Anybody else sick of the mud-slinging already?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Those who follow my typical posts know that I’m a pretty light-hearted kind of guy, more interested in a laugh than a serious debate (Man Cave ring a bell?)</p>

<p>But I have to say, the Parent’s Cafe has started to take an ugly turn IMO. Is it me, or has 90% of the posts here turned into “My guy is great (no matter what he does), your guy is a slimy sleaze-ball” contest? We’reslinging so much mud at each other, we might as well be working at a salon.</p>

<p>Well, to add to my opinion, I really don’t think we could have two better candidates to choose from (at least from the field that we originally had). Sure, both have their goods points and bad points, and both have made some minor mistakes on the campaign trail, but that can be expected (thousands of hours traveling the country glad-handing anyone with a pulse does tend to make one tired. And the media focuses on every little mis-step versus every smart, intelligent sound-bite. It makes for bigger circulation). </p>

<p>So, you ask why am I enthused by the two choices this year? Well, let me give you my picture of the situation (plusses and minuses). </p>

<p>Obama. VERY intelligent, well-spoken (in prepared statements), charisma up the whazoo, wants to repair our image and prestige in the world through a friendlier approach to diplomacy. And after 8 years of an American public tired of the current administration, he just “feels” better to the average voter. His message of hope and change are resounding.<br>
His faults: he gives the impression that he has been calculating his rise to power since day one, following a carefully laid out plan to achieve greatness. Sometimes seems a little niave on some issues (international relations and the current war are examples IMO), and won’t admit his mistakes (arrogance, perhaps?). Starting to get a reputation for pandering in order to get elected. </p>

<p>McCain. A track record of non-partinsanship that has the taxpayers interests front and center. Willing to work both sides of the aisle to do so. Strong leadership in a time when America needs a strong leader. War-hero (and anyone who tells you otherwise has NO CLUE what a hero is). Will fight pork barrel spending, even when it hurts his constituents and those who back him. And, IMO, he is willing to change a stance on an issue not for panderings sake, but because it is the right thing to do.
His faults: man, is he old! (but he seems healthy enough for me, hiking the Grand Canyon and all). Obvious that the campiagn trail is taking its toll on him mentally (tired, mis-speaks frequently). The charisma of an infectious disease when compared to his opponent. A campaign staff that doesn’t have a clue and can’t afford to buy a vowel (arrogance from the Bush campaign victories?). Although he has a history in Congress, that also comes with baggage (Keating 5, anyone?) Not nearly as smart as his opponent, or as well-spoken. Also starting to get a reputation for pandering.</p>

<p>But these are character flaws, nothing more. Is one the Devil incarnate, and the other the ArchAngel Micheal ready to slay the dragron? Hardly. Both are good men, both with visions on how to improve America. THAT’s where this debate should be, the vision. Take a position on a topic, and debate that. Stop the name-calling and silly accusations, and get to what really matters. Stop closing your eyes to the faults of your own candidate while pointing out the tiniest of flaws as major problems with the other. Are you allowed to your opinion? Well, that is why I served 20 years in the military; to ensure that you have every right to shout from the mountain-tops to your hearts content. But you know what, usually when your shouting from on high, you’re just proving to the world that your “that crazy guy up there on the mountain”. (Old sayig from my old man: “it’s better to stay quiet and have the world think you’re an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.”)</p>

<p>What say you? Tired of this childish bickering as well? Ready to argue merits of poilcy stances than whether ones guy’s campaign staff “meant this as an insult” when they said so-and-so? </p>

<p>Again, just my opinion, but the bar is set so low right now, either one of these guys will easily step over it. I choose to see a positive light at theend of the tunnel (let’s just hope that what I’m seeing isn’t the on-coming train).</p>

2

<p>Agreed.</p>

<p>Everyone, from here on out let’s discuss only what is relevant.</p>

3

<p>Glad to see that. I will look forward to a change in posting style.</p>

<p>I agree too.</p>

4

<p>Thanks, Bullet.</p>

5

<p>Good post. Yes I am tired of it already. I rarely get involved in discussions about politics because there is no respect for other people being allowed to have different viewpoints and beliefs. Just a lot of vitriolic attacks on the opposing side.</p>

<p>I don’t really have a horse in this race as I cannot vote (green card holder) but I do lean more toward the Democratic side (surprisingly as I was a Maggie Thatcher supported back in the day before she stayed in power a little too long - definitely proved that term limits are a good idea). I don’t think McCain is the devil incarnate - back in the primaries before the 2000 elections I really liked McCain and was surprised that Bush won the nomination. </p>

<p>What I would like to see in campaign adds - just talk about what you the candidate believe in and what your plans for the country are. Don’t talk about the other guy at all. Just you. I believe this. I will do that. Is that really an impossible thing for politicians to do?</p>

<p>When our kids apply to college or we apply for a job we talk about ourselves - our strengths, what we will contribute, why you should accept/hire us, why we are the right person for the job/school - we don’t run down the other people applying and say don’t hire/accept them because of blah blah blah - we would never get the job if we did. Wouldn’t politics be great if they worked that way. I know - i am being naive. But I can dream.</p>

6

<p>I rarely participate in the political threads on CC. I agree that many of them are mud slinging fests. </p>

<p>However, what is disconcerting is that some of the actual campaigning is ALSO mudslinging and not on the issues. Ads comparing someone to Paris Hilton or the Messiah, just are not what I want to see in a political campaign. If a candidate has to resort to that kind of tactic, it says something to me. I’d MUCH rather hear them discuss their platforms and debate issues. </p>

<p>So, we can hope to stop mudslinging here on CC (I hope) but problem is, some things going on in the campaign are mudslinging tactics, unfortunately. It sets a BAD and unfortunate tone.</p>

7

<p>“I’d MUCH rather hear them discuss their platforms and debate issues.”</p>

<p>It’s hard to do that when your opponent’s popularity is based on character (NOT views) and the views they do have change erratically. Take the last two days, when Obama decided that he actually liked offshore drilling, despite the fact that he used his former opposition to distance himself from McCain.</p>

8

<p>Kaolin or loam mud?</p>

<p>Its too early yet. People are enjoying their poor $ummer.</p>

9

<p>Baelor, it should not matter why your opponent is popular. If you want to be elected President, stick with why people should elect YOU…what you stand for, what you will do if elected, etc. Make your own self “popular” for projecting a fine image both in terms of character and on the substantive issues.</p>

<p>Throwing mud is child’s play.
(oh, I forgot…the campaign said it was all in good humor…as if that is important in such a significant matter)</p>

10

<p>I love negative campaigning, and I think one learns more from negative campaigning - both about the slinger and the slingee - than from anything else. Presidents are often thrown into unforeseen nasty situations, and how they are able to respond to them is critical to their ability to govern. And the quality of the ads put out by a campaign or by campaign surrogates is a true test of a candidate’s character. </p>

<p>If “issues” were the issue, we could just post the Party platforms on line, and be done with it.</p>

11

<p>

I disagree that it is hard to do - that is the whole point. I would like to see a candidate talk about their own character, their own views, their own beliefs. That would have so much more of a positive impact to me than them trying to run down their opponent. Even if I disagreed with those views or plans I would respect the candidate so much more.</p>

12

<p>PS…I see NOTHING wrong with a politician changing a viewpoint. Views can change over time based on many factors. What is so good about sticking with a view if the view is not a valid or good one? </p>

<p>Example…you want to go to war because a country has weopens of mass destruction but you later find out that they don’t have them. Should you stick to your original view for the sake of not changing it? I prefer a candidate who listens and weighs things and may alter a stance if he has a just rationale to do so.</p>

13

<p>I would love to hear more about what specific plans the candidate has for what he wants to do. That way I will know exactly what they lied to me about once they take office and revert back to their reptilian form…</p>

14

<p>Okay. The quotation from your post was the wrong one – I was responding to mudslinging versus focusing on the issues.</p>

<p>I think that both candidates should focus more on the issues. McCain on his own platform, and Obama on substance and not talk, which I hear too much of. But I have no problem with them attacking each other, even in seemingly cheap ways (e.g., McCain=Bush with ominous music, Obama=Moses, etc.). I think that candidates have a right to exploit the weaknesses of others and have a right to point it out. In the Messiah ad, for example, McCain nails Obama for apparent arrogance (whether context affects Obama’s statements or not). I don’t have a problem with this. Nor do I have a problem with Obama associating McCain with Bush. I would rather hear more about the issues from both. But when is that going to happen? It’s both candidates, not just one. And until one sucks it up and starts debating issues, both will continue to attack character traits of some relevance to the presidency.</p>

15

<p>Thank you all!</p>

16

<p>

Actually that is a good point - I had not thought of it from that point of view. I still don’t love it but you are right it definitely does affect my opinion - usually more so of the slinger than the slingee.</p>

17

<p>Agree with mini. The negative campaigning, such as recent ads, say alot about the slinger and their character and ability to respond and govern. </p>

<p>Agree with you, swimcatsmom. Even if I disagreed with a candidate’s view, I’d respect him/her more if he/she sstuck to their own views, rather than slung mud at another candidate’s character/image.</p>

18

<p>The only problem with the mud slinging is we never learn what either candidate plans on doing…only what their shortcomings are.</p>

19

<p>Absolutely! By the end of a campaign, each candidate looks like a bumbling, evil, corrupt, cretinous, fool. … It’s a wonder ANYBODY wants to run for high public office.</p>

20

<p>The main stream media is in the tank for Obama. Although the main stream media is usually very liberal and I can deal with that, in this case they are infatuated with Obama and that is dangerous for our country. It is difficult to believe McCain will get a fair presentation of is positions. I am no fan of McCain, but unless he takes some aggressive steps to get his message out and counter the media’s infatuation with Obama, he will lose the election.</p>

<p>All of this talk about stopping the mudslinging assumes their is a fair playing field for the candidates to communicate with the American people. That playing field is the main stream media and they are so tilted towards Obama that it is not even close to a level field.</p>