Reading over at Observations picked this thought up:
Negative campaigning rules the day. Once one candidate employs negative ads, his or her opponent has little choice but to respond in kind. The result is that the American voter is attacked by a barrage of negative ads devoid of discussion of relevant and important issues. Is it any wonder, then, that we have the people we have in elected office?
I've been thinking about this same thing for awhile now. Is there one candidate or could there ever be one candidate (left or right) that could win an election (on any level) only using their own strong points and no negativity? This seems a two point question. Point 1 is there a candidate now or in the future that WILL run without using the 'tricks' that politicians use to win and smear the other guy. Point 2 is there a chance said person could win any election without using smear and such?
Maybe one day we'll get to find out. If I ever run for office, I hope I would be able to use the issues and my positions on them to get the votes, but since I'm not running, it's easier for me to say that.
Also, this little snippet:
Final comment on the election: The Republicans have done nothing to deserve being kept in the majority in the House and Senate, but the Democrats have done nothing to deserve replacing them.
This seems a popular thought on blogs on the right, yet these same blogs will quickly be able to give you the list of republican 'goods' that the democrats wouldn't have done. If you can defend your party (and do it well I might add) then what makes you think they didn't DESERVE it? All of the accomplishments that the republicans have put through since 9/11 are still accomplishments even when scandals break just before an election. Don't do the MSM's job for them by claiming the R's don't deserve to be in office.
Reason amongst the dhimmikrauts