This article from the Times of London gives a preview of how some hard right republicans think they can attack Barak Obama in the general election. Comments?
Sure, I agree with Democrats more than Republicans on policy substance too, but another key reason I’m a Democrat is I can’t stand the GOP’s attitude. They are always looking to go negative in a really nasty way. It seems like every general election cycle the first attack ad I see is from their side.
<
p>That being said, part of the reason I believe Clinton will be the better nominee is that she has practice fighting back against the Republican attack machine. She won’t fall for the temptation of not dignifying attacks with a response and I’m afraid Obama might.
eaboclippersays
and has voted for hard left what you call Progressive but are really socialist causes. Socialist in the way Europe is socialist.
<
p>Socialized Medicine is Socialist.
<
p>Redistribution of wealth is Socialist.
<
p>When “attacks” are mere recitation of truth they aren’t negative are they?
tbladesays
…building highways and funding schools.
<
p>Oooh. The “S” word. Spooky language to scare Americans and divert attention from substance. Barack Obama is as socialist as John McCain and George Bush are militaristic fascists.
christophersays
If your ad says, “I disagree with Obama’s health care plan for this reason and I propose the following alternative.” that’s one thing. If your ad says, “Obama is an anti-American socialist out to ruin the healthcare system and you best be very afraid.” that tells me absolutely nothing about your candidate and in my opinion does not really contribute to substantive debate. Throwing out labels like “socialist” is simply designed to trigger an emotional response, whereas some might be tempted to respond with, “Your point would be…?”
<
p>One case in point, during the 2004 presidential campaign I thought Bush had more negative ads than Kerry. Now to make sure it wasn’t just my own biases at work I went on the campaign websites to look at all the ads of each candidate. Sure enough, the vast majority of ads on the Kerry site were about Kerry while the vast majority of ads on the Bush site were about…Kerry. The national party sites at the time were the same idea. The front page of the DNC site was predominantly about electing Kerry rather than defeating Bush, while the front page of the RNC site was predominantly about defeating Kerry rather than electing Bush. The GOP is the party of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and Grover Norquist. The closest I can come up with on the Democratic side is James Carville, but even he is more defense than offense.
p>Would you like a Government Bureaucracy making health care decisions, like when you can have routine surgery, for you?
<
p>I think the responses would change. And that’s what socialized medicine would bring. Even in Canada they are getting away from “socialized medicine somewhat. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that it is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force both Canadian doctors and patients to only use the Government run system.
<
p>
Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who’s been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was against the law to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor. The duo lost in two provincial courts before their win last week.
The court’s decision strikes down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance and is bound to upend similar laws in other provinces. Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance, according to Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and author of a recent book on Canada’s health-care system.
centers on the Dem not being firm and being a flip-flopper. (Wonder why they didn’t try that on Bill Clinton?)
<
p>They’ve said Obama’s not a Christian, and not black, so the next thing is that he’s probably not a real man.
<
p>The “too liberal” thing won’t fly, because Obama’s main advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a University of Chicago economist. He’s not a hardcore Milton-Friedmaniac, but since Obama’s tried to float the idea that tax cuts could help unemployed people in a recession, that should nix the socialist accusation. Tax cuts don’t help people who’ve lost their source of income.
Sure, I agree with Democrats more than Republicans on policy substance too, but another key reason I’m a Democrat is I can’t stand the GOP’s attitude. They are always looking to go negative in a really nasty way. It seems like every general election cycle the first attack ad I see is from their side.
<
p>That being said, part of the reason I believe Clinton will be the better nominee is that she has practice fighting back against the Republican attack machine. She won’t fall for the temptation of not dignifying attacks with a response and I’m afraid Obama might.
and has voted for hard left what you call Progressive but are really socialist causes. Socialist in the way Europe is socialist.
<
p>Socialized Medicine is Socialist.
<
p>Redistribution of wealth is Socialist.
<
p>When “attacks” are mere recitation of truth they aren’t negative are they?
…building highways and funding schools.
<
p>Oooh. The “S” word. Spooky language to scare Americans and divert attention from substance. Barack Obama is as socialist as John McCain and George Bush are militaristic fascists.
If your ad says, “I disagree with Obama’s health care plan for this reason and I propose the following alternative.” that’s one thing. If your ad says, “Obama is an anti-American socialist out to ruin the healthcare system and you best be very afraid.” that tells me absolutely nothing about your candidate and in my opinion does not really contribute to substantive debate. Throwing out labels like “socialist” is simply designed to trigger an emotional response, whereas some might be tempted to respond with, “Your point would be…?”
<
p>One case in point, during the 2004 presidential campaign I thought Bush had more negative ads than Kerry. Now to make sure it wasn’t just my own biases at work I went on the campaign websites to look at all the ads of each candidate. Sure enough, the vast majority of ads on the Kerry site were about Kerry while the vast majority of ads on the Bush site were about…Kerry. The national party sites at the time were the same idea. The front page of the DNC site was predominantly about electing Kerry rather than defeating Bush, while the front page of the RNC site was predominantly about defeating Kerry rather than electing Bush. The GOP is the party of Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and Grover Norquist. The closest I can come up with on the Democratic side is James Carville, but even he is more defense than offense.
More Americans think socialized medicine would better than what we have now.
How do you like them apples?
reframe the question.
<
p>Would you like a Government Bureaucracy making health care decisions, like when you can have routine surgery, for you?
<
p>I think the responses would change. And that’s what socialized medicine would bring. Even in Canada they are getting away from “socialized medicine somewhat. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that it is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force both Canadian doctors and patients to only use the Government run system.
<
p>
centers on the Dem not being firm and being a flip-flopper. (Wonder why they didn’t try that on Bill Clinton?)
<
p>They’ve said Obama’s not a Christian, and not black, so the next thing is that he’s probably not a real man.
<
p>The “too liberal” thing won’t fly, because Obama’s main advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is a University of Chicago economist. He’s not a hardcore Milton-Friedmaniac, but since Obama’s tried to float the idea that tax cuts could help unemployed people in a recession, that should nix the socialist accusation. Tax cuts don’t help people who’ve lost their source of income.