Democrats Must Stop The Cannibalism

[jmichna]

Come on Democrats, Let's Stop the Cannibalism
March 10, 2008
Campaign 08

When it comes to the rough and tumble of a presidential campaign, Americans have come to expect a certain amount of negativity. "Politics ain't beanbag," as the old adage goes. But it has become obvious to many observers -- including this pundit -- that the recent escalation of mud slinging and sniping in the race for the Democratic nomination threatens to spiral out of control. It's high time that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama pull their campaign staffers aside and demand an end to the desperate dirty tricks and below-the-belt name calling. Even if all the polling research proves it is quick, inexpensive, and devastatingly effective.

For example, I am sure that many of you have read by now of the recent incident where a top advisor to Mr. Obama was quoted as describing Mrs. Clinton as a "monster." Prior to that, I'm sure you had heard about Mrs. Clinton coyly saying that Mr. Obama was not a Muslim, "as far as I know." I'm sure you are also aware of Mr. Obama's insinuation of Mrs. Clinton's financial corruption and secrecy, and of Mrs. Clinton's linking of Mr. Obama to "slumlords," as well as the various Clinton campaign operatives who have made reference to Mr. Obama's past drug use, and are accused of manipulating his photo images to make him appear darker-skinned. And of course I need not mention the Obama campaign's latest charges that Mrs. Clinton is having an affair with Rush Limbaugh.

What, you hadn't heard that one? Really? Oh, come on, man, it's all over town. Supposedly they hooked up at a secret Diebold NAFTA meeting or something. The guy I heard it from said he heard it came straight from somebody at Obama HQ. "Somebody way, way up," or so they claim. I really wouldn't know because, hey, I'm just repeating what I hear. But please -- boinking Rush Limbaugh to stop Obama by stealing the Black vote in Ohio? Personally I have a hard time believing it, any more than I believe all those ridiculous tips from the Clinton campaign about Mr. Obama's ties to Islamic Jihad, Mexican drug lords and Ken Starr.

Frankly, this barrage of continuous, negative, if not completely implausible, accusations does nothing to help American voters understand the real issues that confront us. Worse, it contributes to the corrosion of our civic discourse, because it also shows just how easy it is to sway American voters with scurrilous charges against one's opponent. And trust me, it's incredibly easy. And, sadly, almost impossible for the target to refute. Or trace back to the originator, if they were, say, faxed out from Kinkos, or emailed from a library internet terminal.

As participants in the American democratic process, both sides of this increasingly bitter intra-party feud should know better. Just because someone associated with your opponent's campaign might at this very minute be circulating a story that your candidate is a white supremacist lesbian child molester, does that mean you automatically have to counter it with stories about their candidate running a Chicago sex slave-for-crack ring with R. Kelly and the Syrian mafia? Come on folks, your campaigns are better than that, even if it is clear to everybody that the other guys started it.

So remember: the next time you learn that your opponent's staff is spreading stories about your candidate's involvement with a satanic LSD murder cult, take a deep breath, count to ten, and let it go. Sure, you could probably respond by distributing the well-documented evidence of your opponent's long history of serial necrophilia. Sure, it might temporarily feel good, and maybe it might swing a few million votes. But you have to ask yourself: to what end? Is some cushy 6-figure job in the next presidential administration -- with a probable $5 million-per-year K Street lobbying career waiting on the back end -- really worth losing your dignity and self respect over? Trust me, when your candidate's campaign is finally destroyed by some unanswered charges, and you're back waiting tables and filling out grad school applications, you'll at least have the deep personal satisfaction of knowing that you took the high road -- even when the game was on the line, even when the other team was playing dirty, and even when a well-timed "March surprise" would have easily made all the difference.

Remember, in the Bible Jesus counsels us to "turn the other cheek." This is sound advice for all Democrats and progressives, even if it comes straight out of the right wing fundies' favorite "science" book. It's time for cooler heads to prevail, and that's why I'm calling for both camps in this squabble to pledge to bring an immediate end to this self-destructive cannibalism. And by "cannibalism" I of course mean figurative cannibalism, because I would never dignify by repeating those lurid charges of actual, literal cannibalism currently being shopped around to the media by your opponent's flaks.

What? You didn't know? Hey, I'm just telling you what I hear.

More

[Mister XD]

I've got a better solution... how about the democrats just stop living?

[robin48]

Originally Posted by Mister XD

I've got a better solution... how about the democrats just stop living?

I wouldn't go that far but I do enjoy seeing them self destruct politically

[Mister XD]

OK I'll meet you half-way... how about they all just move to Iraq?? LOL

[Ride the Lightning]

I don't remember there ever being a 100% clean campaign in my lifetime, but it has gotten so much worse the last few election cycles that it's pathetic. It isn't just the dems either, it's everyone.

Personally, a view a campaign that's full of personal attacks to be a smoke screen for the fact that the candidate is not strong enough on issues to win solely on merit. Unfortunately, there are very few candidates for any office that could win on the issues.

[Brickboy240]

I love watching the Democrats do to each other what they normally do to Republicans. The implosion is entertaining..is it not?

We have Hillary, who is pissed that this race was not the cakewalk she thought it was going to be. She thought she'd skate right into the WH as she did her NY Senate seat - with little opposition and no hard questioning and the blind support of people that voted her in based on ideaology...not her glowing personality.

We have Obama, who hitched his wagon to a race-baiting preacher earlier on...only ot have this come back and bite him on the a*s later on. He has an agenda that pretty much mirrors that of Hillary, but he is more likeable and personable so he is cleaning her clock in pretty much every primary.

Then we have two key states (FL and MI) of who's votes are completely tossed out. Yes, this by the party that cried on and on in 2000 how Bush "stole" Florida and how THEY were going to clean up the election mess and called over and over for fairness and truth in electioneering. Of any state, you'd think Florida would be the most efficient and mindful this time around, but nooo...

We have a real mess, if you ask me.

Why will Obama and Hillary resort to mud slinging? Well, because they simply cannot run on issues, ideas or their voting records. Theres nothing there of substance. Neither one of these bozos has EVER had to run on issues or the "concearns of real Americans" so what makes anyone think they will start right now? Can't run on free healthcare, profit taxation of oil companies or gay rights...those issues, along with 99% of the Democratic platform, is very easy to poke holes in by the most amateur of political pundits. Nope...they'll have to stick to emotional appeals and...you guessed it...mudslinging. The perfect distraction to how disasterous their plans for "change" really are.

Granted, the Republicans have their warts and God knows, if McCain gets elected, it will be up to the people to keep him on the right track and away from bad ideas like anmesty or the Dream Act, but we did this before and isn't that how our system is supposed to work, anyways? I know it seems odd, because it rarely does work that way, but if the Dems DO implode and blow the election, we MUST keep McCain's feet to the fire and force his hand on important issues. It CAN be done...don't tell me it cannot.

The Democrats? Forget them...let them spin on and implode. Maybe they'll learn something: that simply running on fear and "I am not the other guy" for the past three elections is simply not enough.

Enjoy the implosion...for now...they have nobody but themselves to blame for their problems.

- Brickboy240

[Frenchy]

This is the weakest the GOP has been for years, and the Dem's just keep walkin' into doors...Pathetic.

[Etta Place]

Democratic Nominee Will Have Edge in Fall Even If Economy Turns

By Alison Fitzgerald

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Seven months before Election Day, rising home foreclosures, shrinking financial assets and gasoline approaching a record $4 a gallon are daily reminders that the U.S. economy may be the worst in almost 30 years.

Even if a recovery begins this summer, Americans won’t feel the difference until much later. That’s why when the polls open Nov. 4, the Republicans, who have controlled the White House since 2001 and Congress for much of that time, will have ceded a key advantage to the Democrats.

Recessions shaped four presidential elections in the past half-century -- in 1960, 1976, 1980 and 1992. Each time, the candidate from the party trying to retake the White House won. A model that uses economic data to predict presidential race outcomes has the Democrats getting 52 percent of the votes cast for the two major party candidates, says Ray Fair, the Yale University professor who developed it.

“The economic environment, based on all of the data I’ve ever seen, is the most powerful indicator of how the party in power will do,” says Jody Powell, a top aide to Jimmy Carter. He speaks from experience, having worked on Carter’s victorious 1976 presidential campaign and his 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan, which was flanked by two recessions.

“The economy will likely be the dominant issue” this year, Powell says.

More than history will be on the side of Democrats Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the campaign against John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. The economy issue “is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” McCain, 71, told reporters in New Hampshire in December.

‘Sound Bite’

“If I’m the Democratic National Committee, I’m taking that sound bite and using it over and over,” says Daniel Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas Research Partners, an investment-strategy group in Washington. “People will wonder, ‘How can we elect this guy at this time of economic uncertainty?’”

Most Americans believe the U.S. is already in a recession, according to a Feb. 21-25 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. Half said the economy will still be in bad shape in six months, and 27 percent said it will be worse. Consumer confidence this month dropped to a 16-year low, according to a Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary index.

“This whole ‘change’ message is working because whatever is happening out there now is not working,” Clifton says.

Many voters are being pinched by the subprime-mortgage market’s collapse. As many as 2 million families will face foreclosure in the next three years, says the Center for Responsible Lending, a Durham, North Carolina, group that fights abusive-lending practices.

Gas Up 71 Cents

Gasoline prices, which have jumped 71 cents a gallon in a year, may break through $4 this summer, according to the Department of Energy.

Life savings also are stressed. The Standard and Poor’s 500 Index has fallen 9.5 percent this year. Overall, home prices may drop as much as 20 percent this year from their 2006 peak, Standard & Poor’s says.

The downturn is unlikely to end before the election, says Nouriel Roubini, chairman of RGE Monitor, an economics- consulting firm in New York. By fall, employers likely will be shedding more than 100,000 jobs a month, he says. Employers unexpectedly cut jobs in February for a second consecutive month. Payrolls fell by 63,000, the most in five years, according to the Labor Department.

McCain’s economic program largely consists of embracing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, proposing a reduction in the corporate rate and eliminating congressional earmarks.

Iraq Trip

The Arizona senator last week underlined his main concern - - foreign policy -- with a trip to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. While he was traveling, the Federal Reserve was trying to save Bear Stearns Cos. from collapse and intervening in the markets.

His top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, argues that the party in power isn’t as likely to be punished for a recession as some believe.

“I don’t accept that as casually as some people might,” he says. “In the end, this election is about the capacity for leadership.”

McCain’s pledge to not raise taxes and to make Bush’s reductions permanent “is the most important thing in the near- term,” says Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

No Broad Plans

Obama and Clinton have offered proposals on taxes and the mortgage market. Neither has offered a broad plan to pull the economy out of a recession or position it for future growth. Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, has pushed a $1,000 tax cut for lower-income people. Clinton, 60, a New York senator, has called for a moratorium on home foreclosures.

Clinton last week proposed a $30 billion program to help homeowners and communities hit by rising foreclosures. She and Obama also support a plan by Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut to have the Federal Housing Administration insure more loans.

The Bloomberg poll showed voters believe Clinton would do a better job than McCain on the economy. They preferred McCain over Obama on the issue.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton argues that the Iraq war, Bush’s tax cuts and a “lack of oversight” of financial markets have hurt the economy

“This recession is the very culmination of what happened in the last seven years,” Burton says. McCain “will have a very hard time getting away from the results.”

‘Fiscal Irresponsibility’

Clinton also blamed Bush for the economic downturn, accusing him of “fiscal irresponsibility,” as she put it on March 17 in Philadelphia. On oil prices, she said, “there is no sense of urgency or presidential leadership.”

Even if the economy continues to grow moderately, Yale University’s Fair says his forecasting model shows a Democratic victory. A recession, he says, would make matters worse for the Republicans.

The model uses inflation, economic growth and other data, including how long the incumbent party has held office and the unemployment rate. It has a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points because Fair says it cannot account for all variables. This year’s race, for example, may be affected by racism or sexism.

Fair’s model would have correctly predicted the winner of the two-party vote in all but three elections since 1916, according to a 2002 paper published on his Web site. Before the three most recent elections, he correctly forecast who would get more votes without always getting the margin right.

Not Too Close

In August 1996, he said the data suggested a narrow victory for Bill Clinton in a race that was too close to call “with any confidence.” Clinton won 49.2 percent of the popular vote; Republican Robert Dole got 40.7 percent.

In July 2000, Fair forecast a “very close” election with a “slight edge for the Democrats.” Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush got more electoral votes and became president. In July 2004, Fair forecast Bush would win 57.5 percent of the two- party vote; he got 51.2 percent.

Should the economy continue to falter, the political damage may spread to congressional races, especially in hard-hit states like Ohio and Michigan, says Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington.

“The president’s party usually gets a disproportionate amount of the blame,” says Rothenberg.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald at Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 23, 2008 20:01 EDT

Bloomberg.com: U.S. Elections

[Mister XD]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

This is the weakest the GOP has been for years, and the Dem's just keep walkin' into doors...Pathetic.

No, from what I've seen, they're even pathetic during their best of times. I see you've got Ron Paul in your signature... god forbid we ever elect someone like him. No, that would be too smart for us. Personally, I am a Huckabee supporter, but I'd happily vote for Paul any day of the week. Now we're stuck with McCain, so this election is going to be more like "Which of the 3 liberals are we going to watch screw this country even more than it already is?"

::: sigh::: I don't even want to vote this year.

[Mister XD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This year’s race, for example, may be affected by racism or sexism.

If we vote vote for Hillary, we're racists because the black man once again got shot down by the rich, white America.

If we vote for Obama, we're still a sexist nation that's controlled by men, and this election is further proof that a woman will never be able to get a fair shake.

If we vote for McCain...LOL... well, we're doubly-screwed.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, just like always, just because of political correctness.

All single white men should just kill themselves right now, that way we won't piss off Al Sharpton or the women's lib people.

Either way, come November, somehow... *somehow* we'll still all be bad and evil.