aides to both sides described on Tuesday as the most toxic midterm political environment in memory."
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
I love and hate politics.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. :furious3:
While I don't think the Framers were naive to this possbility, I still think they'd be rolling in their graves even so.... :shame:
Samurai Waki
09-27-2006, 01:54
The thing that annoys me the most about these Campaigns is that they ridicule and patronize the other opponent and then say absolutely nothing about what they plan on doing if they get elected. I'm voting Libertarian I think.
Sasaki Kojiro
09-27-2006, 02:05
We should ban all political tv ads.
AntiochusIII
09-27-2006, 02:17
We should ban all political tv ads.I was actually pretty surprised when I first watched a political ad on TV here; I always had this notion of it to be pretty, how do I say, dishonorable. A price of Freedom of Speech, I guess.
It's lame, though. If they want to waste commercial time they might as well make it good. But no... it has to be all the old negative crap. Why, I wonder, would any frickin' intelligent politician wants to broadcast his opponent's name further? :dizzy2:
Seems to me like politics to them is being "Not as bad as the other guy"
Devastatin Dave
09-27-2006, 02:33
Should be an easy election considering the Democrats have the same political ideals as the terrorists.
AntiochusIII
09-27-2006, 02:46
Should be an easy election considering the Democrats have the same political ideals as the terrorists.Now I know how Bush got in. ~;)
Meh, every election is the most negative evar...
We should ban all political tv ads.Nah, we should pull out all the stops- just require full disclosure on who's paying for it. Let people say whatever they want, just so we know who's saying it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-27-2006, 02:51
I was actually pretty surprised when I first watched a political ad on TV here; I always had this notion of it to be pretty, how do I say, dishonorable. A price of Freedom of Speech, I guess.
It's lame, though. If they want to waste commercial time they might as well make it good. But no... it has to be all the old negative crap. Why, I wonder, would any frickin' intelligent politician wants to broadcast his opponent's name further? :dizzy2:
Reminds me of a Royal Canadian Air Farce parody of a Liberal Party advertisement.
Stephen Harper wants to put a laser in space and carve his initials into Greenland. We are not making this up.
:laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
09-27-2006, 02:52
Now I know how Bush got in. ~;)
Here's a better explaination of how Bush got in...
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/22/wars_then_and_now.php
Here's a better explaination of how Bush got in...
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/22/wars_then_and_now.php
Great read. :bow:
Ironside
09-27-2006, 18:02
Hmmm I must say that those parodies on radio comercials starts to sound more like real life for every day. :inquisitive:
Now we need a game with Frankenstien doing bread fetching quests. :laugh4:
They have to resort to this sort of thing because their policies are identical!!! I know it sounds strange and confusing, even offensive, but it's true. Differences are abortion, a little bit of religion, and lots and hatred of each other.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-27-2006, 20:44
First, let me 2nd X-man. This campaign will be the worst so far, breaking the nadir established in 2004, and the new record will stand until 2008.
No restrictions on domestic funding, absolute prohibition of non-domestic funding and support, and full disclosure no less than 7 days prior to the election. Any fudging equals jail for candidate, campaign director, campaign treasurer and any others implicated. I can cope with a politician being a wholly-owned subsidiary of some corporation, I just need to know that before I lodge my vote.
Trashy campaign example:
VA Senate Race: Sen. George Allen (R) v Fmr. Sec. of Navy (Reagan Admin) Webb (D)
Webb predicted the debacle in Iraq months before it happened (easy win, miserable occupation) and advised Allen not to support it. Favors strong defense but much less interventionism without UN/NATO concurrence. Fiscally middle-of-the road. Good thinker, less effective on the stump or in f-t-f debates. Nam vet, decorated highly for valor.
Allen, solid conservative on morals issues, defense, economy but has never done more then level mild criticism of the Bush Admin and has supported Bush on all key votes. Very good speaker/debater, solid executive record as VA Gov prior to taking Senate seat. Supports Iraq effort and strong efforts against terrorism. Nam vet, decorated for valor.
So what's the campaign about? Not their differences on these issues -- despite the fact that both candidates want to discuss them. The media listens to their take on the issues, ignores it, and then asks the questions they want to focus on: Allen's alleged racism (Macaca comment), Allen's "failure" to reveal Jewish ancestry on his mother's side. Webb's opposition to women in combat, Webb's use of Reagan in an ad despite Nancy Reagan's request that he not do so, and one another's opinions of the other's foibles.
Both campaigns have, apparently, griped that they can't get their message out because of the media feeding frenzy, so even candidates who WANT to back off -- at least some of -- the smear tactics can't do so!
Oh, and Allen is some folks hope for next "Leader of the Free World."
Devastatin Dave
09-27-2006, 20:51
First, let me 2nd X-man. This campaign will be the worst so far, breaking the nadir established in 2004, and the new record will stand until 2008.
No restrictions on domestic funding, absolute prohibition of non-domestic funding and support, and full disclosure no less than 7 days prior to the election. Any fudging equals jail for candidate, campaign director, campaign treasurer and any others implicated. I can cope with a politician being a wholly-owned subsidiary of some corporation, I just need to know that before I lodge my vote.
Trashy campaign example:
VA Senate Race: Sen. George Allen (R) v Fmr. Sec. of Navy (Reagan Admin) Webb (D)
Webb predicted the debacle in Iraq months before it happened (easy win, miserable occupation) and advised Allen not to support it. Favors strong defense but much less interventionism without UN/NATO concurrence. Fiscally middle-of-the road. Good thinker, less effective on the stump or in f-t-f debates. Nam vet, decorated highly for valor.
Allen, solid conservative on morals issues, defense, economy but has never done more then level mild criticism of the Bush Admin and has supported Bush on all key votes. Very good speaker/debater, solid executive record as VA Gov prior to taking Senate seat. Supports Iraq effort and strong efforts against terrorism. Nam vet, decorated for valor.
So what's the campaign about? Not their differences on these issues -- despite the fact that both candidates want to discuss them. The media listens to their take on the issues, ignores it, and then asks the questions they want to focus on: Allen's alleged racism (Macaca comment), Allen's "failure" to reveal Jewish ancestry on his mother's side. Webb's opposition to women in combat, Webb's use of Reagan in an ad despite Nancy Reagan's request that he not do so, and one another's opinions of the other's foibles.
Both campaigns have, apparently, griped that they can't get their message out because of the media feeding frenzy, so even candidates who WANT to back of -- at least some of -- the smear tactics can't do so!
Oh, and Allen is some folks hope for next "Leader of the Free World."
Prime example of BDC's post. Good job Seamus, as usual...
I'm probably sitting this one and the 08 out. You can't put frosting on a turd and call it a wedding cake.
Reverend Joe
09-28-2006, 03:10
Dave,
...
I forgot what the hell I was going to type in the split second it took me to click the "post reply" button, thereby rendering an point I was going to make null and void due to hippiedom.
Prime example of BDC's post. Good job Seamus, as usual...
I'm probably sitting this one and the 08 out. You can't put frosting on a turd and call it a wedding cake.
If you can't see your way clear to vote for either of the two main parties, vote 3rd party. I've said it many times, we'll never see viable 3rd parties unless people start voting for them- and there's not better time to start than when you can't stand any of the other choices. :2thumbsup:
Papewaio
09-28-2006, 06:20
I agree with Xiahou, vote for a 3rd party (one that isn't embarking on a smear campaign and has some policies... even ones on the whole you aren't behind... just not ones that are patently evil)... then the main parties at the next elections will try and get those votes that the 3rd parties got... and they will try and appease them in proportion to how many voted and how close a race it was.
doc_bean
09-28-2006, 11:17
Vote 3rd party !
I'm going to vote for some useless party that doesn't have a chance in hell of winning October 8th :2thumbsup:
Wheeeeeeee!!!! Is everybody ready for this fun-filled mudslingfest?
Lee Atwater's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater) heirs are having their day. (Although Atwater didn't invent negative campaigning, he adapted it for the modern age, so let's give credit where credit is due.)
Should be an easy election considering the Democrats have the same political ideals as the terrorists.
The resemblance is uncanny, what with the Democrats pro-war, anti-abortion, brutally anti-gay and theocratic overtones.
The resemblance is uncanny, what with the Democrats pro-war, anti-abortion, brutally anti-gay and theocratic overtones.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
One thing we can all agree on:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/scrapconstitutione.jpg
Reverend Joe
09-28-2006, 19:08
They aren't fascists.
How can you say that? With the exception of the centralized political power, corporate and nationalist collusion, ultra-nationalism and centralized military, and a focus on a single charismatic leader whose dictates are law, they're just like the Nazis.
The resemblance is uncanny, what with the Democrats pro-war, anti-abortion, brutally anti-gay and theocratic overtones.
Hah, absolute genius.
How can you say that? With the exception of the centralized political power, corporate and nationalist collusion, ultra-nationalism and centralized military, and a focus on a single charismatic leader whose dictates are law, they're just like the Nazis.
You're not talking about Bush, are you? Surely you must be joking; the man has all the charisma of moldy cheese.... ~:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.