We hear a lot of this kind of comment.However the negative attacks
are sometimes a remedy for the dearth of good journalism in the media reporting.
One candidate represents himself as a fiscal conservative or a patriot.
Another candidate challenges those statement based on his opponent's actual
voting record on raising the debt ceiling, or on the horrific details of the
"Patriot Act" etc. We need to be able to make such "attacks"
and it is instructive as to how these attacks are dealt with in actual debates
where the remaining candidates have a right of rebuttal. All statements are
tested in the crucible of free debate. We need this and I trust people to have
enough horse sense to separatea the wheat from the chaff, without the
intervention of the media that failed to do the digging and unbiased reproting
that would have obviated the need for such "negative attacks".
It's not that it works... so much as if you DON'T do it, you will absolutely
positively lose.People have tried running dignified positive
campaigns and they always lose. That's why it's almost required practice now
days.Try running a totally positive campaign while your opponent
runs an attack campaign. It's been tried. The attacker stirs up so much hype
and attention while the other gets no attention and just looks booring. And you
How on earth can you write an entire editorial on political mud slinging, and
not mention the head of Mitt Romney's super pac Larry McCarthy? McCarthy is the
creator of the famous "Willie Horton" ad, which helped to defeat Michael
Dukakis in 1988. According to a "New Yorker" article McCarthy's firm
developed the "baggage" ads which helped to derail Newt's campaign, and
has been working on ads to take down Santorum.