sozobe wrote:Another is that it's the kind of thing that if the Republicans pounce on, it might just make THEM look bad. "Oh, sure, smear the black candidate with the drug allegations, dirty politics again." I think people are really sick of that crap.
This sounds all too idealistic to me. People were said to be sick of dirty politics in '04 already, and yet the Swiftboaters succeeded in bringing Kerry down - and that on a succession of allegations of which most were plain out there. Who would have believed in advance that a group of bitter partisans could succeed in smearing a decorated war veteran like that, that the voters would fall for that? (I didnt think much of Kerry, but that was the one point I thought he'd remain unassailable on, too).
Theres the thing tho, perhaps. I dont think voters really "fall for that"; its not like they do start to believe the smearers all of a sudden. Its just that the whole nastiness that then comes to surround a candidacy leaves enough of an unease for voters to just turn away from the whole thing and look for an alternative - or just drop out altogether.
Thats one of the cool things about a multi-party system: agressive negative campaigning is much less likely to work - at least, not in the attacker's favour. If one party starts mudslinging and another party gets the mud slung at it, most voters simply turn to a third. In Holland for example, 'attack ads' are extremely rare, and the one previous time before this year that a party did it (the VVD in '94), the result was that, as one expert put it, "it was the only ad that had a directly measurable result" - namely, it was the VVD that dropped in the polls.
In post-Soviet countries, "black politics" is therefore sometimes delegated to third parties. Eg, a small, new, but improbably well-funded party starts attacking one of the main opposition parties, out-trumping it on the issues or slandering it with 'kompromat' (compromising material); the voters, in disgust, turn away from both that opposition party and the small, new party in question - and vote the governing party back into power. Hmmm.
Anyway, with just two parties to choose between, people cant turn to a third party in disgust. The only comparable situation was that of '92, where Bush Sr. fought a negative campaign and it merely resulted in many voters voting for neither him nor Clinton, but Perot. I dont see that happening now. So if a new candidate is systematically blackened, but people have no third way to turn once they get uneasy enough to hesitate about voting for him anymore, at best many will just stay at home altogether. That alone would be lethal, because turnout still seems key for any Democratic success.
I dunno. Blacks + drugs is, like it or not, such an almost iconic image of white, suburban fear - the image that security systems and alarms are sold on, that zero-tolerance campaigns are sold on, that insurances are sold on - it practically embodies or symbolises white suburban fear. So the thing is that you only just need to bring it up for it to already work its unease and deterrance - regardless of what the person in question then still has to say about it or how he says it.
(Count me pessimistic..)
You know who else brought large thongs of people together to hear him talk?
Wasn't this the affair where Michelle Robinson Obama wore her set of plastic pearls?
Poor thing! Hasn't she ever heard of Mikimoto?
teenyboone wrote:It says it all! Americans are looking for relief!
Which is what?
You know who else brought large thongs of people together to hear him talk?
Foxfyre wrote:Those who have put pencil and paper to the cost for what Obama has pledged to do for us have come up with a staggering sum. I don't think he has a good grasp on how the economy works or what drives it. So far his solutions have been to propose that we 'punish the rich' and raise taxes. If that alone was the only negative factor, it would be enough for me to look for somebody else to vote for because I am not rich and cannot easily afford to turn over a good deal more to the government than it collects now. If enacted, Obama's proposals will cost me a LOT.
Meanwhile, Engineer, when those who share your point of view actually begin leading by downsizing your houses and vehicles or going to shared communes and foregoing most culinary pleasures, utilizing no more energy than is absolutely necessary, etc. etc., then you will have grounds for telling the rest of us what forgiveness the rest of us should pray for.
America needs to get off its' lazy ass and start walking and bicycling.
My personal energy use has been cut by more then 2/3rds by switching to bicycling over driving.
Cycloptichorn
Please give us your suggestions for carrying four bags of groceries on a bicycle.
No, the point you tried to make is not that people should reduce 'when they can'.
What you said is they were 'lazy'. Your superior attitude reeks.
Why don't you tell us exactly what your mandatory energy plan would be if YOU were president, Cyclo?
How many miles would individuals be allowed to drive?
How many kilowatts of electricity would they be allowed per person?
What temperature would they be required to keep their thermostat set to?
What would be the penalty for throwing newspaper in the trash instead of driving ( or biking) bundles of it down to the recycling center?
How many gallons of water would each household be restricted to?
What would be the age limit on appliances like refrigerators before being required to purchase new 'energy efficient' ones? (or should we just also switch over to granola and dried fruit, thus eliminating the need for refrigeration?)
