"GOING NEGATIVE"

Sigh. Following the latest round of debates and another week of back and forth on the 2008 Presidential campaign trail, we see an old favorite re-enter the public domain: "Going NEGATIVE." Both parties revealed the same old complaints of "going negative" with the use of the ever popular "negative campaign ad." The subjects of said ads are appalled that the campaign has gotten ugly and "resorted to this type of negative campaigning." Mike Huckabee even "pulled" a potential negative ad before airing it (although he still showed it to the media so the message still got out there) to appear above the fray.

What a crock. If you ever watch these so called negative ads they basically lay out the positions, votes and quotes of the person in question. How in fact is this negative? Oh sure - it is indeed negative for the person who is having their own words used against them or having their voting record displayed for everyone to examine. The "negative ad" is pointing out the positions candidates have taken in the past. Only the embarrassed candidate can call showing his/her past record to the public as being "negative."

Consider John McCain. The media darling McCain is incensed at the efforts of Mitt Romney to portray McCain as somehow not a true Conservative. There is only one problem with McCain's take - the ads are TRUE. His past positions are laid out for us to examine on their merit. And they don't have any merit to be sure:

McCain - Feingold is completely unconstitutional and goes against the first amendment and protected free speech.

McCain - Kennedy would have passed in relative silence granting amnesty to 12 million illegals until the American public caught wind of the plan.

McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts using the class warfare tactics of Socialists and liberal Democrats, trotting out the "tax cuts for the rich" nonsense.

McCain formed the "Gang of 14" in the Senate which blocked an attempted rule change that would prevent the filibustering of federal judicial nominees. Countless honest, ethical, constitutionally sound and DESERVING judges have been blocked during the Bush years.

These are very negative aspects of John McCain's record - and pointing them out is not "going negative" it is BEING HONEST! This was best illustrated during the South Carolina debate when Fred Thompson went through a list of the liberal positions (and actual votes) that Huckabee has held in his career, and the crowd seemed to respond more favorably to the silly retort Huckabee came back with... something about him "being in the cross hairs" or something. Is this the best one liner contest or the lead up to choosing the leader of the free world? Or is it just me?


Good Grief! It is one thing to have a libelous, slanderous ad full of intentional misinformation circulating out there, but I have not seen one of those in years... I guess that one with Dukakis riding around in a tank or the Willie Horton stuff... which also was all true... oh forget it.

For those keeping score at home - note that:
Jim DeMint says no to McCain
Rick Santorum says no to McCain
George Allen says no to McCain and Huckabee
Robert Bork says no to McCain and Huckabee
Toomey says no to McCain and Huckabee
Mark Levin says no to McCain and Huckabee (thanks for this info too)
the conservOpunk says no to McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul (gosh I hope this gets the wackos after me - - I need attention after all).

On the Democrat side of things, it is truly gut wrenching. I wish there was a word that described the sound of nails sliding down a chalkboard, because that is the word I would describe the Hillary - Obama tiff.

You see, this is why I was hoping for Condi Rice to enter the race so we could see if the DEMS could vote against a black woman... the stakes are high and the irony
THICK! Of course it is going to be about race in the race... American blacks vote DEM over 90% OF THE TIME! The largest bloc vote in the country. (Yes even bigger than the 80% Evangelical vote for the REP side). The reason they vote this way is truly baffling, as the Republicans championed the 13, 14 and 15 amendments and authored the Civil Rights bill - and most of the social issues blacks agree with are Republican positions... but this is the topic of another day. (Just go read Bamboozled by Angela McGlowan)

This is the bed the DEMS have made by pandering for the black vote with hollow promises of "fixing" what ails this segment of the population. Successful blacks don't need to fixing, they have made it on their own in an open and free competitive marketplace. It is wonderful to see the DEMS bickering over someone saying something "racist" or "uncalled for" using their same shout down Stalinist mob tactics they typically use on conservative speech. Classic stuff to be sure. I like Obama as a person just not as a candidate, as he is further left than Mrs. Clinton on all issues. Hey Blacks... WAKE UP and smell the Republican!

I am getting ahead of myself here. At the end of the day - the bottom line is this is a free country - if black folks want to vote for a black candidate, then what's wrong with that? People can vote for whomever they so choose. We may not always agree with the candidates position or why certain people vote a certain way but such is life. I do hope that we could vote on what these people STOOD for and the vision they have (as illustrated by their words and past actions), and not for party, race, or in the case of Hillary Clinton, gender. This is to be our next President so lets not make it another, "Get Even with the Republicans for Impeaching Bill Clinton" or "Bush stole the election" or that sort of thing.

A decisive Guliani, Romney or Thompson victory in November would suit me nicely thanks.

conservOpunk