Part of Obama's call for 'new' politics assumes Democrats have been unfairly negative

[bigtree]

I don't look at the last two failed presidential elections and conclude that Democrats attacked republicans unfairly or excessively. If anything, our Democratic nominees took pains to pull their punches, even as they were haplessly fending off freewheeling blows from the Right.

I hope that Democrats don't retreat to past posturing which assumed republicans would temper their rhetoric if we just complained about it and merely folded our hands in our laps expecting for Miss Manners to prevail. If there's going be a 'new' political approach from our Democratic campaign in confronting the republican ticket, Barack Obama and his supporters should realize that we've already tried the 'gentlemanly' approach and have been rewarded with a full term republican presidency.

It would, in fact, only be 'new' politics for us if our party actually committed ourselves to practicing politics with an intensity which reflects our revulsion toward and rejection of the abuses, crimes, and destructive militarism these right-wing cretins have committed all these years with relative impunity.

I just don't see any need to treat this torture-supporting, warmongering, corporatist bunch of oil and military industry executives and shills with any delicacy at all. The public wants to see someone fight back, hard. If they don't see that from our party, the majority of voters will interpret that failure as a tacit surrender to the McCain cabal's blundering and belligerence.

[RainDog]

1. agreed

this is my problem with this rhetoric too. if he means new politics as in.. no more corporate favoritism over the American people on issues like the environment and health care and all that... great.

if he means we're supposed to pretend that the far right that has been in power is anything other than a massive fascist machine, then I cannot go there with him, and I think he's stupid if he believes this.

what's so funny is that the far right is, at this time, trying to label Obama as a fanatic, jihadist traitor to America who aligns with people who want to kill other Americans.... so where does Obama find the new politics in those current statements?

[bigtree]

3. right

NOTHING I've seen from Democrats, so far, rises to the level of the examples you've cited of right-wing smearmongering.

[disgruntled98]

10. For far too long the most insidious talking point has been...

"well, both sides do it really" What ever IT is that the Republicans get caught in it's always been "well, yeah, it's a problem but both sides do it"

When Obama speaks about McCain's policy decisions, it's an "attack ad" and the Republicans are allowed to say what they want because "both sides do it".

I think that finally people are getting the message that no, this really is going to far. I saw a poll (which I sadly can't find now) that suggested that more people are starting to see the Obama camp being much more fair to the McCain than the other way around. One of the points that was made was when Clinton was seen as being unfair to Obama, his popularity rose, even while negative attacks cost him popularity if the attacks were seen as fair.

This should be bad news for McCain, as all he has are unfair attacks.

[liberalmuse]

2. We didn't pull out the blue dress...

but now the Repubicans are positively outraged that the same vile "standards" they lowered the bar for in order to smear the Clinton's are still in place for someone like the Palins. They're damn lucky we aren't the pantysniffers they are.

[frazzled]

4. No, the premise is that we shouldn't be as bad as them

It was stated quite plainly the other day (with reference to the Palin thing): if we descend to their depths (attacking family members, for example), then we impede the very change we seek.

I agree with that, on a political level. On the personal level, I feel quite free to delight in muckracking these jokers.

[bigtree]

6. I agree there are limits - the family members are out of bounds, of course

But, we won't get ANY change at all if they manage to ill-define our candidates more than we're able to muff-up theirs and squeak into office. There's really no evidence that the republican's hardball (sleazeball) politics impeded them at all.

Besides, we should be able to find more than enough legitimate insults to deflect and criticize their despicable politics and governance which reflect our legitimate revulsion with the right-wing's assault on America. And, you can bet that SOMEone will complain it's out-of-bounds. Tough shit. Some things just matter that much.

[shraby]

5. As my mother used to say, there is more

than one way to skin a cat...Obama sees this and feels that ridicule an mocking the opposition for the stupid things they say and do will be much more effective than vicious negative attacks. He's been right so far. Saying positive things about himself and his ideas are much more constructive and effective. I applaude his thinking. Personally I hate the negativity and am really proud my candidate uses his brain instead of brawn.

[bigtree]

7. been there, done that

I'm not convinced the distinction will be noticeable or the effect adequate to move enough voters away from McCain. I'll only be 'proud' if it works.

[Caliman73]

8. Fighting back

Doesn't mean sinking to the levels of tabloid reporters. I think that Barack is right in the sense that we as the Democratic party need to say "Enough!" and answer back strongly on the RW's outright lies. We also need to hit them hard on the issues that are verifiable. There is a difference between saying the McCain/Palin's policies will lead to more of the same economic and political disaster for America and looking for conspiracies about whether Palin is raising her daughter's baby. YES, if that truly comes out and is verified, then it speaks to Palin's deceitfulness and should be out there as a character issue. Until then it is speculation and it makes us look desperate to come up with dirt.

We have plenty on the Republicans without resorting to this kind of personal attack. What we need to focus on is keeping the link between idiot Bush and McCain. You can be intense and have integrity too. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty , or give me death" He didn't say, "King George wears women's clothing so we need to kick him and all the other British ladymen out of here".

We have to understand that a segment of our population is not going to be swayed. Those who have too much to gain from the Bush/McCain presidency, and those people who are afraid to think beyond their very narrow world view. No matter what we say, those two groups won't budge. We do need passion and intensity, but we need them focused on the fight ahead and what we need to do to live up to the promise of the American dream. We don't want to play the Republican's game. They have too much practice in dirty tricks because when you have such a weak agenda, you have to focus elsewhere to get elected.

The Democratic party always seems to come into the picture when the Republicans have screwed the common citizen enough and the hard work of rebuilding needs to be done. Here we are again.

[bigtree]

11. the problem is that there is some presumption that we've been out of bounds

We haven't gone overboard.

I think the effect of the gentleman's campaign is to soften legitimate attacks out of fear of being labeled as 'negative.' As I said, family members should be out of bounds, but I don't think we should hold back on legitimate presumptions about these cretins who haven't given a damn about the lives they've squandered, the millions they've impoverished with their thievery; neglect and obstruction; the democracy they've sullied with their trampling of the constitution; or those they've imprisoned in their cynical, political terror play. There's really not a lot to be said about these folks that's too extreme . . . not when you consider what they've done and supported.

[stillcool]

9. I don't think it 'assumes'...

that at all. The "new politics" I believe he is trying to bring about is one of "Real" issues. The fact that he actually campaigns on a daily basis with or without media attention, and doesn't run his campaign through the media is in itself "new" politics. As you say, he is criticized consistently for his refusal to make attack ads. I guess that's what people want. They would rather watch smears and jeers on their tv screen than influence their neighbors with the 'real' stuff.

[bigtree]

12. it seems to me

. . . that all we manage with that approach is to put out just a fraction of the attacks the republicans are advantaging themselves of. It may have some virtue, but it appears to disadvantage us in the end.