What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
55 Comments
- NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23@jarland
Probally p0s3r and killinger777. They're hardcore right wing. They try to put a spin and attack anything Democratic. You can pretty much count on them to throw in their little blind faith for their party into any post. - scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Why is it so hard for the US to have a 3rd political party that combines the best of Republicans and Democrats and leaves out the worst?
People need to rise up. - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Do you remember what the Republicans used to stand for? Small government, states rights, lower spending? Now they lower taxes but increase spending. Get involved in gay marriage, when marriage has always been a state issue. Stem cell research etc... Do you remember? It just makes me sad, before you defend them look at what they have become.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Yeah, there are some leftwing nutjobs on Digg. But your boys are running for Congress with this *****.
- josh84p, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Give me a break. Both sides spend massive and equal amounts on negative ads.
- scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Unfortunately the rule "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" doesn't work in politics. Not advertising isn't an option. When your own party is a failure, redirect attention.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Lol. Thanks for pointing that out. I almost dugg him up assuming that was sarcasm. I honestly didn't think anyone was that ignorant. But looking at his comments he's a hardcore republican, christian, and hates gays.
- xSTALLiONx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Makes you kind of wonder if its actually rednecks in the south who are AFRAID of terrorists. I live in the Midwest and most of us haven't ever worried about terrorists killing us.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@ mrbobo34
Look at his other comments, he is being dugg down because that wasn't sarcasm, he's serious. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17But...but...but...the LIBERALS!
You right wingers absolutely CANNOT admit that your side is dirtier, can you?
Serious ego problems on the right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Go read the article. Republicans are not running ads that attack Democrats on policy positions, they're running personal smears fabricated from whole cloth.
- Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I take it this is the first election you all have ever noticed political ads.
Politics has been this way for centuries. This is neither unusual, shocking or limited to one side. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12p0s3r-
I don't know why people are digging you down, GOP have used fear-mongering to accomplish a lot, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they are using it to win elections. - JF1288, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But 90% of your budget? C'mon. You should take *some* break from bashing everyone else to at least say why they should even vote for you.
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9People Digg down killinger777 for being killinger777. I have him on my blocklist and I wouldn't have known about his post without you mentioning his username. He says nothing good or neutral about liberals or Democrats and is prone to personal flaming.
On the subject of the article, I would have to say that an incumbant who hasn't pushed a significant amount of good legislation has no basis for relection based on merits so they choose to fight the election in the realm of "the lesser of two evils". On the other hand, if the contending Democrats are spending the same percentage on negative ads, then they don't have a plan to change the status quo and aren't earning the seat.
And if by "negative ads" you mean the Democrats are claiming that "Incumbant X supported Bush on Legislation Y and Canidate Z would do otherwise", that is more of fact (even though no fact given in a commercial should be taken for face value in the first place) and it can't really be helped if the Contender wants to get some brand-name differentiation from the Incumbant.
Which brings me to my next point: Americans relying on TV and/or commercials to tell them who to vote for should have their voting privileges removed (like felons currently do). If you, as a voting American, aren't going out and actively researching your canidate and his/her stated platforms, you are (1) doing a great disservice to yourself and other Americans and (2) are no different than a monkey randomly pressing a button. That goes for anyone who blindly votes with party lines too.
I would rather have both canidates running on the issues only, but then again it didn't work for Kerry when the GOP smeared him endlessly and he didn't respond. This election has yet again turned into the ***** that plagues our government and the election process. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"the dems and repub's would filibuster that person out of office even if elected."
LOL. That would be quite a filibuster... - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Ans: Its almost impossible to prove if youre a public figure. (eg: a politician)
National level politicians actively campaigning are practically libel-proof.
This is so well known that it actually negates the worthy attention that would otherwise be paid to Dick Cheneys baby-eating fetish. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -14/+17Republicans spend more on attack ads, that is true, but the Democrats spend about the same percent of their ad money on attacks (reps just spend more total).
"For their part, the Democrats are not spending nearly as much, but they are apportioning their outlays the same way: They put $5 million into the campaign between Oct. 1 and Oct. 9, $4.6 million of it in opposition to GOP candidates."
from:
http://freepress.net/news/18386 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Pretty sure the Democrats have been doing this for the last few years, nothing positive to say, only pointing fingers.
...
What has the SP and Liberal press and bloggers been doing for the past few years?
...
I love how it glosses over the fact that Democrats are doing it too
...
Both sides spend massive and equal amounts on negative ads."
Two words for you guys: Moral Relativism. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let's blame Clinton.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Thanks to our plurality voting system, we're basically stuck having two parties, so the only way a third party can rise up is to displace one of the two main parties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
That hasn't happened recently, and it's tricky and unstable anyway. When one major party starts to fall apart, and its voters start moving to third parties instead, the short-term result is that the opposing major party wins every election until one of the third parties has built up enough support to be a real competitor. If that opposing party is far away from your views, then you're gonna be unhappy with them in power, which means you have an incentive not to vote for a third party.
Think of it like you're standing on a plateau, and there's a mountain off in the distance, but between you and the mountain there's a canyon. You want to get on top of that mountain because it's higher than where you are (you like the third party better), but to get there, you have to go through the canyon (a party that's worse than the status quo)--and not just you, but you have to convince *a majority* of voters to go through it with you. Good luck convincing them.
The most effective way to get change is to work within one of the major parties to shape it into a party you'd be happy to vote for, and in the meantime, push for voting reforms like approval or ranked voting, so you can vote your true preferences without the canyon/mountain problems of our current system. - DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Until the underlying problems (gerrymandering and campaign finance corruption) )are addressed American politics will continue to degenerate into something that does not even resemble a debate on the issues (well maybe we are already there)
What really kills me is that we have reached a point where we expect the people we elect to fix the problems mentioned above. That is like asking an alcoholic to blow up the liquor stores - it will never happen.
Nice thing about Cali is if we want something changed we use the initiative process so we again have a say. When our representatives can no longer represent us we need to take matters into our own hands. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd have to see the criteria for what determines a 'negative ad' and find out who gets to determine what is 'negative' and what is not.
How long does the ad have to mention an opponent's shortcomings before it's considered "negative"? Five seconds? Ten? The whole commercial?
I'm not sure why it's being assumed in this thread that none of these commercials contain nothing else but opponent blasting.
I guess it's because we weren't given enough information by the Washington Post. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Democrats aren't without error on this issue, I'll concede. But the NRCC and GOP proper have made the ad hominem attack their strategy since the 80s. I think it's probably on an unprecedented level now, though..
Case in point:
http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10The thing is, when one side (GOP), -always- falls back on lies to win, and when they can't win, does -anything- to make the other side look as bad as they do...
The other side has no choice but to show some teeth.
Also after everything Bush destroyed, the Dems have all the ammo they could ever need. This is an extreme understatement. There is enough political ammo for a ***** revolution.
I like the idea of old school small-govt conservatives. Instead we have the Neo-Cons.
The extreme right, Fascists. Police State. Torture. Spending.
(Not the entire GOP, just a few bad eggs in and around the top.)
(and the liars at FOX) - david76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ah, Republicans. They're such good Christians.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, but the only problem in Cali is that if you've got an initiative that somebody doesn't like, they're ready with legal appeals the day after it's passed. Remember Prop 187?
Doesn't matter how you vote on the initiatives, they all seem to get put on hold by some judge who is oh so much more intelligent than the voting populace. Why the hell don't they figure out if the initiative will pass constitutional muster BEFORE they put it on the ballot? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9It's simple folks. Republicans are so hooked on power and control that they're desperate now. Look how last election they compared a decorated war hero to a draft dodger and came out on top! It's evil genius I tell ya!
- Procure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Are you guys serious? Campaigns have ALWAYS been notoriously negative. It doesnt matter whether candidates are GOP or DFL, negative ads win elections...Its been proven time and time again. Its a shame it happens, because it turns off voters and contributes to lower turnout at the polls, but it wins elections.
http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/index.php - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6sounds like they're desperate.
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Well seeing as they have done nothing positive in the last 6 years its only logical what else can they do ?
Unless of course you are very rich dealing with oil or weapons of course :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If you can't beat them on facts, beat them with lies and propaganda.
- phogasmic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7this is the year of kings being ousted, down with the dominant GOP, down with Sony, and down with Micro$oft.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12What has the SP and Liberal press and bloggers been doing for the past few years?
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, here in Wisconsin, I saw four anti-Jim Doyle ads in a row on tv the other night paid for by Mark Green (Republican) I was pretty shocked. I seen a couple of his "pro-Mark Green" ads but the majority I have seen have been anti-Doyle ads.
- vietvet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Mr2001:
That hasn't happened recently, and it's tricky and unstable anyway. When one major party starts to fall apart, and its voters start moving to third parties instead, the short-term result is that the opposing major party wins every election until one of the third parties has built up enough support to be a real competitor.
There is another way, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Democrats pushed through civil rights, so the Dixiecrats took over the GOP. The grandchildren of the plantation owners found they had enough common interests with the Wall Street guys, in maintaining a docile work force, than they had in maintaining their grudge [over losing their docile work force -- ie slaves -- a century earlier].
I remember when the rejoinder to "why can't America have a liberal and a conservative party?" was "because the liberals would win all the elections." It hasn't worked out that way. A long term marketing strategy [including negative branding of "liberal" and control of the media] has got us to a situation where conservatives have been winning all of the elections.
But power does corrupt, most often, and the Bush-Delay-Abramoff machine may have overreached. Only the Urosevich brothers can save them now [their respective companies, Diebold and ES&S, will count 80% of the vote]. - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Backed into a corner and showing teethe...
- betona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's my take. Neither side is running anything constructive and the Post's article is lopsided. I've seen commercials for things like county clerk trying to connect the candidate to Iraq policies... WTF does Iraq have to do with keeping books on local street repairs? The barrage is unrelenting and both sides are equally guilty--and everybody's sick of them and is tuning out.
- zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"If we don't vote Republican terrorists WILL kill us."
dude, you forgot the [sarcasm] tag. I dugg you up assuming it's there - phatboyslim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Don't overlook the green party candidate this mid-term election. Chances are he/she stands for all the issues you would idealize in a canidate, but won't get elected because 1) the green party doesn't accept campaign contributions so you will rarely see them on television and 2) the dems and repub's would filibuster that person out of office even if elected.
I realize this is a bold statement, but only after campaign finance faces a strong reform will we see some integrity on capitol hill. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is