So much for issues: Republican candidates decide to get DIRTY!!!

There are other great pictures .... but these two are factual!!!!!!

That is a friendly looking handshake between Rumsfeld and the other guy. They must be good buddies.

Now here's a picture that could work well for various Republicans running for office....you gotta pick the one that represents the particular candidate



Okay they aren't real...like the two above!!!! Gotta stick to facts!!!!

 

Actually I think the above sums up the democrat platform perfectly. Vote for us (we dont have any real plans or anything), we're not Bush!

I think it makes total sense

 

Unfortunately we won't see the last picture in any Republican ads.

It probably would have been usable a year or two ago when many national republicans were lock step in line with Bush. Then we could have picked out which candidate was most lock step with Bush on which issue and which Bush/candidate picture was most appropriate.

But now since they are spending 90% of their money on attack ads on the opposition we won't get to see pictures like the above. Too bad!

 

Seriously earlpearl...name a single campaign in the last 20 years that 90% of the money isn't spent on attack ads? they are always all about attack ads. Like it or not...playing nice doesn't win.

 

You call them attack ads. I call them "defining ads".

Big difference.

 

Wow, full blown BDS. Happens all the time, but when pointing it out, moombats get their feewings hurt and try to pretend "but, but, but we're just asking questions!" and "so anyone who disagrees is a hater?" No wonder they are always complaining about elections being stolen. This is the representation they offer!

Good job EP! We need more of this for the November elections. The democrat platform of choice

 

Okay: enough foolishness. Maybe more and more ads on both ads are attack ads. I don't know.

Actually, Ignore the Republican mention within the article referenced in the first post in this thread. The point is that 95% of the money is going to go into attack ads.

Inappropriate for discussing serious issues.

here is what I heard and saw this weekend on TV from dem and rep candidates running ads (and disrupting football games).

Senator Allen in Virginia is running ads that sort of totally redefine him. I suppose he is playing to the more liberal character of Northern Virginia. I have no idea what kind of ads he is running in other parts of the state. NOT an Attack AD. Very surprising ads.

The current governor of Maryland (forget his name) is running ads that portray him as thoroughly non-partisan and supportive of many "liberal" ideas. Surprised me; NOT an Attack ad.

I guess those two are playing to the liberal constuencies that cover the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of DC.

One of two Democratic candidates for County Executive in one of MD's biggest county ran a "mild" attack on a Democratic primary opponent. It appers these two are probably very similar on policy. The attack ad said something about the other guy like "good guy...bad ideas". It referenced positive statements from the Washington Post, even though the Post officially supported the other guy. It also mentioned something I know he can't effect (probably the single topic I really know). That statement was a misstatement (lie?)

3 Democratic guys running for Senate in a Primary in Maryland ran ads, none of which were attack ads against their opponents. Each referenced the same policy; against Bush, against Iraq, against budget deficits, etc etc. etc. Not too much different from one another.

Frankly, not a lot of attack ads.

I think candidates in general should have far far far less money and spend more time debating one another again and again and again.

Seriously, didn't Kerry look foolish when he did his I voted for the War before I was against it...or the reverse I was against it before I was for it.

That stuff came out in debates, not through attack ads.

Imagine having your football games ruined by $45 million or more in stupid attack ads!!!!!!!

I'd rather see less money in political spending and more time in debates.

Dave

 

But look at the current debate format. It sucks. Its boring. You don't learn anything beyond talking points, either. Commercials or talking point debates. Its 6 of one, half dozen of another. I have problems with the ads and the debates.

I also think that too much focus is on the national races (senate and house) and not enough on state races. I wish the states had more power so the state races were more important. But alas...we have to elect 530 some people who decide virtually everything for us. How stupid.

 

I am a Republican at heart and do not appreciate your feeble attempts at attacking the Republicans. I have enjoyed the benfits of being a Republican.
Namely with President Bush being in office, and him being a Republican. As a soldier, having to serve my country in the following campaings: Global War on Terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom; it has helped me with my financial situations...a little. You see, as a soldier we get paid crap, and if a Democrat was in office; we might feel the tight grasp around our banks, no raises - and might even lower our pay rates. We barely scrape by as it is; if it was a Republican in office we may most definately recieve a raise and increase in our benefits. Republicans tend to favor the soldiers. Which, I greatly appreciate.

 

Unfortunately there a few people in here that don't really care about you or want to marginalize you....with very little, if anything to offer as a practical option. The Dems record on the military is horredous...cut you half, and don't supply you.. that's their way. Some are trying to sway in the wind, but I wouldn't trust them with ten dollars of my own.

Thank you for your service, by the way. Honor isn't a dead idealogy, we see it in people like yourself.

 

lol, oh noes

 

hey Corina: Who says Democrats want to reduce soldiers' pay. This administration puts lots of money into the hands of contractors and expensive weapon systems. How has your pay increased during the last 6 years.

My business helps soldiers. My vote would go for improving the welfare of soldiers and cut back on various expensive systems. Scrutinize military expenditures but honor and protect the soldiers!!!!!

 

i am solider also, although not an american one
however i know what you mean, about pay and benifits, and barely scraping by