It is time to go dirty

[joeprogressive]

I hate to say that but with large amount of poorly informed voters, we need to play dirty like Bush/Rove etc. Now I'm not advocating lies. I mean, we need to push stories like awol and confirm others like Bush's possible illegal abortion. Why has snopes not looked into the Bush abortion story? If Nader would just drop out, we could win this thing without dirty tactics.

[TrustingDog]

1. too early, imho. btw...

when do the campaign ads have to stop?

[Skip Intro]

2. I think the filthy right only help make Kerry/Edwards "hope" message

all the more potent

Let the unAmerican right continue to offer the people a black void of hatred and negativism. We'll offer them hope and optimism - and we'll win.

[cthrumatrix]

3. no...no need for dirt....facts, issues and hope will beat this asswipe

[K-W]

4. Let them bury themselves in the mud, we are smarter than that.

We cant out negative ad them, we just cant. We have to run our own campaign.

[tom_paine]

5. I agree, Joe, but you'll have little effect here

It seems the vast majority of Democrats remain poised to repeat 1980, 88, and 2000.

This problem compounded by the fact that the Media is infintely more weak, useless, and transparently biased towards the Imperial Family.

Unfortunately, the common sense of your position (and mine) seems to be lost.

It looks like we'll be trying the same old weak stuff again, with som minor changes.

Now, given that Bush* is the greatest threat to democarcy and Liberty this country has seen since 1861, it might be enough to win in a squeaker.

Time will tell.

[K-W]

7. You do realize that negative campaigning isnt some magic bullet,

it has major downsides. And your oversimplification of past elections wont change that. We cant out negative Bush, if we turn this election into a who can demonize the other side more competition, we are going to lose badly.

There is nothing Bush wants more than a Kerry campaign that chooses to bash him more than it chooses to present an alternative. Both sides will throw mud, and Bush will win the battle of perception.

They have been doing the right thing. Bush is talking about Kerry, Kerry is talking about Kerry, suddenly Kerry jumps from being an underdog against a hugely successful republican establishment to being a favorite in many polls.

Negative ads dont encourage people to vote for Kerry.

[kentuck]

6. I think we need to first point out that these people are going "dirty"...

and see how the people react to it? This may turn people off this time around? Jus think, if it was a negative to run negative ads and to comment negatively on talk radio, how would that change the political process?

[unfrigginreal]

8. We don't need to go dirty but we do need to point out the truth.

The truth about Bush using fear as a campaign companion.

The truth about Bush sending 900 troops to their death for a war of choice, not need.

The truth about Bush being a dangerous Fundamentalist Christian that is on a crusade.

The truth about Bush favoring corporations at the expense of the public.

ETC.

There's nothing dirty about telling the truth but there is a cost in being silent about it.