That's the call by Bridget Johnson in Opinion Journal. And let's be honest, although her piece is primarily observational humor, the fact is that more is revealed by "negative" campaigning than by the positive and content-free platitudes that Kerry regurgitates in every stump speech, and which Bush mutters all too often as well.
Why? Because the threshold for "negative" comments is so low that an ant can leap over it. Any statement that challenges the other candidate's record, prior statements, inconsistencies, ties to "special" interests, etc. are now considered negative. Thus, Bush pointing out the multitudes of inconsistencies in Kerry's positions is negative campaigning; questioning Kerry's fitness as commander in chief after voting against major defense programs (that were essential to the victories in Afghanistan and Iraq) and questioning his judgment in voting against Gulf War I, proposing a nuclear freeze during the Cold War, etc., are all "negative campaigning." Rubbish. That's the type of information we need -- what has the candidate done and what should those actions lead us to expect him to do in pressure situations in the future.
The press wants Marquess of Queensbury rules. But this is a presidential campaign, we need strong men seeking the office, not slap-fighters.
No comments:
Post a Comment