Comments on: Beating the “System”

By: RevDave

RevDave — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:42:00 +0000

Is there anything that the highly principled Maverick (r) hasn't flip flopped on during this campaign to get elected?

What is worse? That McCain would change any of his positions to get elected or that he hasn't changed but that his campaign is not under his control?

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:45:26 +0000

You're the one out here complaining about the tactic used by your own party.

And blaming that on the system.

Go ahead and reward the party that does these things that make you feel sorry.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:11:53 +0000

Dennis, which particular issues from the Dems do you find unbearable? I am genuinely interested. I am probably on the other side from you. I find the Dems to have tons warts and policies I disagree with, but ultimately for me the Republican Party remains too tied to the likes of James Dobson who represents, I believe, the worst of American politics. Perhaps that comment takes things to far afield, but I am wondering what on the Democratic side is so horrible from your point of view.

By: DennisMN

DennisMN — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:39:11 +0000

Sorwell,

I don't know if I would go as far as saying McCain is running a Rovian campaign.

Yes, I am sorry about both of the things you have addressed, but if you think that I am going to vote for the Dems this time around, you would be wrong. The GOP does have many problems, but I just am not persuaded by the Democrats answers. It comes down to the better of two evils, then I will go to the GOP.

I know that isn't the answer you want, but it's the answer I have come to.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:50:45 +0000

A lot of focus has been on McCain, but I am more interested in the so-called “system.” What does it say when a candidate might try to do the right thing and try to run a “civil” campaign and no one seems to be interested? What does it says that said candidate gets traction only when he goes negative?

It says he's a lousy candidate, his people realized it, and fell back on the tactics used by the GOP for decades.

One might also ask, what does it say when a candidate runs a clean, issues based, above board campaign and he out raises his opponent by almost 2 to 1 and leads in most polling?

By: Ricorun

Ricorun — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:12:51 +0000

What does it say when a candidate might try to do the right thing and try to run a “civil” campaign and no one seems to be interested? What does it says that said candidate gets traction only when he goes negative?

I think you've hit on something here that I (for one) never really considered. But it makes perfect sense. As the media saying goes, "If it bleeds it leads." So no wonder negative advertising works. And no wonder positive advertising doesn't -- unless of course, you can be portrayed as a phenomenon. In which case, that's all you will be portrayed as. And that, of course, makes you different. And that, of course, makes you worthy of criticism and distrust.

Suddenly I'm thinking about that Travolta flick, "Phenomenon". I think its central theme might apply here.

By: GeorgeSorwell

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:17:54 +0000

You're completely right when you say some will disagree about McCain's "elevated campaign".

He's running a campaign right out of the Rove handbook.

You're apparently sorry about this. You also seem sorry that Bush offered "very little in the way of ideas".

Do you plan to reward the party that does these things that make you feel sorry?