Have Democrats ever engaged in Atwater/Rove politics?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Willie Horton equivalent ads? Swiftboating? Pushpolling to push fake rumors (e.g. McCain's "black child")? Floating fake adultery rumors through murky, hard to identify sources (e.g. Polier intern rumors about Kerry from primaries)?

The dirtiest pool allegation I can think of is the widely circulated "conventional wisdom" that the Daley machine crookedly delivered IL to JFK. The most effective negative ad campaign I can think of is the one where Goldwater was painted as a warmonger.

I thought Clinton's campaigns were primarily positive despite all the venom directed against him. Gore and Kerry also. Carter certainly. I don't remember as much from Dukakis and Mondale aside from the "Where's the Beef" stuff which I personally didn't think was that great.

Any other examples of negative campaigning or dirty/questionable tricks by Dems, effective or not?

The reason I posted this is because I wonder whether some tactics along the Rovian lines should be used by our side to help win, as detestable as the idea is. People DO seem to respond to the nasty Swiftboating type campaigns, all protestations to the contrary.

If you are an incumbent, and presiding over propsperity and peace, then it seems more appropriate and probably more effective to campaign positively and emphasize how well things are going and discourage people from "rocking the boat" (a POSITIVE "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago" message). Or exercise true leadership and point to some future initiative, whether it is independence from oil through research, environment, some scientific endeavor, and just ignore the challenger as insignificant.

Obviously shrub had no positive accomplishment to point to in '04 (aside from enriching rich people, which wouldn't really do to emphasize on the stump), so he had to get down in the dirt to trash Kerry, which his team did with relish, and quite effectively.

Should Democrats not at least consider using negative campaigning in a big way? At least weigh pros and cons seriously?

[saltpoint]

1. Hey, we're angels, ok?

Politics is not always on the up-and-up. I suppose there may be -- just possibly -- if you really looked hard -- some shenanigans on the Dems' side too.

But in Atwater's and Rove's league? Nah. They're in their own league. And throw in Donald Segretti from the Nixon years while we're at it.

[AllieB]

2. It's about time they started

They need to hire a good marketing consulting firm and ad agency.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. I think only at local levels

Like in heavily Dem havens, there's probably a lot of dirty politics(Illinois, for instance), but I don't know how much it's occurred on the national level.

[Olney Blue]

4. I have very mixed feelings about the idea of Rovian politics.

I remember how positive and upbeat the Democratic convention was and
how excited I felt- then the Republicans pulled that garbage with Zell
Miller and the purple bandaids. The GOP red meat was dripping with blood.

Do I want to be like that? In an ideal world, NO. But if our positive
message didn't work in the 2004 election, what will?

[WhiteTara]

5. I would say if anyone,it was Lyndon Johnson

once he called someone homosexual, when asked if it was true, he replied,"no, but make him say it." So, maybe he was the father of all this horrible stuff, I don't know
:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. Yeah but I'm talking at a national, prez election level. I remember that

story, but who did LBJ ever call gay? Can you name the person? I doubt if it was in a presidential campaign.

[WhiteTara]

8. no, he was already in the White House

I'll ask my mom tomorrow, maybe research it on google

[smoochpooch]

7. It's important that if it does occur,

we condemn it immediately. We cannot relinquish the high ground when it comes to things like this. An "I don't care how you get elected, as long as I don't hear about it" attitude is beneath us and unacceptable. East St. Louis Democrats were busted buying votes a couple years ago and it embarassed the hell out of me.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. I'm not talking about cheating like vote fraud. I'm primarily thinking

about heavy negative campaigning etc.

[calimary]

10. Disillusionment 101: Everyone will say they deplore negative campaigning.

They'll SAY it alright, in poll after poll after poll, study after study after study. But research shows negative campaigning WORKS. It's the same reason gossip sells. People love dirt. They're too ashamed to admit it, but they hunger for it.

I also heard that LBJ story - not with the gay reference, necessarily, but the same overriding point: What you say about your opponent DOESN'T HAVE TO be true. The more important thing is to MAKE HIM DENY IT. "IT" being WHATEVER it is.

Now in situations such as those in play now, we're actually not slinging mud to call these assholes what they are - when there's plenty of evidence, especially now, to illustrate how they game the system; cheat on elections, and in fact, steal them outright; lie about war; play the blame game, buy influence; cut corners; break every one of the commandments, cause the death and ruination of millions of innocents and specific political adversaries, and more. It's not dirty pool when you're simply telling the truth about these liars, cheats, thieves, character-assassins, traitors, weasels, and criminals. They should just be doing this in campaign commercials all over the map, 24/7. Starting YESTERDAY.

[smoochpooch]

11. Calling bullshit is fine,

but planting bugs in opponent's HQ- that's the Rove M.O.

[Lindacooks]

12. The thing is, if Dems would just tell the truth about Repukes AND IF

the MSM will cover it, that should sink the Repukes for once and for all. Rpukes are so evil; they lie constantly; and they do NOT govern like they campaign. We don't have to resort to dirty tricks - we just have to tell the truth.

[RedTail Wolf]

13. Let's get as mean as it takes to WIN!

Crap rolls downhill and right now Dems are at the bottom of the septic tank, If that does not make you angry enough to get mean what will? This might upset some but I don't think Harry is the greatest guy to speak for the Dems in the Senate. I thought Daschille was kinda wimpy but this guy will make a snail bored. We need young, fired up people making our case. Nancy P in the House isn't much better and Dr Dean, well I just don't know, he has a speak before think problem. We need someone like those snakes you mention to get to work and quick. There is enough dirt that is the truth, we don't have to sink too low here. We just need the correct messenger and a freakin message! I have a family that is nearly all Repugnants, they constantly ask me what we stand for, what we would do differently. I'd like some help from the wise and sage members here to help answer these questions. I always say we believe in the middle class, helping the poor, health care for everyone that is equal in quality at a lower cost, raising the standard of living for the lower and middle class. We believe in fairness. We hate corporations running our government, although that's a tough one to defend at times! We believe in equal rights for all. We believe in separation of church and state. We believe in this country's best and brightest values not made up ones by corporate spinners.

Give me some ideas Brothers and Sisters!

The Dem leaders aren't voicing too many in my humble opinion.


It's a good time to repeat Duane Allman's war cry! Eat a Peach for Peace! It'll help the farmers in my state and they are soooooo good! And if a Peach might carry a different meaning for you, go ahead and eat one of those daily as well! Can't hurt:-)

[sandnsea]

14. If you read the exit polls

They say that John Kerry put out more unfair attack ads than Bush did. Meaning any time cable news has said anything about Hitler in conjunction with any Dem 527, the public connected it directly to John Kerry. When Kerry said "lying, crooked bunch", people considered that as an equivalent of the Swift Boat ads. When they heard Michael Moore or Dan Rather accuse Bush of being AWOL, they put that right on John Kerry.

The problem is that we keep thinking we have to put up a defense to these ads, because the ads aren't true and people should know it. They just call the ads lies, whether they're true or not. That's the lesson we've got to learn, to quit deliberating every attack and just expose them as liars.