When is it okay to be Mean and Dirty in Politics?

[bleedingheart]

For years now I have heard many Democrats tell me that my rabid hatred of Republican ideaology was just a bit "over the top"...they would tell me how we gain more respect by being good and respectful and carrying on a nice and clean campaign about "the issues".

So...I watch as Gore gets robbed...Kerry gets robbed and I also watch as a local politician, Allen Kukovich, loses an election to some of the dirtiest campaigning I have yet seen...and he lost to a fellow who wouldn't even debate him because that republican (former democrat) knew that he couldn't hold his own... but he knew how to send nasty nasty letters in the mail...and spread evil gossip.

I am now watching a local election race get really ugly...slander, lies ..etc The fellow in question is a good person, he actually cares a great deal about his district...but his opponent is out for blood...he is going to get really mean and even dirtier.

But ...there is a saving grace...the republican is a "business man"...yet more than likely uses his wife's benefits (paid for through her job which is a public service job=tax money) ...and when asked if he paid his employees a living wage and healthcare benefits...he won't answer...we could very well start attacking him...but everyone is saying..."oh that is just too mean and we shouldn't lower ourselves"...

So...what to do...what to do???

Should we continue to just keep turning our cheeks and not fight back vigorously?

I hate to say this but people want their candidate to fight. If they can't fight and fight hard and sometimes dirty...people start to wonder whether they can trust that person or if that person is "strong enough for the job"...

I am tired of seeing good people lose races. I am really tired of seeing our candidates be far to nice when they are being flayed in the press and with slander...

There is a reason for the phrase..."people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"....I think it is time to start throwing stones at the republican's glass houses.


edit...by Dirty...I mean drudging up information unrelated to issues...like a candidate's mistress..or his shady business dealings...stuff that is true and can be documented.

[blm]

1. I say go for it - - In 2002 Alex Sanders and his entire camp KNEW Lindsey

Graham is gay. A gay group in SC even wanted to launch a campaign outing Graham. Alex Sanders would not hear of it. As a human being it was the right thing to do, why feed into the demonization of gays - in politics, can Dems afford to maintain civility anymore?

I would have gone with the option presented by the gay group - let them handle it and stay completely out of it myself. But then, I am not a complete Southern gentleman, scholar, or humanitarian anywhere near the degree of an Alex Sanders.

It's hard to choose, though. What would you do?

[KansDem]

21. "Dems afford to maintain civility anymore?"

I thought something was awry in 1994 when Newt Gingrich made his (in)famous statement, "We will cooperate but we will not compromise!" I had learned all through school that compromise was the basis of a democracy. But now apparently that has all changed. "Get down and dirty" with the opposition and "don't give an inch" seems to be the new basis for a "democracy." Especially when you control the counting of votes...

[Cleita]

2. I don't think it's ever appropriate but that doesn't mean

you have to let them use you for a door mat. Also, you have an obligation, IMHO to tell the truth. So if you as a politician are being swiftboated, you should I believe, attempt to set the record straight and if this means accusing your opponent of lying and proving he is a liar I have no problem with that.

If your opponent is running on high moral standards and it turns out he has a disreputable private life, by all means air it out in public. The hypocrisy must be exposed. Just don't lie or spin the facts. Let them stand on their own but make sure they get aired in public.

[bleedingheart]

6. i am about airing the truths about these scumbags...not creating lies

[yurbud]

3. CONFLICT gets people's attention--Democrats who ignore this ignore

a truth that has been recognized since at least Aristotle. Without conflict, there is no story. Without a story, most people won't listen.

I actually use this example in class:

Imagine you are working at some Dilbert cubicle job, and you get tired of playing solitaire, so you start to eavesdrop on the conversations around you. On one side, someone is explaining how to use the fax machine. On the other, someone is getting fired.

Which do you listen to?

What if you don't know how to use the fax machine?

You don't have to just do ad hominem attacks; in fact, you don't have to do any. Simply say "My opponent wants to do X, which will screw you in way Y (or already has). I will fight for Z, so that we get a new letter for the result."

EVERY single thing Democrats say should be set up this way, or no one will hear a single word.

[jobycom]

9. True, but conflict is not the same as "mean and dirty"

You can run a clean, confrontational campaign without running a dirty campaign. Clinton did it in 92. He stole that victory from Bush, who should have been a shoe-in with his approval numbers at the start of that campaign.

[yurbud]

15. Democrats fail to see the difference

they not only don't fight dirty, they don't fight CLEAN. They don't fight.

They seem to be only angling for the business interests that back the GOP, not vying for the votes of actual people.

[jobycom]

20. The Dems I watch fight hard. If yours don't, take them on, but don't

go blaming the whole party.

[yurbud]

32. what the party does as a whole also matters

[bleedingheart]

16. a lot of people think attacking a person's character is dirty

and mean spirited...

I am not for making up lies about candidates..

but if you know information about a candidate's personal life and behavior that would make a difference some Democrats view it as dirty to air that kind of information...even if it is true and documented.

For example..a republican candidate many years ago had been arrested for beating his first wife...when a woman went to a debate between him and his democratic opponent and brought it up...a bunch of democrats were pissed off at her about it.....yet it was documented and it was true!

[jobycom]

26. It's usually ineffective for Dems to raise those issues.

Republican voters like soap opera stuff. Dems don't. In the gubernatorial election in Texas, the Dem (whose name escapes me, luckily) tried to run ads attacking Rick Perry's personal issues. His ratings fell when he did it. For that matter, Bush's numbers fell in 2000 after the convention when he started attacking Gore's veracity again, so it may not completely work for the Repubs, either. I even remember a case decades ago in Mississippi where the Republican candidate accused the Dem of being gay, and found a male prostitute to testify he had been with the Dem candidate. This was about two weeks before the election. It backfired completely, and the Republican was spanked in the polls.

The thing is, people don't vote against candidates they like over individual issues, unless it is dramatic (murder, child molestation, etc) and proven. For that type of character assassination to work, the opponent has to begin to smear the candidate before the public forms an opinion. Like with Clinton, Kerry , or Gore, the Repubs started hundreds of whisper campaigns to shape opinion of the opponents before people could form a positive image. They did it subtly, in ways that made people think they had heard the story from a friend, rather than from a politician. Rumors are started in groups, or newsletters, and now through email. "A friend of my cousin's was a neighbor of John Edwards, and said..." That kind of stuff works, because it shapes people's opinions of the candidate before they are formed. Bush did this to Ann Richards. He started a whisper campaign that she was the lesbian lover of Sarah Weddington, the Roe lawyer in Roe v Wade. You can see how many nuances the rumor had. And Richards couldn't fight it, because no one had really publicly accused her of it.

But making an accusation late in a campaign, after people already have formed opinions, doesn't work as well. For a candidate to accuse, or have a supporter at a debate accuse, a candidate of something just looks petty to many voters. Especially to Dem voters. If it is an issue directly related to the office they are running for--bribery or embezzlement, for instance--it's one thing. But domestic problems and other issues, they just don't work as well, and are as likely to backfire.

Run a clean, hard-hitting campaign. These are Republicans, it isn't hard to find issues to attack them on.

[yurbud]

37. Democrats don't have the echo chamber to back them up

Most personal attacks are done through surrogates like talk radio.

If a Democrat wants to use a personal attack, he has to carry that water himself, and if the media covers the attack at all it will be to say how low it was of the Democrat to say it.

Bush rarely if ever makes personal attacks himself. In 2000, John McCain tried to hold him accountable for them in a debate, and Bush acted innocent about what Karl Rove probably ran by him before he did.

The Democrats performance has to be more self-contained. It has to stand on its own merit.

If people only knew what they directly saw of Bush, without the extra spin of others, he would have been a laughingstock like Dan Quayle.

[BuhByeChimp]

12. True...to an extent.

What if every day on one side someone was getting fired? How long before you tune that out and don't listen anymore?

Then you won't get your message across at all because people will stop listening to you.

[jobycom]

4. Never

You can fight without fighting dirty. You say you're tired of good people losing races, but if they stoop to dirty politics, they are no longer good people.

I just watched here in Austin where a county commissioner I know got beaten by a filthy, vile primary campaign by a candidate who managed to convince the liberals that her opponent was too conservative, while at the same time rallying the conservatives to run the liberal out of office. This winning candidate had two sets of attacks--one she launched around Dems, one aound Repubs. So the incumbent was beaten by a joining of liberal and conservative voters, with the middle (and some on the left who saw through the lies) voting for the incumbent.

Dirty politics is never acceptable. If your opponent does it, expose it, but if you stoop to their level, you may as well join their party.

That's my opinion. As for Gore getting robbed in 2000, it wasn't because he was a nice guy. It was because the media ganged up on him and someone who should have been his supporter turned on him and led thousands of voters away. Gore would not have won by playing Bush's game. He would have excited the media even more against him, and he would have lost in reality and not just on dirty paper. The one attribute Gore had that Bush couldn't destroy and the media couldn't sully was his virtue. He would have been a fool to give that away and be left with nothing.

There are Dems who are dirty and worthless to start with. I guess for them to run dirty campaigns is no big thing. They aren't the Dems I respect, though.

Again, just my opinion.

[Ravy]

5. IMHO, never in a Democratic primary

That always comes back to haunt you.

[bleedingheart]

8. i am not talking about primaries

this is Democrats vs Repuklicans

[Ravy]

36. Then I would say, never first. (n/t)

[LSK]

7. let me just say that the right has no problem doing ANYTHING

Playing nice is a loosing game. The right and Rove WILL NOT PLAY NICE. Therefore, if the Dems can back up whatever they have, they should use it.

Nothing is out of bounds anymore as long as its TRUE.

How long do we have to abide by a set of rules that the right does not play by???

Monicagate, Max Cleland, Swiftboating, the Dean Scream, cut and run.

The right knows no restraint, why should we?

[jobycom]

14. Why should we?

So that we have some reason to get elected over them. If we are the same, why bother?

And again, there is a difference between "not playing nice," and "mean and dirty." Mean and dirty is about lying, throwing mud, swiftboating. Not playing nice is about taking the debate hard to your opponent. Any candidate who doesn't do the latter should step aside and let a real candidate run. No candidate who does the former deserves to win--either party.

[LSK]

18. notice i said as long as its true, nothing is out of bounds

Lying and making up stuff is not what I care for, however the right uses it on a daily basis.

[porphyrian]

10. Politics have ALWAYS been mean and dirty.

Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying.

[LSK]

11. exactly - its not for the faint of heart

[bleedingheart]

19. that is what I keep saying...but people keep telling me to tame down

Jefferson's opponents brought up his slave mistress to discredit him...
Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel's "bigamy" issue was used politically...

and when I point that out...people don't know what to tell me...

[porphyrian]

22. Thankfully you don't listen to them.

If we're silenced merely by words, we've already lost.

[lonestarnot]

27. Ignore those mealy mouthed freaks!

[Swamp Rat]

13. Smash the Nazis!

[lonestarnot]

28. here here!

:*

[demosincebirth]

17. When they lie, which almost all the time, slap them with

the truth untill hell freezes over! "Nice guys always finish last."

[IdaBriggs]

23. Only if we want to win. And since when do Democrats want to win?

(Please note some sarcasm)

There are two parts to being a politician -- one is having the skills to get the job, and the other is having the skills to do it well. Republicans are good at winning races, but they are completely incompetent when it comes to governing well. They treat the treasury as their personal checkbook by gifting funds to their friends, and ignore the responsibilities ("PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE AND INSURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY") that go along with it. Democrats, on the other hand, appear to think "if we just TELL THE TRUTH, we'll win" which isn't how it works in the real world. They ignore election fraud, and lose elections, but they are EXTREMELY good at governing because they actually show RESPECT for everyone's point of view (even when they don't agree with it).

So, I go back to my only semi-sarcastic comment: ONLY IF WE WANT TO WIN. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who aren't willing to "sell their souls" to save other people, and therefore, we all lose.

[Tyler Durden]

24. Politics does not follow the Marquis de Queensbury rules.

This comes under the heading of not "...bringing a knife to a gunfight."

Personally, I vote for using the political equivalent of Nuclear Weapons.

[lonestarnot]

25. Bury the fuckers in their own dirt!

[kentuck]

29. Lamont should have been more "mean and dirty' against Lieberman...

in last night's debate, imo. Lieberman attacked him from the beginning. Who is Ned Lamont? Can he be trusted? Lamont should have said we are tired of Lieberman sucking up to Bush like a hogsucker carp sucking up to a worm. And if a Democrat cannot defend the Social Security System, then he is no Democrat at all. Perhaps Mr. Lieberman might be better suited to the Independent or the Republican Party?

[Joe Fields]

30. All is fair in love, war and politics.

Time to get "mad dog mean and dirty." Long overdue, actually.

[titorisque]

31. 'Being strong enough for the job' means...

...having character, providing leadership, having better ideas than the next guy--not in being nastier than the next guy.

[lonestarnot]

33. hmmmf. that name is much like another poster here. I think it is time to

be nastier!

[yurbud]

38. it's not being nastier to point out where you differ from opponent and

consequences of his wrong policy decisions.

[Cha]

34. When you're losing

your country to a passle of neocon cutthroats who would just as soon cut your throat as look at you.

It's the truth..they just think it's HELL!

[Nite Owl]

35. I think it is wrong to lie

about another persons record or past. This is what the repukes do, they outright lie or mislead. We shouldn't ever stoop to that. However, sometimes the truth is ugly, sometimes the truth has to be known so that the public can indeed make a wiser decision. Truth is what matters and if it hurts so be it. If that is being nasty then maybe they shouldn't have done those things and then run for public office, it's the chance that they took when they got their name on the ballot.

[seabeyond]

39. i have never backed down from a fight. no one would call me a

passive person. never had i had to resort to mean and dirty. always with knowledge and honesty i have been able to wage an aggressive and productive fight.

i dont think we ever have to resort to mean and dirty. all lose.

as son says to extended family, no one argue with mom. she always wins..... i always win cause i talk what i know about it and am honest.