Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
...I'll like him better than I already do.
But it's beginning to appear that the moneyed interests that run the fifty or so "super PACS", who have accumulated over $400 million to buy advertising and are responsible to no one, will be the ones dictating who wins the election.
The American public is gullible and too lazy to take the time to understand the issues. They will respond to the shallow, mean-spirited, and maybe even untrue personal attacks against both candidates that the people who fund the super PAC's on both sides know will work. Whichever of the candidates wins the election, he will be badly damaged goods as a possible leader of the country.
By the way, does anyone know who really is providing all that money? You know the Supreme Court decision doesn't even require that information be published. For all we know, the public is being manipulated by al Quaeda or some other foreign interests.
What a country!
|
Why do campaigns go negative??..............because it's works every time.
Romney ran negative against his opponents for the nomination, and he won every time. His opponents started gaining support, he spent the cash and went negative, and knocked them out.
Obama ran a negative campaign for President. Oh, he had his "hope and change" thing, but it was the negative campaign against his opponents that sealed the deal.
George Bush's campaign went negative against Kerry, portraying him as a coward in the military and a fool in the Senate. They all do it.
For Romney not to take this opportunity to show Obama for the liar he is when it comes to Rev. Wright, and to also highlight his ties to Rev. Wright's black nationalist view is patently foolish.
Negative Campaigning
In politics, negative campaigning works - Los Angeles Times
Joe Scarborough: The Way Media Covered For Obama’s Negative Ads Is ‘Shameful’ | Mediaite