What do you think of candidate "bashing"?

[Adelante]

Not if you like it or not; I will assume you don't. But what is your perception of it? What constitutes candidate "bashing"?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Attack the record, not the person.

Rationale for decision-making is a valid point of contention especially in a debate.

[Adelante]

2. That was mine, too

I didn't realize at first I could vote in my own poll.

[Alexander]

11. Agreed - but some supporters can't tell the difference.

I won't name names.

[Morgana LaFey]

16. Character counts, and so does leadership

I don't know how you examine those without considering the person.

Plus, by your rationale, Bush wouldn't look all that bad -- or certainly wouldn't have appeared to be the sociopath he demonstrqbly is. Gotta go to the person for that kind of thing.

[flaminbats]

3. I think 2 constitutes as candidate bashing..

I don't view posting your negative feelings or using the votes or statements made about a candidate as bashing.

bashing politicians is something the Republicans have mastered, but only something Democrats use as a defensive measure. we need negative ads, personal attacks, and to use such ads to frame the political debate. Republicans say attacks on tax and spend liberalism are never personal, only the truth. But Democrats rarely strike back by looking into the pork bills, campaign donations, the hypocrisy, and personal character of these candidates.

Republicans know that politicians are guilty until proven innocent. We don't need to prove that Republicans are guilty, we only have to convince voters of that guilt. We don't need to prove that Republicans increase deficits, we only need to convince voters that Republican politicians usually laugh at the idea of making sacrifices for their country. if Democrats want to win in 2008, we better become the masters of dirty politics!

[Adelante]

4. That is the clearest one nt

[FrenchieCat]

5. Who I can't understand are those who

complain about having to "Lower their expectations" while they cry about "good Democrats" being "bashed" even when bonafide issue questions are raised in the middle of early primary season.....while these exact same posters start negative thread after thread about Democrats in all parts of our government, while they are in other threads attacking posters all day long. :(

I say, if one is gonna take the negative route, at least don't complain that others are doing it too, for goodness sakes! :eyes:

[Cameron27]

6. Do you know what I don't understand?

An entire thread of bitching and whining and name-calling about a dumbass story by a shitty author about a certain candidate, where only 2 posters bothered to actually do any fact checking and de-bunking.

One debunker, the amazing FrenchieCat who made quick work of the Clark smears, and the other, bling bling who tried to sort out some things about Edwards, and she's an Obama supporter!

Why not just de-bunk first and then no name calling would be necessary?

[AtomicKitten]

7. a paucity of insight

I completely agree with your assessment. It boggles the mind when people complain about the very thing they are doing. Way too much wasted energy IMO.

We've got some GOP butt to kick in about 18 months. That's the battle that really matters.

[Adelante]

8. .

:kick:

[Jai4WKC08]

9. None of the above, depending on the circumstances

Even superficial and/or untrue information affects a candidate's electability and is therefore subject to discussion. Nothing could be more ridiculous than blaming Obama for his middle name. But if you don't think that will be exploited by the GOP if Obama should win the nomination, you're not being realistic. That's not to say every candidate doesn't have similar weaknesses, but that's not to say they're all of equal significance or equally exploitable.

Speaking of which, it is also important to consider how a candidate reacts to negative information. Kerry's flaw wasn't his war record, it was how he reacted to the swiftboaters. Gore is no liar, but he allowed himself to be painted that way by the media. Clark, if he should run, will be attacked for any of a number of bullshit GOP claims, and judging how he would handle the attacks is reasonable and necessary. But how do you do any of that if you can't bring up the information itself, or if you don't know all the facts?

Besides, what is superficial to one person is not necessarily to another. Some people think Clark is unqualified because he has never been elected to office. I think that's a silly concern, but certainly acknowledge their right to feel that way, even as I can articulate the arguments that support my point of view. Conversely, I think that it is a major failing if a candidate has only been a senator, and especially only a one-term senator with no foreign policy experience. Obviously there are many here who don't and that is their right too.

And personally, I just do not accept that every Democrat is a great guy or gal deserving of the utmost consideration and respect. Some of them are just as sleazy as anyone on the other side. If you can't take the heat of confronting people who think your guy is a dirt bag, then you don't belong in a political discussion.

Finally, I'd suggest folks listen to Washington Journal occasionally. On any given morning, you will hear AT LEAST one right-winger whine about Democrats bashing "The President" in utter denial that there's anything wrong with him or his administration. Is that really what we want the Democratic party to become?

[GreenArrow]

14. I concur n/t

.

[Cameron27]

10. Kick for the morning

and a rec.

[ripple]

12. I find the bashing patterns mildly interesting, if a little bit annoying

It only takes a couple of minutes after logging in to discover who the *traitorous democrat* du jour is. Once that candidate's supporters have had enough of defending their candidate, they start new threads targeting another candidate, and then the process repeats itself.

Maybe we should give a few of the most frequently bashed candidates a break and pick on Biden, Richardson, or Gravel for a change. Better yet, let's bash on some rethugs for a change. They've certainly done plenty to generate genuine outrage, rather than the contrived, 'fire in a crowded theater' type that we see so often on democratic candidate threads.

I chose 2 and 3, BTW.

[lpbk2713]

13. #3 ... Oh hell yes.

I don't like it but we live in a superficial world. Image seems to be everything. I don't recall at what point in time values got so turned around but they did.

[mmonk]

15. Isn't bashing determined by the issue raised

and whether it is legitimate or not and not whether a supporter is offended?

[frazzled]

17. It is our job to assess the candidates, pro and con

What else is a party's primary for but to try to come to a decision about who the best candidate will be? How can that decision take place without discussing what we think of the various candidates' records, character, appeal, proposals, political abilities, etc.?

If someone says something negative about your candidate, it is because they believe the factor they are identifying is critical to making a decision about who the party's candidate should or shouldn't be. If you disagree with that person's point of view, make a good argument of your own, or present your facts in retaliation. But to whine about "bashing" is to suggest that we should all subscribe to a general "group think" and support the candidate that you support.

Why even bother to have a primary in that case?

If you or your candidate can't withstand the scrutiny, then perhaps it's time to get out of the fire.

P.S. It is seeming to me that objections to candidates are raised in direct proportion to the amount of boosterism that candidate gets on the board. There are candidates who can barely burp without someone posting a press-release about it here. Maybe the incessant booster-posting wins some people over, but for a lot of people, it turns them off. While they might not otherwise say anything negative about your candidate, the constant press-releasing may cause them to feel the need to speak up. Call it backlash, or whatever, but it's something to consider.

[FrenchieCat]

18. " There are candidates who can barely burp without someone posting a press-release about it "

:rofl:

PS. I don't consider this bashing, cause it is the truth dramatically worded for effect!

[AtomicKitten]

20. word

and proof positive that sometimes less is more

[jenmarie]

19. Your P.S. is well noted.

I have been visiting less and less at kos due to the rah-rah cheerleading threads of one candidate who I do not support. I usually just read the threads, or stay out of them, but last night I couldn't take it anymore. I posted that not everyone felt as they did and to me their candidate lacks good judgement, has no diplomatic, foreign policy or executive experience and there's a serious gap between past actions and current words.

I was piled on by 4 or 5 posters -- called a Republican, told I wasn't needed for their candidate to win, and basically told to leave the thread. Needless to say, I won't post on their diaries anymore, but my attitude towards their candidate has turned from merely not supporting to, as you say, being completely turned off. My doubts and questions about that candidate will remain and if that candidate becomes the Dem nominee I will vote but not donate or volunteer.

On the poll I chose #2 and 3.

[Cameron27]

21. I know what you mean about kos,

I don't bother reading there anymore. Useless.

Welcome to DU btw. :-)

(my puter is acting up, and I can't get the damn smilies table down, or I would've waved!)

[jenmarie]

23. Thank you!

Yes, I think I will stay away from there for now.

[illinoisprogressive]

22. What if you legitimately do not like a candidate? They rub you the wrong way.

I have many things I do not like about Hillary including this stale old yesterday thinking and dynasty thing. The same old merry go round over and over again. And seeing where it got us.
That said, I just do not like Hillary. I cannot stand her. sorry but, it is truth.

[mopinko]

24. i like it. it'scalled the democratic process

if you don't like it, maybe your candidate has something to hide.

[Redneck Socialist]

25. I think your candidate sucks...

and my candidate rocks!

So there. <sticks tongue out>

[GeorgeGist]

26. It exposes critical thinking skills.

Sellers and buyers beware.

[skyblue]

27. It Weakens Candidates - If Candidates are made Unelectable by Ourselves we need to spread our money

around to other candidates. Basically some liberals will join the Republicans and bash Democratic candidates making a candidate unelectable that probably would do well in the general election. Republicans will take advantage of little details and engage Democrats to get pissy about minor details ok and sometimes major details and miss the big picture - who can get elected.

Thus this makes it necessary to spread money around so other candidates can pick up the slack in case we have done the best candidate in. Candidates need to pay for their TV ads.

You can be real sure that any Democratic candidate for President will win. Is it better to be safe than sorry?

I think that Republicans are a whole hell of alot trickier than we take them for. How else could Shrub have received any kind of votes? How else could we have televangelists who get audiences upwards of 10,000 every friggin' weekend making more tax free money than our major music stars? How else could kelly Ripa be so popular (if she's a Dem then I appologize just using her as example)....