Before I saw this ad, Ron Paul had my vote without reservation. I was under the impression that he didn't feel the need to dirty his campaign like the rest of them with mudslinging.
My question to everybody is this: Is mudslinging truly necessary to elect our leaders?
I submit that it is not.
Why can't each candidate simply state what he has to offer rather than trying to say that he is simply the least corrupt of the bunch. This type of campaigning can give fuel to an argument against free elections. An argument that might state that it divides the people.
Any thoughts on this are welcome.
If I ever run for office, I will refuse to engage in this kind of activity, even if it cost me the election.
Come the major election in November, President Obama will have all of his campaign work done because whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be will already have had a large volume of attacks from other republicans. This kind of campaigning makes me more inclined to seriously consider a third party candidate.
It seems tricky to balance mudslinging and differentiation. It is a competition and, as such, each candidate needs to show what sets him/her apart from the rest.
ReplyDeleteStill, we would want to know things about other candidates that they will not say for themselves. For example, Newt Gingrich has had serious integrity problems in the past. Some people don't care, but for me that significantly impacts my consideration of a candidate. How else will the public masses (particularly the lazy ones who vote for the latest fad) learn of such things?
I'm not saying I approve of mudslinging. It's hard to judge the mudslinger's intent which I think is significant. I guess I'm just posing the question of how one might publish such information (which one would probably feel would be a breach of his/her own integrity if s/he don't publish) without it being mere "mudslinging".
It's good you are thinking seriously about this. I watched the RP add and have this to say:
ReplyDeletePoliticians in debates and campaign promises before the election always show their best faces, even if they are false faces, about their track records. They hide any blemishes they can so they can appeal to enough voters who don't know about their records and shameful past. I think of mudslinging as any comments or ads that maliciously attack, especially lying without even talking about issues. If they say things like so-and-so is a Jew-hater or a black-hater, or is effeminate, or whatever has no relevance and is not true or is exaggerated. These kind are repugnant. Paul's ad, if it is accurate, is important information because he was dealing with real important issues of the election. If it is maliciously false, then it a disrespectful act that should not be committed nor easily forgiven because such liars will intentionally mislead others after being elected when the pressure is too high.
One of the worst examples of political campaign falsity that deeply irks me to this day was when George Bush Sr. made the solemn pledge about no new taxes in the campaign, then raised taxes when he was president. He said in the campaign that people would push and push and push him some more to raise taxes, and he would reply to them: "Read my lips--no new taxes". He never intended to not allow a tax hike in the first place.
I still don't see a better alternative to Ron Paul among the Republican contenders. I have voted for 3rd party candidates in most presidential and gubernatorial elections I have voted in. I hardly ever vote for winners.
A very important point was made by Olive DeMille about this 2012 election. He said that choosing solid senators and representatives to get control of the Congress is of greater importance than beating Obama for president. No matter who is president, that man will not accomplish much of good without a Congress that will do the right thing. If Congress proposes irresponsible spending and other legislation, the president can veto it, but probably cannot push through any valuable cost-cutting or moral rectifying plans. That president can teach and beg, but Congress must act. We need to do all within our influence to elect responsible and freedom-loving, Constitution-defending/adhering leaders to Congress, and throw out many of the rotten ones in there. The control of the Senate is very important. A Democrat majority in the Senate has rejected overturning Obamacare, even though the House passed a bill to repeal it.
Now I am ready for your reply. Thanks for reading up and paying attention. I urge you to get the daily emails from Oliver DeMille and read his two books, The Freedom Shift and The Coming Aristocracy. I also urge you to get familiar with The Center for Social Leadership. In that website DeMille's article about the importance of the 2012 election is printed.
Let me know what you think, both of you.
Dad/Richard
These are both good points to consider. I will write another post on this topic sometime.
ReplyDelete