Is slandering your opponent a valid political campaign?

I almost send an email to McCain headquarters after the last ad, which were three undocumented and glib statements about Obama. But I decided that no one there cared. I was outraged.

I know who your mom is. She outed you both today.

To answer the question, I think it’s cowardly. But it does seem to work on many.

personally I think its pretty sad that politicians have to rely on talking crap about their oponent in order to get more people to vote for them. Why stoop down to that level? I would like to see the day when a politician only talks about what they are planning to do rather than what the other is not planning on doing.

@tiny: Good thing I already told her, or I’d be in trouble now! just sent her off to bed for the night

As for the question, I find the practice very distasteful, but it seems to be standard operating procedure these days.

No.

I find it very unappealing.

If there were ever a candidate who didn’t do it and only spoke to what he would do, it would greatly sway my opinion.

There are a lot of people who wouldn’t go out and vote if there weren’t any mudslinging. The’d get bored of “I’ll do this and that”, and just not go to the polls.

Slander is the tactic of a cowardly, desperate politician who will do anything to win. If you can’t make yourself look good, then the only thing left for you to do is make your opponent look bad. This shit sickens me and is one of the many reasons I despise politicians who sink to such a low level.

Mudslinging has been a campaign tactic since time immemorial. Probably will be, as long as human nature endures. Very entertaining, if not factually accurate.

As an aside, has anyone actually read the Swift Boat book? I haven’t, and I don’t know anyone who has.

Not to hijack the thread but is it possible to call an opponant out on false claims with out coming off as a bad guy?

It works, but it destroys our Democracy in the process. It’s the oldest trick in the book, if you can’t convince people that you’ve got the better ideas, convince them that your opponent sucks. Unfortunately, negative advertising does one thing and one thing alone…it depresses voter turnout. In 2004, 210 million people were eligible to vote, 120 million people voted. That means 90 million people picked “none of the above”, 50% more than picked Bush or Kerry. In fact, in every election America has ever had, “none of the above” has won. Why? Because by the time we get to the election you’ve got 40% of the population that doesn’t trust either candidate, and doesn’t perceive that either will do anything for them. In a real Democracy, we’d actually debate positions rather than “accidentally” mispronounce our opponents’ names so it sounds like the name of a terrorist in order to scare off potential supporters of the other guy.

While personally I like Obama, I have a lot of respect for both candidates and I don’t think one slandering the other is the best way to go.

I HAD respect for John McCain, but he’s turned to slandering his oponent. Not saying I’d have voted for him this time around anyway (Obama was my choice before he announced he was running), but I wouldn’t be scared that we might end up with a leader who says whatever he needs to say to get his way…we’ve had that for 8 years. I think the most dispicable thing for me has been McCain’s ads, particularly the one where he said that Obama was for teaching comprehensive sex ed to our kindergarteners. It was patently untrue…indeed, Obama stood up for a bill that would help younger children avoid sexual predators (you know, standard good touch/bad touch stuff that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would WANT to teach to their kids). Factcheck.org called that one a whopper, and just two days ago, NPR was interviewing McCain and he said that he “disrespectfully disagreed with factcheck.org.” In other words, he disagrees with facts that have been proven, the facts that he told a lie that completely slandered his oponent in a sleazy way. That is not someone I can respect…not anymore.