Why I almost voted for Hillary Clinton for US Senate (NY) in 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mek42

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
354
Location
upstate NY
The race for US Senate (NY) in 2000 was primarily between Lazio (Republican) and Clinton (Democrat). Most of the Lazio advertisements that I heard during the two months prior to the election were not pro-Lazio ads, but were, rather, anti-Clinton ads. Up until 2 weeks prior to the election I did not hear any anti-Lazio ads from the Clinton camp. (Yes, I live under a rock and typically have less than a day (24 hours) total combined radio and TV exposure each week). Up until that point I was going to vote for Clinton solely on the merit of not using attack ads. When I got to the poll I voted for the first candidate that was neither Lazio nor Clinton - I think Socialist was my only choice, much less first, but I do not recall at this point.

It seems to me that the vast majority of problems seen in American society today stem from a lack of mutual respect for one another. If our potential leaders cannot give each other common respect then I do not want them to become our actual leaders. Redeveloping this sense of mutual respect for one another is in my mind far more important than any single 'political issue'. Furthermore, if a candidate is unable to provide reasons to vote for them and must rely on merely giving reasons to not vote for the other guy, then that candidate must be devoid of original thought and not worthy of a leadership position.

Many people may think to reply that many of the attack ads are from non-affiliated groups. Regardless of whether or not there is a direct affiliation with a given candidate, these 'non-affiliated' groups seem to desire that a candidate be chosen at least partly on the merit of disrespect toward the opposing candidate. This desire for disrespect negates, in my mind, any benefit that any candidate might bring to office.

So, in 2000, if I had not heard any anti-Lazio ads from the Clinton side, I would have voted for Clinton solely on the merit of not hosting attack ads.
 
I still think the major issue we have is voting for the lesser evil. I don't like either of these guys, but I don't hate THIS guy as much, so I'll vote for him. It seems the reasonable, nice and guys we want in office, are smart enough to stay away from it. I unfortunately was not of age to vote in the 2000 election, but even back then I would have voted Lazio for the simple fact that I hate Hillary
 
I can understand your sentiment. However, there are a few points to consider.



I don’t care for “attack” ads. However, it has been proven that they do work. I studied them in my Public Relations Campaigns class for my masters. I can understand a candidate who has spent millions of dollars using every effective tool in order to accomplish the objective of winning.

Furthermore, if a candidate does represent controversial or attackable points, wouldn’t you want to know? Candidates cannot expect voters to be as involved as many of us are. They have to get out the message.

I am more offended by Clinton’s positions than I am someone calling them out.

Next, attack ads are not a new phenomena. The mid-to late 1800’s saw some of the worst attack ads our political system has ever seen. That was when the term “mudslinging” originated. So, I believe it is inaccurate to use our political campaigns as a indicator of recent disrespect in American culture.


Finally, whether you like it or not, many “attack” ads are produced by Political Action Committees (PACs) who are not affiliated with the candidate. These are groups who are passionate about defeating a particular opponent or issue. They are not under the control of the political candidate. I find it distasteful to penalize a candidate for actions not of his or her own making and outside his or her control.


Whether we like it or not, politics is big business. They only get one shot at the prize and have to spend tremendous amounts of money to even take their shot at the prize. Likely, a PR strategist’s career is made or broken by a political campaign. For that reason, they will often pull out ever tool in their war chest to be successful.



-- John
 
I understand your sentiments, but emotions shouldn't be our deciding factor for the governing of our Country.

So, would you rather have a polite socialist strip our rights away than a Constitutionalist who just happens to be a jerk?
 
Well, I didn't figure that any of the third parties were in danger of winning anyway. Like I said, I just picked the first neither Lazio nor Clinton choice that was available as an expression of my disgust.

At any rate, I think that America would be better off with more than just two real choices for political parties.

I wish there was a viable Moderate party to compete with the extreme views on both sides (right and left).
 
I wish there was a viable Moderate party to compete with the extreme views on both sides (right and left).
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I am tired of both parties which cater to their extreme fringe voters. We need a moderate party, something like the Ross Perot Reform Party.
 
I like attack ads, why lie about it? "Positive" ads are all homilies, platitudes, empty promises, and saccarhine.

People don't admit to liking porn either, but it fueled the rise of the graphics based internet, Al Gore notwithstanding.

I am not above some well done erotica any more than I am above a well crafted political slam.

If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, it is going to be the Golden Age of character assassination and I cannot say she hasn't earned it should it dawn.
 
Boats,

I have to hand it to you.

You somehow managed to tie internet porn and Hillary Clinton together in one post without having me lose my lunch.

Now I believe ANYTHING is possible.

:)


-- John
 
I'm not even sure it was attack ads. Until shortly after the last general election, I was a registered Republican. I am now registered as an independent (no party affiliation) for two reasons: 1) I was sick and tired of being called, day-after-day, evenings, mornings, anytime by phone banks and automated demon-dialers, and, more importantly; 2) All the ads, for both parties, had the fine intellectual content of an argument between four-year-olds — "You're a poop!" "You're a double-poop!" "You're a triple..." and on and on. If you could find any real reference to platform or proposed policies in 90% of them, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
 
I have been educated more than once by attack ads. As far a voting socialist to avoid the others...wow.
 
Sergeant Bob said. Negative campaigning became a tradition the minute George Washington said two terms was enough.

I like negative ads. Look at the Swift Vets in 2004. They asked questions about Kerry that the media would not. The media wouldn't even mention the Swift Vets until Kerry himself complained about them at a press conference. The ads brought out information and questioning that wouldn't have even been discussed had those ads not appeared.

Negative ads can be overdone IMHO if they are too vague.
A couple years ago Time Warner Cable was running a huge number of negative ads slamming SBC and saying they were doing something anti-consumer, etc. The problem was the ads were vague and didn't say what the issue was or why we should really be against SBC.
What was the problem? SBC was lobbying the Texas legislature to allow them to get into the cable business threatening Time Warner's cable profits. It didn't seem to matter that Time Warner was already offering cable phone service competing with SBC in their market. They just wanted to protect their cable business. I got sick of those ads long before I found out what the deal was.
 
Years ago, one of my political science classes involved studying campaign ads and how it influenced voters. The findings supported attack ads as more effective with influencing peoples' votes, regardless of the fact that people say they hated attack ads, more so than a politician running a positive ad. People remember negative far better than positive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Hillary takes a blow.
Replies
19
Views
1K
Moondoggie
M
rbernie
  • Locked
  • Poll
The value of the protest vote to the RKBA?
Replies
5
Views
357
pax
P
O
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton- Sec State?
Replies
4
Views
417
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
Hillary Challenger John Spencer Blasts Clinton Terror Record
Replies
7
Views
431
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
P
  • Locked
Senator Bill Clinton?
Replies
3
Views
395
MacEntyre
M
Back
Top