Mitt Romney says that President Obama is engaging in character assassination. I don't understand. Isn't this what happens every election. First Dems and Republicans debate each other (Your could substitute that with insult each other)and to try and get their parties nomination. Then you move onto explaining why you are better as President than the other nominee...and there's lots of misinformation and distortion of the facts on both sides...so why is Mitt all upset? If he can't stand up and say "Hey, that's not right. Here are the facts." Then how can he be president? Wasn't Sarah Paling talking about how Obama was "Palling around with a terrorist..." What did the Obama campaign do then? Did they whimper in the corner and say "Not fair!"
It'll be interesting to see these 2 debate. I think Romney made some big mistakes over the last couple of weeks that has cost him the election already...but you never know.
They all do this sort of mud slinging. Seems like the pitch is "vote for me, not because I am a good choice, but because the other guy is worse".
I have much more respect for a candidate who doesn't play this kind of game. I suppose the people who run their campaigns are really the decision makers on this aspect and for them, this is just how it is done. You can take almost anything from a candidate's background or political history and spin it in a negative way. It kinda sucks.
Yep. I think Romney blew it with the 47% gaff plus releasing his taxes so late in the game. Those two items gave the democrats more fodder for their negative campaign. The Bsin Capital attacks were not sticking but these two are.
Some people's character's are easier to assassinate than others. But character suicide was a great way to put it. To scream "class warfare" and then the 47% speech is revealed- is just another hypocrisy in a fatally long line of hypocrisies.
I have much more respect for a candidate who doesn't play this kind of game. I suppose the people who run their campaigns are really the decision makers on this aspect and for them, this is just how it is done.
It's done this way because it works. The average voter reads only the headlines and moves on.
Churchill said it best: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
The average voter reads only the headlines and moves on.
I tend to not read the details myself, so I suppose I am the average voter. I do have a well tuned BS detector, however, and mud slinging approach isn't exactly subtle.
I have much more respect for a candidate who doesn't play this kind of game. I suppose the people who run their campaigns are really the decision makers on this aspect and for them, this is just how it is done.
It's done this way because it works. The average voter reads only the headlines and moves on.
Churchill said it best: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Wasn't it also Churchill who also said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others ...?
He won no friends this side of the pond with his Olympic are they ready blunder, I mean the only city to ever host the modern Olympics three times..... I like Obama doesn't effect me but think he tries to do good, the whole heslth care thing was a good move. I know much has been made about the nhs over there but when you need it's brilliant and free
I have much more respect for a candidate who doesn't play this kind of game. I suppose the people who run their campaigns are really the decision makers on this aspect and for them, this is just how it is done.
It's done this way because it works. The average voter reads only the headlines and moves on.
Churchill said it best: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
Wasn't it also Churchill who also said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others ...?
I'll agree that a direct democracy is one of the worst. It's essentially mob rule.
Representative democracy is good, but it by itself is not the best either.
The US is neither. The US is a republic, which is a blend of sorts between a representative democracy and an oligarchy. Furthermore, it's a federation, which is supposed to further decentralize governmental powers. However, we've been slowly moving away from the federation as originally set up. The further from federation we get, the more central the government, and the closer we get to some sort of self perpetuating oligarchy.
Romney's 47% didn't surprise me. It was stupid, but their spin control was even worse. The next thing they come up with is bringing up a 12 year old speech? He's just running scared now, and making bad choices because of it.
No!! I feel gypped! I wonder if it's like the other phone plans -- you only get a new phone if you're a first time Obama voter. I voted for him 4 years ago.
