BS: Negative campaign e-mails

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:13 PM

The following is an example of an e-mail some here at work recieved. At least it attepts to allude to the issues. But the title of the e-mail was "Hillary Clinton - A Shady Candidate"



Dear Deborah,

You'd be right to think that history is repeating itself the way Hillary Clinton is running her campaign for president.

From tapping Bill Clinton's network of political cronies to co-opting his triangulation doublespeak to questionable donations and fundraisers, Hillary is following Bill's campaign playbook to a tee.

What's most alarming is that Clinton's campaign has taken contributions from questionable sources. Hillary has already returned $1.3 million to donors since July, including $800,000 tied to former fugitive Norman Hsu. This is eerily similar to the donations the Clinton/Gore ticket received from foreign nationals.

Deborah, we must be prepared for Hillary and the Democrats' spend-to-win-at-any-cost schemes. Please help us fight back against the Clinton money machine by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today.

Hillary has already raised $90 million for her campaign. She will top $100 million by the end of the year. Add in hundreds of millions more that MoveOn.org, Big Labor and other Liberal special interest allies will spend to defeat Republicans, and you can see the challenge we face in retaining the White House and regaining Congress.

Republicans have the right vision for America. Our candidates champion the principles of keeping taxes low to grow our economy, winning the War on Terror, limiting the growth of government, and reinvigorating our culture of personal responsibility. We can beat Hillary's higher taxes, government control and dependency, retreat and defeat plans if we get our message past the Liberal media filter.

But our Party needs your help to counter the hundreds of millions of dollars Liberals will spend distorting our message and viciously attacking our candidates.

Your contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 today is vital to our Party's efforts to fully fund our campaign programs and stop the return of a Clinton to the White House. Thank you in advance for your generous support.

Best Wishes ,

Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. Deborah, Hillary Clinton will do, say and spend whatever it takes to get her and Bill back in the White House. Please help us fight back against the Clinton money machine by making a secure online donation of $1,000, $500, $100, $50 or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:12 PM

I think it is perfectly proper to bash someone's policies if they are destructive.

My own instinct about Hillary is not something I would put into an email, because it is so subjective, but I think Barack is a lot more trustworthy and principled.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM

The e-mail that prompted this was a photo of a dog lifting his leg and pissing on a "Hillary for President" sign. The caption said "Good dog". That has nothing to do with policies, positions or viewpoints. I will continue to think of e-mails like that as negative since they do nothing to further the examination of a candidates qualifications for the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Genie
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:55 PM

Wesley S, I accept your basic premise, but I wish we would drop the overly-inclusive term "negative campaign."    Unfortunately, it's become a broad-brush term used to refer both to real "mudslinging" (including blatant lies about people's private lives and character) and to fact-based reports or allegations about candidates' voting records, policies, etc.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out wherein candidates' voting records and policy positions differ, including drawing attention to really bad consequences (past, present or future) of certain policies and legislative or executive actions.    In fact, I think this sort of report (or ad or email), if accurate, can be of much more value to the voters than just "positive" promises.    (An ideal campaign presents the positives of one's own policies and record and contrasts those with the negatives of one's opponents'.)   

So, if an email points out cases where Hillary, e.g., supported or acceded to some of Dubya's worst nominations or policies, I think that's not only fair but very valuable.    If it's based on libel or even just sleazy innuendo, that's a different thing, and I agree that that's where people turn when they have no legitimate basis for opposing a candidate.

As for unsolicited emails, I hardly ever open them, regardless.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:54 AM

Bush recently had a seizure after a drinking binge, according to a newspaper I saw in supermarket checkout lane. I guess Laura is still living in the hotel, planning the divorce.

I consider all such emails on the same level as the above. They're not even good propaganda. Just say "delete."

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:29 AM

Two Words: Karl Rove.

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Midchuck
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:09 AM

All negative e-mails about candidates for the nomination for President in either or the two major parties are correct.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 10:45 AM

I haven't received any. They aren't the sort of thing anyone I know is really likely to send me, and I usually don't open e-mail from strangers.

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Newport Boy
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 10:19 AM

On a recent Radio 4 comedy show, a (non-musical, ie tone-deaf) participant remarked that he thought a bassoon was the US President.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Peace
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 10:07 AM

Despite being a Canadian, I once received one saying that George Bush was an offensive stupid a##hole. I defended Bush by replying he was not that offensive. Hope that helps get the ball rolling.

Subject: BS: Negative campaign e-mails
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 10:05 AM

Maybe the easiest way to measure a presidential candidates' popularity is how many negative e-mails you get about them. So far I've only received one about Obama that I can remember – but at least 5 about Hillary. The newest one shows a dog pissing on a Hillary for President sign. To me it's always proof that the other guys are running scared. They have nothing positive they can say about themselves so the only thing left is to attack the other guy. I'm looking forward to my first "Hillary is a lesbian" e-mail. I never buy into these myself but I'm always interested in reading them in order to gauge the tone of the campaign.

How many of these do you get? Do you discourage them? Try to counter them with facts? Care to share any outrageous ones with us?