Posted by
Wil on Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:19:58 PM
The media complains about it constantly. The Democrats vilify Republicans for it daily. Collin Powell cited it as one of his main reasons for supporting Obama. McCain decries it and says he won't do it. How dare we go negative, go personal, and come at our political enemies with such a negative tone? Negative tones are a part of politics. If there is no major difference, why vote for one candidate over the other. If both are right, if both are moral, if both are good, what are you choosing between? To me, the complaint about a "negative attack ad" is the official whinyness of the political class and it rings completely hollow. Why do I oppose Obama? His past decisions reflect judgement that casts question on his future decisions. Bringing up associations, drug use, military service or absence thereof, past writings, past speeches, past votes, and past business dealings are all legitimate. Any action taken by a politician in the public arena is fair game. If I run for office some day, the words of these blogs and the comments I make are fair game. The people I was friends with in college say something about me. If they are all radicals, if they are all slacker partiers, if they are all cheating dirty dealers, that says something about me.
Obama and his relationships to Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, and others tells us what kind of people he has leaned on when deciding things in the past, and it matters. McCain and his association with those involved in the Keating 5 says something about him. It all matters and it is all relevant.
I only once have felt Republicans took it too far. That was with the Clintons. Bills tawdry doings in the White House only mattered to me because it seemed he had abused his position to have an affair of any sort with an intern. The character flaw that led him to repeated dalliances with random women was despicable, but not politically relevant. It was the relationship with a subordinate that bothered me. His financial dealing because of their potential illegality mattered. His wife, because of her role as the architect of his health care plan was relevant. But any and all criticism of Chelsea was over the top, until as an adult, she campaigned for her mom or perhaps worked on her staff. Likewise, Palins actions as governor, her relationships with business and lobbyists, her financial actions, her professional associations, these are fair game. Bringing them up is not dirty or negative. Attacking the kids, the spouse if they are uninvolved, the personal decisions such as whether to be a working mother or not....these are irrelevant.
Negative is in many cases a matter of perception. Collin Powells' claim that McCains "negative" campaign was one of his reasons for choosing Obama is ridiculous. All campaigns go negative, if there is nothing negative to say about an opponent there is no reason not to choose them. If Powell does not like negativity, he was wise to stay out of politics. But to see it all on one side is to have willful blinders on.