Comments on: Ruth Ann Daily’s article on Harrisburg Leeches http://www.courageofconviction.org/blog/2007/02/16/ruth-ann-dailys-article-on-harrisburg-leeches/ Unleashing Courage Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:58:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Matthew Best http://www.courageofconviction.org/blog/2007/02/16/ruth-ann-dailys-article-on-harrisburg-leeches/#comment-2804 Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:35:48 +0000 http://www.courageofconviction.org/blog/2007/02/16/ruth-ann-dailys-article-on-harrisburg-leeches/#comment-2804 I never mentioned negative campaigning - I was talking about dehumanizing your opponent - that's different. Negative campaigning in my mind is desparate campaigning whereby you lie about your opponent. What you are talking about is telling the voters truthfully why your opponent doesn't belong in office - whether that be based on votes, or whatever they have actaully done. That's not negative campaigning - it's only negative by way of the fact that what the person actually did was negative and you are merely pointing it out. That's the job of a campaign. I never mentioned negative campaigning - I was talking about dehumanizing your opponent - that’s different. Negative campaigning in my mind is desparate campaigning whereby you lie about your opponent. What you are talking about is telling the voters truthfully why your opponent doesn’t belong in office - whether that be based on votes, or whatever they have actaully done. That’s not negative campaigning - it’s only negative by way of the fact that what the person actually did was negative and you are merely pointing it out. That’s the job of a campaign.

]]> by: Publius http://www.courageofconviction.org/blog/2007/02/16/ruth-ann-dailys-article-on-harrisburg-leeches/#comment-2690 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:47:26 +0000 http://www.courageofconviction.org/blog/2007/02/16/ruth-ann-dailys-article-on-harrisburg-leeches/#comment-2690 Negative campaigning has to be easily the biggest complaint from voters anywhere. The problem is that without it, you campaign against your opponent on the platform that he isn't really such a bad guy. Then why vote for you instead of him? It's a lose/lose. Although most often villified, Karl Rove came up with the most ingenious strategy to counter that complaint. Rove fully believes that 50% of campaign effort should be spent on attack, but by attacking opponent's strengths instead of weaknesses. Making people second guess what they thought was a good thing might not be perfect, but it puts an end to tne mudslinging of personal politics. Negative campaigning has to be easily the biggest complaint from voters anywhere. The problem is that without it, you campaign against your opponent on the platform that he isn’t really such a bad guy. Then why vote for you instead of him? It’s a lose/lose.

Although most often villified, Karl Rove came up with the most ingenious strategy to counter that complaint. Rove fully believes that 50% of campaign effort should be spent on attack, but by attacking opponent’s strengths instead of weaknesses. Making people second guess what they thought was a good thing might not be perfect, but it puts an end to tne mudslinging of personal politics.

]]>