It is the game the republicans started in the 70s. If you don't believe me, check out this show.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/
That Frontline show is a documentary of Karl Rove's strategy to win elections since the 70s. It discusses how he admittingly uses hate as the #1 factor to motivate ppl to vote.
I think democrats have finally gotten so fed up with that strategy winning and the fact that the elections are now being rigged, that we are finally feeling the hatred right back at them. I no longer just agree to disagree. I literally don't want to know you if you are a republican because I then have no respect for that person.
2006-08-28 06:22:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Negativity and partisanship in politics are normal and beneficial in many cases. It prevents the government from moving or changing too fast or too far to the extreme.
With that said however, the amount of pure hate, name-calling, denigrating and outright lying about the political opposition has become a disgrace in this country. It is damaging to all, to the target of the slime throwing, as well as the thrower and the whole country in general.
BTW, some of the largest, most virulent PACs are the teachers unions, Planned Parenthood and the various environmentalists.
2006-08-24 14:28:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by RockHunter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wait until the primary season opens in full swing... actually we don't have to... the Democrat's have already eaten their own young by ousting Lieberman.
The worst doesn't come Republican vs. Democrat hammering at each other for the President, the worst is the infighting during the primaries.
By the time the presidential candidates are announced they have already been eviscerated by their own party. During the Presidential campaign they pretty much just repeat the dirt the other guy's own party member's dug up on them.
The Democrats and Republicans can get along better with each other than they can with themselves, especially after a bitter protracted primary season. Which we are facing this year since ther is no clear cut candidate for either party.
2006-08-24 13:40:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
because those in power stay there by keeping us polarized.divide and conquor.Both partys are in the pockets of the corperations and PACs that pay thousands and thousands to the candidates re-election funds,along with "gifts".so "our" Representives vote for the corperate,and special interest groups interests,rather than whats in the interest of "the people"who they were elected to represent.All the mudslinging and such,is mostly just for show,to keep us from seeing the truth.Thats why third party candidates never have a chance.You must be rich and have Corperate backing to even run in American elections.
some of the biggest PACs(Political Action Commititys)are
Isreal, the NRA, Big Phara,(drug companys~thats why health care is so high!),Big OIL to name but a few.
2006-08-24 13:47:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by UnSpun 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Negative campaigning is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.
Negative campaigning can be found in most marketplaces where ideas are contested. In U.S. politics mudslinging has been called "as American as Mississippi mud." Some research suggests negative campaigning is the norm in all political venues, mitigated only by the dynamics of a particular contest.
Negative approaches are used in democracies as an element of adversarial policy making and electoral processes. In more unilateral or totalitarian governments the approach is used to suppress opposition. Negative campaign tactics in democracies are often rhetorical, whereas negative campaigns in totalitarian jurisdictions sometimes involve criminal charges and torture to convince constituents of negative aspects of opposition ideas. The use of negative campaigning is a contribution to modern politics by Joseph Goebbels. The Nazi campaigns argued what was wrong with their opponents and ignored stating their own policies.
2006-08-24 13:36:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by anitahooker_transvestite 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We can.
It just requires us to start ignoring and turning our backs on the idiots and hate-mongers who rant about "the evils of ....." (fill in the blank with the other party's name).
Let them rant. Let them call people names. Let them show how stupid and childish and closed-minded they are. And just ignore them. Because this is one of those few situations where if you ignore the problem, it actually will go away.
If they don't have any audience to preach their hatred to, eventually they'll either implode or shut up. It just requires us to be firm, and not play their game.
2006-08-24 13:37:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That wouldn't be very political then would it? Our forefathers created a party system of government so our freedom would be guaranteed by open discussion and argument. If you want to live witha one sided view, then get out of my country and move to Cuba!
2006-08-24 13:38:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chicken Jones 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We do get along .. we just argue over politics. In countries where people don't get along over politics people shoot each other in large numbers.
2006-08-24 13:38:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by sam21462 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
we can't get along because its politics. The competitive nature is inherent in the thing itself.
2006-08-24 13:33:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree. The only sensible thing to do is move to Cuba where life is beautiful all the time.
2006-08-24 13:38:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋