Since all the Democrats already have their hands dirty with mud, wouldn't it be a refreshing change if the Republicans united under one candidate (not Guiliani) and didn't use attack ads?
I think that would garner a LOT more votes, don't you think?
Also, shouldn't Guiliani run for President in the Democratic party? He shares much more of their ideals than Republican morals. Just wondering.
Here is a website to keep up with all the latest political ads:
http://www.isupportthismessage.com/
2007-04-04 10:02:27 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
And the world is full of candy canes and sweet little puppies that never grow into dogs. It would be nice but not likely. In fact it would be rare to find a presidential election that was free of mud slinging. It is traditional from way way back. Some of the more recent masters were Reagan, Nixon and a candidate for California Governer Phil Angeledies. Arnold trounced him partially do to the attack ads he ran. But Arnie didn't have sterile clean hands either. That was only for a governor's office. President is bigger stakes.
Political campaigns in the 1800's make anything we have today look like a happy day at the park.
If you don't want Rudy in the Republican side you better hope Mitt catches and passes him in fund raising. Right now Rudy has the money.
2007-04-04 10:24:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. When the next Presidential election is finally over all Americans will see that both sides were in the mud name calling biting and pulling hair.
2007-04-04 17:09:30 · answer #2 · answered by Mother 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think negative campaigning shouldnt even be allowed. I think it should be comprised of , stating experience, stating your platform, and stating your supporters.
I dont have someone saying, I take this position on this issue and my opponent has taken the other position.
Thats stating contrast, but anything more should just not be part of it.
2007-04-04 17:13:56 · answer #3 · answered by sociald 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Considering the GOP can't get any lower without becoming a dictatorship of one party much like the Soviet Union did with the Communists and the Nazis did in Nazi Germany, they have to choose a higher ground. There's not much left beneath them to stoop too. They've hit the lowest of the low and in doing so, they've hit bottom.
2007-04-04 17:12:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes Guilani is a damned lib, he should be kicked out of the GOP on his a**!
2007-04-04 17:07:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stating a truth like showing indictments, bad war ideas, etc are not what you call slinging mud. At least they are saying what has happened rather than the republicans who are going to try a new round of scare tactics to make you "can't think for yourself Repbulicans" vote for them again and again. Hey hint to ya... those terror color alerts, about as usefull as sandpaper in the bathroom!!
2007-04-04 17:09:40 · answer #6 · answered by f_i_s_h_1 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Sadly, I am not sure that most Republicans can find the high ground anymore....
2007-04-04 17:08:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I just love the way you say something like all of their hands are full of mud, but don't give anything to back up your slanderous statement. And it is a form of slander you know?
2007-04-04 17:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Why would they make such a drastic change?
2007-04-04 17:08:32 · answer #9 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
giuliani is a good choice and is probably what this country needs...someone who is willing to be reasonable on issues
2007-04-04 17:09:47 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 1 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋