Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sparhawk
I don't think the public swallows the BS down here, just the 24-hour media feeding frenzy - scumbag journalists so desperate for something to talk about in the slow month of August that they jumped on a 500,000$ ad buy in 3 states and turned it into a 2 weeklong orgy. Every person I know, republican and democrat, knows this garbage for what it is.
|
I just read this article that seems to back up your claim that people aren't particularly affected by the negative commentary.
Quote:
in the national poll, 48% of voters said Kerry's combat service "demonstrated qualities America needs in a president," while 37% said his protests upon returning "demonstrated a judgment and belief that was inappropriate in a president." Thus, voters nationally tilted toward Kerry on those questions by 11 percentage points.
But in Ohio, the margin favoring Kerry was 7 percentage points, and in Missouri it was 6. In Wisconsin, by a 2-percentage-point margin, more said Kerry showed inappropriate judgment with his anti-Vietnam War protests than said he had demonstrated the right qualities for a president.
|
--http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll27aug27,1,1350122.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I quoted this part because I support the right of someone to feel that Kerry's comments were poor judgement that makes him less fit to be our president.
Looking at your phrasing and crossing it with mine, I feel the need to explain that when I'm referring to eating BS and you are referring to swalloning BS, we aren't likely meaning the same thing. I'm not surprised or opposed to people believing what any particular add says. I am confused how such adds attacking Kerry's character are not called into question, even if they are true given the fact that Bush promised to not engage in such tactics.
Shortly put, Kerry's failings aside, why does this mudslinging translate into support for Bush? I would hope that people would shut Bush off, too. Instead, many seem willing to "eat the BS", that is, give it a pass, let it sit on the table, not give a big Boo to Bush for his participation. Now, as to why some may actually "swallow it", I'll leave that for another time or maybe even roachboy to tackle.
Now my wife, who is a kerry supporter, tells me that kerry was the first candidate to stop leveling bs at his dem opponents during the run-up. Since then, he has denounced ads that personally attacked Bush. She says that he still doesn't personally attack Bush, and rarely even mentions him individually, instead opting to speak about issues. I take her word over any one on here who was already opposed to kerry, and my own opinion of him, because we don't watch him speak all the time--while she watches his speeches in their entirety because she is interested in what her candidate has to say.
My impression is that if he were to start negative campaigning she would ask him to stop. I thought the public was feeling like they wanted all politicians to stop. And my impression and from what others have told me is that kerry made a savvy move by recognizing that and stopping early in the campaign process.
So now I'm left wondering why Bush supporters don't tell him to stop. It doesn't make much sense for me to expect my wife to tell bush to stop or her dad to tell kerry to stop--because each candidate only cares about his constituents and each constituent really likely only cares about his or her candidate.
But when I talk to bush supporters, they seem willing to give bush a pass on his negative campaigning tactics because, after all, everyone is doing it. But I think they should hold bush acccountable to his previous promise to not engage in such tactics. If the public were really turned off negative campaigning like they claim to be, why aren't they supporting someone else, like nader or that conservative michael (is that his name?) dude? So it seems like people are coming up with reasons to support the person they already want to support. rather than holding their own candidate responsible for whatever filth comes out of his mouth. so that indicates to me that nothing much will change--because candidates really only care about their constituents.