Tamanon said:
So...then what you're saying is that if you believe someone is wrong, then you should lie repeatedly, make up random things about them, and even use physical violence against them?
I think you are reading
WAY too much into what I said.
I'm just making the point that fair play is not a winning strategy in american politics, and if you let the other guy win because you're trying to be "honorable" that's not really honorable at all. I'm also making the point that it cuts both ways. I watched this board work itself into a frenzy of glee over every Palin rumor that came out over the last several days, people were salivating for the news media to pick them up. Everybody was excited to see her get swiftboated over comments and rumors that mostly ended up being half truths. Those were perfectly good political instincts, but don't be so upset when the other side does the same thing. If the Obama campaign failed to make that stuff work for them, that's their fault. The McCain campaign doesn't let things slide.
The level of american political discourse is determined by what the people will believe, and by their way of looking at things. If you try to rise above that, and you end up losing as a result, that's nothing to be proud of. That isn't helping anybody.
Another point I want to make. The "culture wars" are a perfectly valid reason to cast your vote. There is nothing stupid about choosing someone for cultural reasons over economic reasons. If you agree with someones economic programs, but they promise to appoint supreme court justices that will drasticly alter the country in areas were you have strong feelings, that can be a deal breaker. There are probably tons of people that would stop supporting Obama if he flopped on abortion, and nobody would accuse them of being ignorant or foolish. The same thing is true for the Iraq war. The left has it's pet issues too, and they can also be deal breakers.
Steve Youngblood said:
The difference is that the houses gaffe was an actual gaffe. I'm not saying that it was a campaign ender that deserves endless scrutinization from the media, but that was handled very poorly by McCain. Nobody was really faulting him for having ~7 houses, but his terrible "let me check with my staff on that one" answer. That DOES raise questions of being out of touch when the economy is such an issue.
Again, I'm not saying that attacking McCain on that is a 100% substantive and policy-driven attack, but there's a far greater rationale for that than the sex-ed ad, or the miserably pathetic lipstick-gate.
Fair enough, but you know the old saying about "hit me with a rock, and I'll hit you with a brick"
