Here is an intersting op-ed that puts current campaign mudslinging in perspective: The Founding Mudslingers

I like this perspective. Taking this history into consideration, I find that it’s easy to believe that no matter what mud is slung or praises preached, we will be fine with either candidate in office. Our nation survived the fear mongering about a possible reunification with England to become a monarchy, establishment of a church state, the horrors of imported French revolutionary tactics, etc.

And, the slogans of fear-mongering and praise-preachings from the campaign hit men are, surprisingly, not too different from today's.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Hold on a minute. That article doesn't quite have everything right. The campaign against Adams worked actually. The article says, "in his first term", but he only served one term while Jefferson went on to serve two terms. Jefferson smeared him, and Adams failed to show up on inauguration day. Adams and Jefferson "broke it off" after that, and it was only a few years after Jefferson left office that they began to correspond again.

They both died on the same day, July 4.

But the mudslinging did work. A lot of people learned what they knew about Adams from things that lesser sources said about him. And it's the same today.

What's the line? "Some people, if they don't know, you just can't tell 'em".

Some people will go into the booth in November believing Obama is a muslim, doesn't like his country much because he doesn't always wear a flag pin, while others will step in there thinking McCain is a wretched old man who eats babies.

And whichever side can portray the other side in the most entertaining and hurtful way will win.

It's awfully cynical to say that, but do you wanna make a bet?

Actually, this time around I will. While mudslinging happens in every election, not every election is decided by it. It is most decisive in elections without strong issue-based differences between the candidates. Where there is such a difference, the candidate with the most popular stances on the issues is the one who wins, particularly if he's also charismatic.

Look at the blowout elections in our history: anything with Roosevelt or Reagan on the ticket, or 1964, or 1972. Did FDR win by mudslinging against Hoover or Landon or Wilkie or Dewey? No, actually the majority of the mudslinging was directed at him, not his opponents. Why did Reagan win big? Because he slung mud at Carter or Mondale? No, it was because he took a tougher stance against the Soviet Union and promised to do something different about the economy which was in a mess. That was in '80; in '84 he won because he lucked out and his stupid economic ideas gave the illusion of working. Nixon in '72? Well, he was the world champion mudslinger, but that's not why he beat McGovern; he beat McGovern because McGovern was way to the left of the national center (which took some doing because the national center was itself pretty close to the peak of a leftward swing) and Nixon himself had moved left far enough to look like a level-headed pragmatist by comparison: recognizing China, signing arms control with the USSR, pulling troops out of Vietnam, backing environmentalism, etc.

When an election is issue-driven, mudslinging becomes an afterthought. I think it isn't going to amount to a hill of beans this year.

I hope you aren't absolutely correct about this. I see these two candidates as having remarkably similar positions on the issues (compared to most past elections). That is one of the reasons that I am still undecided. Thus, I hope the mudslinging does not escalate.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Oh, I expect it will. But I don't agree that McCain and Obama have similar positions compared to recent elections, compared to Bush and either Gore or Kerry particularly. I'm curious as to what makes you say that; you must have a reason to.

But . . . setting aside the social issues like abortion and gay rights where the Dem and Pub candidates always diverge these days, McCain is an economic supply-sider while Obama wants to reverse that; McCain would stay in Iraq while Obama would pull out; Obama takes a stronger environmental position than McCain (although McCain takes a stronger one than most Republicans); McCain would keep the Bush tax cuts while Obama would partially reverse them; Obama wants a health-care system that would, over time, evolve into a single-payer system like that of France, while McCain would essentially keep the system we have except to add some targeted tax cuts; Obama would open diplomatic negotiations with countries like Iran while McCain would take a harder line (he says); Obama would change our trade policies while McCain would keep them pretty much the same. These are pretty significant differences it seems to me.

The HBO miniseries on John Adams covered the smears on Adams well, including what could be deemed the first American Presidential 527ing and anonymous source trashing and smearing of a candidate. Obviously it started right at the beginning too. Jefferson actually paid for the hit jobs drafted by Hamilton and others in psuedonyms under Publius then popular for public debate and grievances. The smears worked in defeating him. Jefferson got it in turn with the 'Dusky Sally' (the Sally Hemmings affair) rumour, which today we also know was true. The smears didn't work because he dodged them successfully enough, and he won.

Not much has changed and it never will. It's just how the game is played when it comes to smears and sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it does not. The same defences that worked then apply now. Jefferson rapidly responded with diversions and Clintonian statements whilst Adams simply grew indignant, offended and didn't. If something is true then all the better for issuing or responding but the purpose and strategies of the political combat are clear.

I'll break it down with the issues you raised:

Economy: Yes, they differ on that one.

Iraq: Lately, BHO is becoming less and less insistent on an immediate withdrawal. I think even this week he announced that he would slow his proposed troop reductions. (Can't find the article right now, but will if needed). This is fine with me.

Tax cuts: Partial reversal vs. keeping - somewhat different but dependant on the actions of Congress. So, I take both as rhetoric only.

Health care: Ditto about Congress.

Diplomatic relations: BHO is rethinking his initial positions, which is fine with me.

Trade: I am woefully ignorant about that as it is not a primary issue with me.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Cool. I wonder if I can get that miniseries (googled it and it's called "John Adams", ironically ) through "On Demand"? It's worth looking into.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Yes, Tom Hanks directed it. Paul Giamatti played Adams and did an outstanding job (likely to win an award, or should anyway), a real surprise pick but wonderful performance. HBO played the series in April and May but it's not on On Demand anymore. The DVDs should be out soon enough. Definitely get it.

It did a great and long overdue service to an often and unfairly sidenoted key founder of the nation where so many founders and revolutionary generals get their due credit. Even hero patriot turned villian traitor Benedict Arnold had gotten more history study and attention (now there is a guy who blew his chance to be on a 1,5 or 10 dollar bill and instead is villified for all time as a traitor and having forfeited all key credit towards winning the nation's freedom such as victories and successes at Fort Ticonderoga, Valcour Island, Valley Forge, Saratoga, etc. Even the British never respected or fully trusted him given his treason and he died penniless, forgotten and reportedly with Judas' remorse).

And if it isn't on On Demand anymore, I think it just got a release on DVD this past week. It's a 7 part series that runs about 8 hours altogether, and it's very good, and sometimes absolutely riveting. I loved Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin.

If you draft up a list of all the issues that McCain and Obama are pretty much the same on, it's not that long of a list. Their immigration stance is the same. In terms of the environment and energy policy, McCain goes further than most Republicans, while Obama pledges more money to invest in renewable energy sources and jobs in that sector.

I think the differences are plentiful. McCain says he wants a limited gov't, but there isn't one specific area that he's targeted for downsizing. Obama wants to save money by ending the war in Iraq and raising taxes on the rich and super rich and then putting a good chunk of that back into his health care plan, which isn't the best plan, but will probably pass because it comes just short of being "universal" and "gov't mandated".

I think smearing works. But you have to do it in an effective way. Bush should have got his ass whipped in 2004 but Kerry kept striking out.

I think what looks to be happening so far is that Obama is going to play the same game he played against Hillary; rope-a-dope. He's simply going to go out there and stick to his campaign theme and let McCain come off as a curmudgeon who keeps reminding us every single day how old and experienced he is. The centrist and undecided vote seems to be a little higher this year, but when they start weighing in after Labor Day, and then especially in the week after the first debate in September, of course we'll see a clearer picture, but my prediction is that if McCain doesn't get his campaign in order, he risks losing in a landslide. And that's too bad, because he can be quite charismatic himself; I don't get why he keeps putting some kind of artificial constraint on his own charisma in favor of being grumpy and flashing that constant uncomfortable grin of his.

Agreed as well. Not only did he do an outstanding job, he looked like him and that wasn't accidental. Hanks did, within artistic licence, an almost spot on honest recitation of the history and characters of the time. Atkinson actually played the best representation of him to date IMO and as a supporting character, Hanks still gave Franklin incredible attention to his talents and contributions, and this was true with the other main founders and generals too.

taking that into account I'd say adams was the "better man".

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)

I heard an interesting take on this on NPR recently.

Almost all the media in the US used to be highly partisan, there were the pamphleteers, the equivalent of today's blogs, who handed out pamphlets with all kinds of wild charges against the opposition, and the journals which were subscription based.
When the "penny press" came around, trying to sell as many papers as possible from the street corner and sell advertising to as many businesses as possible, that "objectivity" became a marketing tool, if they limited the paper to reporting what actually happened, and avoided the partisan spin, they also avoided offending potential advertisers and driving off potential readers of the opposite political persuasion.
Objectivity really became important for the wire services, which sold their product to newspapers, and who could not afford to alienate half their potential customer base by taking a position on an issue, so they stuck to reporting what actually happened and left the opinion out.
With the media consolidation of the last few decades, which is dependent on favorable treatment from government agencies, media has seen partisan leanings as contributing to the bottom line rather than hurting it, by exploiting niche markets and by influencing politicians to treat them favorably in legislation.

So the fair and unbiased press almost never existed at all, and when it almost existed, it was for a rather short time.

The only reason people continue to use negative campaigning, is because it works.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

imho its because the folks will put with only so much negativity and when they see what appears to be an unfair fight, they respond and it rebounds.
Like to or not as we are talking partisan sides here, after a while bush was seen as something of a sympathetic figure, after the october arms bunker story and most especially Rathers story. They saw the media piling on and I am SURE this cost Kerry many votes.

In almost exactly the same fashion as the republicans played the game with Clinton, they like the dems didn't realize there is a boundary to this. They crossed it. Clinton by all accounts was a scoundrel, sure, but impeachment and the like was a bridge to far, they saw that as too much angst and Clinton wound up being the sympathetic figure.

The electorate by and large, especially the real swing voters have a sense of fair play.

And that brings me to Obama. I think his constant campaign of attempting to inoculate himself against any and almost all critique because of his unique status is going to back fire. And for the same reasons I stipulated above, but reversed, he will be so far above critique and negative media coverage those same folks will get the idea that, all fairs only when it comes to one side and his being above the fray and he is somehow “special”, folks don’t cotton to untouchables.

The dem 527’s are going to go after McCain, the rep. 527s are going to go after Obama, that’s a given and alls fair, BUT where in Obama is attempting to put himself out of range, or above the fray he may put himself to far out of range.

The money obama has plus the dem 527 will assure there will be a huge disparity in ads, propaganda etc. unlike anything we have ever seen before.

Eventually, this will wear, that sense of fair play will rekindle and even though Obama deserves by virtue of his ability to raise more cash than McCain to submerge him in ads placed etc. the under dog status and what may appear to be bullying coupled with overwhelming positive media coverage will turn folks off. The longer the campaign goes on the less special Obama will appear and this inoculated status he is inventing will wear thin.

__________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)