Lets Begin Leading the Right Way to Win! By Banishing of the Cowardly Way to Win American Votes BY RYAN Richaud HURST
Negative campaigning is wasteful, and way too distracting for the short attention span of the average American citizen. Time is money and words are powerful. Negative campaigning takes the time of some creative and skilled person to do evil or expose evil. The same investment of time and money should be spent on the development of real solutions for real situations and problems. Unproven words cause people to waste time wondering if a person’s current worth should be determined by things that may or may-not have happened. I maintain that it should be a crime to campaign negatively. A precursor to running for any office should be to pledge that you will only speak and advertise on what you have done and what you will do. Then you must choose a method that focuses on the issues at hand and not on useless stuff like a fellow campaigner’s backstory. We are all human, and should be allowed to learn and correct areas of our past. We are usually our own worst critics and spend our lives forever worried about stuff we’ve done that just doesn’t matter anymore and my not have matter to anyone else. The only thing that should matter to voters is who will do the right things to move the United States forward and fulfill the promises they make. Since negative campaigning is also known as mudslinging, I must mention that, like in most fights, when you hit your enemy, your hand can get hurt as well. Although you, the hitter, are braced for the pain, the blood / mud spills over, and clean hands are impossible to sustain. You the mudslinger are weak, but most Americans are really too busy to separate who sponsored the advertisement from the negative words.
For some reason, negative campaigners think that just by printing their names on the advertisement instead of announcing it, or announcing their name at the end of the advertisement in a lower tone, they can reduce dirty hands. Why they think this among so many visual learners is a mystery of its own, however, it is very likely because people like the risk and the fast benefits it falsely promises. They are counting on the average voter to be too busy, to take their words for truth without thought. Sadly, there is evidence to justify this cynical judgment; the people who need to focus on the issues are either too hungry, underemployed, depressed, or just too young to know better, and they need to be protected by banning negative campaigning. It is cruel, and should be illegal, and is just too much of a risk.
America spent a lot of wasted time on “citizenship” in the last election, and in this election so far we are focusing on a candidate’s personal finances. Aren’t these issues address by the process of being elected? Ok, the financial thing maybe of some concern, because I am still trying to figure out how New York voted for term limits, and that vote, somehow did not apply to the current Mayor. Some things in our voting process do make one say hmm…, Oh well, he did learn from his mistake, and he now agrees with term limits for the next person . Yea that’s another Hmm…., All in all, if they do their homework to find out and stick to the needs of the office, and stop trying to pulling down others to lift themselves up, we the leaders of the free world can do our part in making the world a better place. So, I say let’s keep it Real, clean and moving life forward with banning the muck-raking among the potential policy makers.
- Negative Advertising in Campaigns Elicits the Whole Truth (thetiaratheory.wordpress.com)
- 2012 Will Be The Most Negative Campaign In History (pinkbananaworld.com)
- In Defense of Negative Campaigning (volokh.com)
- A look back: In spite of super PACs, this isn’t the most negative campaign in history (csmonitor.com)
- On The View: Elisabeth Hasselbeck Thinks Rick Santorum Is “Playing Dirty” (mediaite.com)
- Another Round Of Hand-Wringing Over “Negative Campaigns” (outsidethebeltway.com)