Are democrats generally negative?

[member 5645]

Or is this simply the result of a part put out of majority power, and trying ot make a case why those in power are bad?

Assuming it is in fact the latter, I'd like to suggest to the self titled democrats/liberals/whatever that this is hardly a winning strategy.
I view getting someone elected no different than the projects I have to sell to my clients as a consultant.

You have a goal (get someone elected).
You have an option (John Kerry)
There is an existing solution that you don't feel is adequate(George Bush).

Now, if I were to walk into a client and just tell them all the wrong things with their present system, it won't sell.
If I say "My system should be chosen because it's not your system" I'd get laughed out of the business.
Some of you guys( and I'd like to think this was only some internet forced cross-section of society, but many of the democrat politicians show the same thing), don't seem capable of simply explaining the positives of your vision for our country.

Yes, identifying the problem is part of finding a solution. But move on beyond that step! The sheer negativity turns me off from liberal politics more than I can possibly express here.

 

[Loren Booda]

Democrats are negative toward poverty, violations of civil rights, poor health care, greed, ignorance...

 

[member 5645]

Democrats are negative toward poverty, violations of civil rights, poor health care, greed, ignorance...

Good rhetoric, but this is a serious post.
Many people on this forum want Kerry to be elected (according to the polls, a majority). However, there are only about two people I can think of that seem to try to give it a positive push, and frankly, those are the only people I listen to when they try to sell the candidate they think is best.

While all of this can be pushed towards particular right wingers are this board as well, there are two big differences.

1>The liberals are the majority on this board.
2>Without swing voters falling to Kerry's side, Bush is going to take another 4 years.

Sure, you guys can do what you would like with your candidate's image, but I don't personally think the negative play is a winning strategy, And frankly, since the attacks also lend themselves to almost every thread degrading into a pissing match about why Bush is so much worse than Kerry (including threads unrelated to the current election) I have a personal vested interest in this board getting back to discussing the topics at hand (perhaps our moderator can chime in on why he feels a negative campaign on Kerry's behalf is a winning situation).

 

[Loren Booda]

Frankly, the policies of George W. Bush and his administration have the potential to scare me almost as much as the terrorists do. I can see why we are in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq rightfully angers many of its citizens and over a billion Moslems. Clinton may have been personally immoral, but Republicans themselves seem a much greater corrupting force today, perhaps without realizing it.

The bottom line: the United States never has been truly isolated, and now, more than ever we need to respect the opinion of the entire world. By forcing "democracy" down the throats of the multitude, we risk their alienation and revulsion instead. By further encouraging a society of materialism and corporate government over our own citizens, we weaken our example to others and threaten internal peace.

G. W. Bush may be a good guy, but he has been set up as a Potemkin village concealing the false respectability of his keepers whose motto might as well read "the majority be damned." Rather than continue to argue politics, I'll see how Bushkin performs over this term, and maybe the next (~shudder~).

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Frankly, the policies of George W. Bush and his administration have the potential to scare me almost as much as the terrorists do. I can see why we are in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq rightfully angers many of its citizens and over a billion Moslems. Clinton may have been personally immoral, but Republicans themselves seem a much greater corrupting force today, perhaps without realizing it.

The bottom line: the United States never has been truly isolated, and now, more than ever we need to respect the opinion of the entire world. By forcing "democracy" down the throats of the multitude, we risk their alienation and revulsion instead. By further encouraging a society of materialism and corporate government over our own citizens, we weaken our example to others and threaten internal peace.

G. W. Bush may be a good guy, but he has been set up as a Potemkin village concealing the false respectability of his keepers whose motto might as well read "the majority be damned." Rather than continue to argue politics, I'll see how Bushkin performs over this term, and maybe the next (~shudder~).

For a long time I've know that you're a fundamentally serious person.

 

[hughes johnson]

Frankly, the policies of George W. Bush and his administration have the potential to scare me almost as much as the terrorists do.

I'm sorry that you live in fear. Don't worry, everything is going to be just fine.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It's all relative. A sensible person would vote for someone whom he or she thinks has a shot at being elected and is the best alternative among the electable candidates. Whether it's, "Candidate A is good" or "Candidate B" is bad, the statement is made with the implication that you should vote for A because B isn't as good (in the first case) or you should vote for A because he's not as bad as B (in the second case). It's the same relationship, just stated in a different way.

I think that a very negative view of a particular candidate can often be more mobilizing than a very positive view of another candidate. If I thought that everything was going great, I probably wouldn't be too interested in politics.

Also, you are ascribing Democrats' words to their personalities (generally positive or negative) without considering the situation they find themselves in. Perhaps with different candidates, they would have more of this positive way of describing things that you would like to see, but given how horrible bush is in the eyes of most liberals, the negative words come out more often. Also, perhaps a sober assessment of of pretty much all politicians as liars or corrupt yields more negative remarks, as opposed to positive remarks that result from candy-land idealism.

 

[Zero]

Some folks refuse to 1) see themselves, and 2) see the validity of any view besides their own. If Bush and his policies are bad for America(which they are), then how the heck do you put a positive spin on them and be honest?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Zero, the question is why don't we focus more on positive words towards Kerry (or other Democratic challenger) than negative views towads bush. Your post didn't address Kerry at all. My view is that it's hard to be gung-ho positive (about bush or a dem alike) when you're realistic about these people.

 

[Zero]

Zero, the question is why don't we focus more on positive words towards Kerry (or other Democratic challenger) than negative views towads bush. Your post didn't address Kerry at all. My view is that it's hard to be gung-ho positive (about bush or a dem alike) when you're realistic about these people.

That's absolutely true...Democrats don't blindly worship their leaders the way Republicans do. For instance, we accept that Clinton wasn't wonderful in a lot of ways, you will rarely hear an admission of the failings of a Republican from their camp...unless he is agreeing with a Democrat, in which case he is a traitor.

Kerry's not perfect, but he absolutely is better than Bush.

 

[member 5645]

That's absolutely true...Democrats don't blindly worship their leaders the way Republicans do.

I believe there is a locked thread full of dislikes about the most powerful Republican we presently have

 

[GENIERE]

Going negative is the best means of attacking an incumbent. It does not work when the candidate himself indulges in it. It works best when done by supposed impartial outsiders.

 

[wasteofo2]

The reason most liberals are going negative on Bush instead of positive on Kerry is:

Like most everyone else said, Liberals all hate Bush with a passion and see flaw in practically everything he does. There are so many things going wrong in this country, that they need to be pointed out and Bush needs to be held accountable for them. Liberals feel that Bush is such a bad president, that they have a much better chance enraging people over all of Bush's mistakes and incompetencies than they do exciting people about all the wonder Kerry will bring, becuase Kerry is simply boring. When you talk about Bush, the reaction you get is strong from both sides, but when you talk about Kerry, the reaction is much weaker. Democrats think he'll be better than Bush, Republicans don't like him, but Republicans don't hate Kerry with anywhere near the passion that Liberals hate Bush. Simmilarly, Democrats don't love Kerry as much as Republicans love Bush. Bush is just much more likely to provoke a strong reaction than Kerry is.

Besides, you have to point out your opponent's flaws to draw any contrast between him and the person you're rooting for. If Kerry wins this year, in 2008 whichever Republican is the nominee will have to come up with all the bad things Kerry's done to try to make what he wants to do look more appealing.

 

[Zero]

Its true about Kerry...he's a middle of the road, competent but not exciting, average kind of politician...you could almost call him "conservative".

 

[kat]

Its true about Kerry...he's a middle of the road, competent but not exciting, average kind of politician...you could almost call him "conservative".

Uhhhh can you support that with..you know...some facts figures... You do know that Kerry's lifetime Quotant by the ADA is a whopping 92...higher, even, then Senator Kennedy's?

 

[wasteofo2]

Kat, do you have any sort of link to the actual things they took into account to give people that ranking? I remember hearing things from Kerry about how they had taken his votes out of context, deciding to count votes both for and against new taxes, and both for and against increased military spending as liberal, but I haven't seen the actual votes they counted, so as far as I know, Kerry could just be lying.

 

[RageSk8]

Uhhhh can you support that with..you know...some facts figures... You do know that Kerry's lifetime Quotant by the ADA is a whopping 92...higher, even, then Senator Kennedy's?

You're right. Kerry is relatively liberal (there are no really liberal Senators IMO because they can't get elected in state-wide races). Howard Dean was probably the most conservative Democrat presidential candidate - not only was he very fiscally conservative (as shown by his record as governor of Vermont), he also had a 100% ranking from the NRA (). Kerry's rhetoric has become more centrist during his campaign, with the noted exception of trade policy. Kerry has always been a huge free trader (more so than Bush!), but he has "barrowed" Edwards' "fair trade" rhetoric (which is misleading because his policy proposals are still very much pro-free trade). I really respect Kerry for being a major player in revealing the Reagan administration corrupt foreign policies (Iran-Contra anyone?). But I am getting off topic...

 

[member 5645]

You're right. Kerry is relatively liberal (there are no really liberal Senators IMO because they can't get elected in state-wide races). Howard Dean was probably the most conservative Democrat presidential candidate - not only was he very fiscally conservative (as shown by his record as governor of Vermont), he also had a 100% ranking from the NRA (). Kerry's rhetoric has become more centrist during his campaign, with the noted exception of trade policy. Kerry has always been a huge free trader (more so than Bush!), but he has "barrowed" Edwards' "fair trade" rhetoric (which is misleading because his policy proposals are still very much pro-free trade). I really respect Kerry for being a major player in revealing the Reagan administration corrupt foreign policies (Iran-Contra anyone?). But I am getting off topic...

Hey, can you start another thread explaining more examples of why Kerry isn't as liberal as people believe? I keep hearing this lately, am would like some information backing this up. Would make me happy to know we don't have someone as liberal as I thought running

 

[RageSk8]

Kat, do you have any sort of link to the actual things they took into account to give people that ranking? I remember hearing things from Kerry about how they had taken his votes out of context, deciding to count votes both for and against new taxes, and both for and against increased military spending as liberal, but I haven't seen the actual votes they counted, so as far as I know, Kerry could just be lying.

Here you go buddy:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8384529.htm?1c
And even better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19165-2004Mar23.html

The documentation on the GOP Web site about Kerry's supposed 350 votes to increase taxes lists only 67 votes "for higher taxes." Most of these are votes against a tax cut, not in favor of a tax increase. The 67 include nine votes listed twice, three listed three times, and two listed four times. The logic seems to be that if a bill contains more than one item (as almost all bills do), it counts as separate votes for or against each item. The Bush list also includes several series of sequentially numbered votes, which are procedural twists on the same bill. And there are votes on the identical issue in different years. The only tax increase on Bush's list (counted twice, but hey . . . ) is Kerry's support for Clinton's 1993 deficit-reduction plan. That's the one that raised rates in the top bracket and led to a decade of such fabulous prosperity that even its most affluent victims ended up better off.

The best way to see the absurdity of saying that Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times is to apply Bush's madcap logic to Bush himself. Every year, in the president's budget, there is a table called "Effect of Proposals on Receipts." It lists the president's proposed changes in the tax rules and how they will affect government revenue for various periods up to 15 years. Most of Bush's proposals will cost revenue, obviously. But in the four fiscal years between 2002 and 2005, Bush has proposed 63 actual "revenue enhancers," as his father used to call them. This doesn't include, as Bush includes for Kerry, his opposition to any tax cuts (and there have been some, such as Democratic proposals to reduce the payroll tax). Nor does the list seem to include any "supply-side" revenue enhancement by magic or growth. These are actual proposals to take more money out of people's pockets and give it to the government.

At Bush's current rate of 16 "tax increases" a year, he'd have 320 under his belt if he could stay in the White House for 20 years. Depending on how you figure -- but without wandering beyond Bush himself into the jungles of absurd logic -- this is as many as eight times the number that Bush has managed to pin on Kerry. But isn't it unfair to call, for example, more efficient administration at the IRS a tax increase? And isn't it simply ridiculous to suggest that George W. Bush is more complacent about higher taxes than John Kerry? Yes, it's unfair. It's ridiculous. That's the point.

Oh, and for those of you who care, here are two links that correct the spin of both Democrats and Republicans:
http://spinsanity.com/
http://www.campaigndesk.org/ (part of the Columbia Journalism Review)

 

[kat]

Mmmm, I don't know about those links Ragesk8, but I got my information directly from the Americans for Democratic Action site.

 

[RageSk8]

Mmmm, I don't know about those links Ragesk8, but I got my information directly from the Americans for Democratic Action site.

Your information is correct and I never disputed it. The links I gave merely addressed the misleading statements (down right lies in my opinion) in Bush ads about Kerry's voting record on tax cuts.


edit - oh, I see what happened. wasteofo2 confused Kerry's ADA numbers with other statistics floating about. I should have corrected him. Kerry would not deny his ADA record because, apart from Republicans, the ADA is well respected (and definitely not "leftist", just "liberal", or even "liberal centrist").

 

[kat]

edit - oh, I see what happened. wasteofo2 confused Kerry's ADA numbers with other statistics floating about. I should have corrected him. Kerry would not deny his ADA record because, apart from Republicans, the ADA is well respected (and definitely not "leftist", just "liberal", or even "liberal centrist").

It's okay, I didn't grasp that either. I was just trying to correct Zero's statement that Kerry was almost conservative. Which I would think is incorrect according to the ADA. Although Kerry became slightlymore conservative last year (perhaps because he was looking towards a run for presidency?) he has historicly been pretty far to the left. ALso, Zero suggest that he is 'not exciting', 'average' and 'middle of the road' seems to me as though Zero isn't really familiar with Kerry yet. *shrug*

 

[Zero]

It's okay, I didn't grasp that either. I was just trying to correct Zero's statement that Kerry was almost conservative. Which I would think is incorrect according to the ADA. Although Kerry became slightlymore conservative last year (perhaps because he was looking towards a run for presidency?) he has historicly been pretty far to the left. ALso, Zero suggest that he is 'not exciting', 'average' and 'middle of the road' seems to me as though Zero isn't really familiar with Kerry yet. *shrug*

I stand by it, since I was using the word "conservative" in its true meaning, not the mongrelized use of the word in today's politics. Kerry is a pretty conservative guy.

 

[russ_watters]

My view is a little more simplistic (maybe a little pessimistic):

For those not in power to get elected, they have to sell the perception that things aren't going well - otherwise, why would anyone kick the incumbent out of office?

Thats the way it always works, dem, repub, Nader, etc.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

My view is a little more simplistic (maybe a little pessimistic):

For those not in power to get elected, they have to sell the perception that things aren't going well - otherwise, why would anyone kick the incumbent out of office?

Thats the way it always works, dem, repub, Nader, etc.

We did it in 1992, the first year that I voted, to change a failed economic system with one that is superior.

 

[kat]

I stand by it, since I was using the word "conservative" in its true meaning, not the mongrelized use of the word in today's politics. Kerry is a pretty conservative guy.

I've offered a respected (and left leaning, I might add) source to support my statement that Kerry leans way towards the left. I'd rather not take your word for it, maybe you can support it with facts, figures or a respected source.

 

[Zero]

I've offered a respected (and left leaning, I might add) source to support my statement that Kerry leans way towards the left. I'd rather not take your word for it, maybe you can support it with facts, figures or a respected source.

So reality isn't good enough for you? I've made an effort to spell out that I am not using the word "conservative" in its political sense, but in its common sense definition: the opposite of radical. Bush isn't conservative by that standard, and Kerry is.

 

[russ_watters]

We did it in 1992, the first year that I voted, to change a failed economic system with one that is superior.

We were in a recession in '92. That's nothing new and it was a relatively mild recession. There was nothing fundamentally different about the economy 8 years later - unless of course you include the internet, which the gov't had little to do with anyway, and itself contained the only flaw in the economy: the bubble.

Anyway, I did use the word "perception." Its an important word. Even in a recession, when the short term numbers are actually looking "bad," its still a short term - and therefore flawed - perception. That's right, even in 1991, the US economy was fundamentally sound. If you don't believe me, just have a look at the history of the economy. There were some fundamental flaws that led to the great depression, for example - not just the perception of flaws.

And again, my cynical view: selling the economic perception is generally what wins/loses elections. It worked for Clinton in '92 and '96 and it didn't work for Gore in '00 - he couldn't sell it. It again is the focus here.

But therein lies Kerry's problem, and I really think he's making a mistake (he's quite welcome to it). Kerry should know that with the economy booming (and increasing) he comes off looking pretty lame trying to argue that its not. He should be trying to shift the focus from the current economic status. He should be focusing on Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

I've made an effort to spell out that I am not using the word "conservative" in its political sense, but in its common sense definition: the opposite of radical. Bush isn't conservative by that standard, and Kerry is.

Doesn't that make your usage completely useless? This is a politics forum, Kerry and Bush are politicians, and an election is a political event.

 

[Njorl]

Negative political campaigns have always been the most effective. The only exception is when your opponent has no name recognition. Even those in power use them. The most famous attack ad ever was President Johnson's "flower" ad portraying Goldwater, the challenger, as a nuclear warmonger.

Voters claim to dislike negative advertising, but continue to put the most negative candidates into office election after election.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

The most famous attack ad ever was President Johnson's "flower" ad portraying Goldwater, the challenger, as a nuclear warmonger.Njorl

That really was a well done ad

 

[schwarzchildradius]

RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.

 

[russ_watters]

RW, there's a big difference- before 1992 the budget was a big mess, hurting the economy & causing problems for people. Clinton fixed it, Bush broke it.

What, exactly, did each of them do (actual changes in the economic structure made by each) and how did it manifest itself(economic data that shows a clear, non-cyclical, non-internet bubble related, non-9/11 related difference)?

The unfortunate thing for Clinton in his quest for a legacy, was that the internet bubble burst before he left office and the cycle re-asserted itself. When he left office, the stock market was a bear and the economy was in recession. As a result, he cannot claim that he made any cycle defying changes.

Just to get it out of the way, there is one important fact that is usually brought up for the purpose of this argument that I'll stipulate to right off the bat:

Fact: economic indicators on average were better during the Clinton admin than so far in the Bush admin.

This fact does not, however, have anything to say about actual policies or economic trends.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

 

[hughes johnson]

Trillion dollar deficit turned into trillion dollar surplus turned into trillion dollar deficit.

Hocus-pocus. All of it. If you ever have the opportunity to get involved in a government budget projection you will never be the same again. It will scar you for life...LOL. First you see how much money you will need to balance the books, then you figure out if it is good for your party to have that much money coming in or not, then you call all your people and tell them how much money to "find" or how much money to "lose". Amazingly, when the numbers come back, they match what you have already written down weeks in advance. It's a joke. Don't buy it, no matter what party you're in, or what country you're in. Don't buy it now, or in the future. It is a crock, always was, always will be.