http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-florida-primary_n_1240148.html
The constant mudslinging and badmouthing of ones opposing candidate needs to become less of the campaign focus. Too much time is wasted in digging up dirt on the candidates and too little is spent on actually figuring out who is truly the best candidate. Negative campaigning does, of course, have its positives. It can reveal some unknown things about a candidate which may be important, but for the most part it is wasted time and resources spent on trying to down talk the ones opponent in order to gain votes for oneself. The focus of a campaign should be on proving to the public that one is the best person for the job. I'm not saying that the public needs to hear any more empty promises, but we do need more facts and hard evidence that the candidate will do whats best for our country and not whats best for himself or those he is affiliated with. Accusing an opponent of things that he may or may not have done does not help the public understand what you will for our country. People would probably gain more respect for a candidate if he would answer his opponents mudslinging by simply campaigning positive things about himself rather than playing into the attacks of his opponent.
The writer shows some clear bias in several of his statements, showing the reader he thinks that Gingrich has no chance in winning and is merely trying to stay afloat. He states that Gingrich was "mischaracterizing" some of his accusations towards Romney. The writers bias portrays how the media spreads their propaganda and bias to the public. This article was written with the belief that Romney has basically already won Florida over, which could be far from the truth.
You would really agree with, and benefit from reading the post, Save the Drama for Your Momma.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of campaigning is juvenile at best, and your words below, are very resounding:
"we do need more facts and hard evidence that the candidate will do whats best for our country and not whats best for himself or those he is affiliated with. Accusing an opponent of things that he may or may not have done does not help the public understand what you will for our country."
Mudslinging does nothing to make a man look like a better candidate-- it serves only to make the other candidate look worse, and brings in so-called issues that bear no political consequence.
I love the idea that you present here:
"People would probably gain more respect for a candidate if he would answer his opponents mudslinging by simply campaigning positive things about himself rather than playing into the attacks of his opponent."
However, I wonder if this is actually possible. Sure, the American public would love to have an honorable candidate who can demonstrate the post-elementary skill of "being the bigger person." But that would make sense... perhaps too much sense. ;)
And when the media plays into this, the problems are only magnified. Additionally, when news sources act like a candidate has already won a state, they create self-fulfilling prophecies and play a far too active role in the political process.