Conklin and Republicans go negative.

[Blazer81]

Why did Mr. Conklin and the Republicans feel like they had to go negative?

Any thoughts?

[LuciusBeebe]

Because its brutally effective?

[Night Fire]

Why did Mr. Conklin and the Republicans feel like they had to go negative?

Any thoughts?

because when your opponents hold all the high ground, and it is your only chance to win---you have to go negative!

Something to remember when it comes time to vote!

[TheBigB]

Why did Mr. Conklin and the Republicans feel like they had to go negative?

Any thoughts?

My thought is that "negative" is usually in the eye of the beholder. To some people, a candidate merely pointing out their opponent's position and why it differs from their own is "negative". To other people, it is OK to point out differences, but predicting doom and gloom from their opponent's differences is "negative". Some people think that "negative" means bringing up personal dirt on their candidate which has nothing to do with the job itself.

Would you care to provide us with your definition of "negative", Brant?

[mikem]

The "negative" we are talking about is a letter sent out by the Steuben County Republican Central Committee that basically asks the same question as Ronald Reagan did in a 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? The letter then goes on to say why the GOP feels Angola is not better off than it was four years ago but that it will be better if you vote Republican.

The letter could be construed as negative to Angola Mayor Dick Hickman.

GOP mayoral candidate Dave Conklin told me he had no knowledge of the letter's content prior to it being sent out.

[Blazer81]

If Angola is not better off as the GOP wants us to believe and that it is the fault of the mayor...how much of the fault goes to the Republican led City Council? Shouldn't they also be held accountable for the doom and gloom?

[LuciusBeebe]

Oh, its always the same guy's fault... you know, the other guy?

[TheBigB]

GOP mayoral candidate Dave Conklin told me he had no knowledge of the letter's content prior to it being sent out.

Of course not - it is plausible deniability. :D

I still think that the only term overused more than "negative campaigning" in politics is "political correctness". Though the letter mikem cites certainly is not nice and may very well be off the mark, it is addressing an issue, is it not? To me, negative is accusing your elected official of sitting in hot tubs with prostitutes (well, that *did* happen with a former Congressman in my neck of the woods, but I digress). Negative is making fun of the wife of the opposing candidate for drinking isopropyl alcohol. Negative is using pictures of Willie Horton to scare the electorate. But why is asking if you are better off negative campaigning?

I'd just ask the question that Brant posed, and/or ask for specifics as to which particular decisions (or inactions) of Mayor Hickman led to the residents of Steuben County being worse off? It's a non-starter. If the electorate in Steuben County is so uneducated that they can't see that letter for what it is, then there are much bigger problems than who gets elected.

[Night Fire]

If the electorate in Steuben County is so uneducated that they can't see that letter for what it is, then there are much bigger problems than who gets elected.

What are you implying? Because if what you seem to be stating is true, they won't understand it!!!!

[denali]

Please correct me if I am wrong-

This letter was sent out by a party or parties that had the correct information or should have had the correct information.

This letter was sent out at the 11th hour.

This letter was not signed.

I would not call this negative, I would call this dis-honest.

All that I can say is------
SHAME-SHAME-SHAME

[TheBigB]

I would not call this negative, I would call this dis-honest.


Pretty much my thoughts. The issue itself is hardly negative; it is what it is.

But I guess dishonesty can be "negative". :D

[troublesome one]

This is not meant to make excuses for incorrect information presented by Tony Culver, but study some of the US campaigns of the 1800's. The editorial cartoons and personal attacks were horrendous.