pan6467

Negative campaigning though is not a necessity. It is a way to get focus off the more important issues of the day and make it seem like the voter has no choice but the lesser of 2 evils.

Negative campaigning takes no ingenuity, no originality and no thought.

Whereas positive campaigns, (those that promise a better future and show how to achieve it with issues and solutions) are hard because you are bound to piss a part of the voters off, moreso than the negative which most people expect.

Let's say Kerry comes out and says, "ok no negativity I'm running solely on the issues. The deficit is going to require a decently sized tax increase. There should be no gov't regulation on any marriage, blah blah blah......" and does not even mention Bush he loses some voters, in his and his aides' viewpoint.

But he and his aides feel if they trash Bush, then they gain voters or turn off enough Bush supporters that Kerry then will win, and they didn't have to make promises that run the risk of not coming to light nor do they piss off anyone by taking a controversial stance on an issue.

Bush does the same thing.

While negative campaigning is nothing new the depths have continually gotten worse and worse the past few years. It has gotten to the point where people truly don't know where the candidates stand because the other side uses 30 second sound bites to make the opposition sound like he waffles on issues. This has happened with the rise of mass media, because they feel negativity sells more product than good news (and it does).

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"