DiscussMormonism.com

Newt Gingrich first introduced the Republican campaign strategy of going negative early in the political campaign. This has now evolved into a strategy of going dishonestly negative early and continuing.

Why has this happened and will it continue into the future?

I think the why is answered by realizing it is a logical extension of the way the Fox Advocacy Group conducts the Republican media message. Can't see that changing. As to whether it will continue in the future depends upon the degree it is successful in the elections. This makes sense if you can fool a sufficient amount of people when it counts. Doing it on a sustained basis is icing on the cake.

In polling, the prevarication strategy seems to be working.

I think this strategy is proving effective because of the accompanying tactic of convincing certain portions of the electorate that they can safely ignore fact-checkers as part of the liberal, biased media.

It really does remind of how the LDS church long "protected" its members from learning troubling facts about church history. Teach them a sanitized, "faith-promoting" version of church history, along with encouraging the members to believe that outside sources were tainted and untrustworthy.

Hi beastie

beastie wrote:I think this strategy is proving effective because of the accompanying tactic of convincing certain portions of the electorate that they can safely ignore fact-checkers as part of the liberal, biased media.

Me thinks there are a few code words in there!

Cipher?

It really does remind of how the LDS church long "protected" its members from learning troubling facts about church history. Teach them a sanitized, "faith-promoting" version of church history, along with encouraging the members to believe that outside sources were tainted and untrustworthy.

Yea, to use this superb analogy (with millions of US citizens) that will potentially vote for Romney is not only spot on, in my opinion, but I don't think I have seen a more accurate description concerning an entire body of voters, ever!

Simply put, you nailed it again, beastie!


Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo wrote:Hi beastie

beastie wrote:I think this strategy is proving effective because of the accompanying tactic of convincing certain portions of the electorate that they can safely ignore fact-checkers as part of the liberal, biased media.

Me thinks there are a few code words in there!

Cipher?

It really does remind of how the LDS church long "protected" its members from learning troubling facts about church history. Teach them a sanitized, "faith-promoting" version of church history, along with encouraging the members to believe that outside sources were tainted and untrustworthy.

Yea, to use this superb analogy (with millions of US citizens) that will potentially vote for Romney is not only spot on, in my opinion, but I don't think I have seen a more accurate description concerning an entire body of voters, ever!

Simply put, you nailed it again, beastie!


Peace,
Ceeboo

I emphasized the words you either missed or chose to ignore. I never said this described the entire body of voters that will vote for Romney. That you chose to interpret it in that way is your problem, not mine.

Do you deny that some republican candidates are encouraging people to ignore fact checkers because they're part of the liberal biased media? I've even seen at least one person on this site make the same claim.

beastie wrote:
That you chose to interpret it in that way is your problem, not mine.

Easy, friend.

I just authored a new thread, hoping we might share a smile together.

Do you deny that some republican candidates are encouraging people to ignore fact checkers because they're part of the liberal biased media? I've even seen at least one person on this site make the same claim.

No, I don't deny that at all.

Do you deny that this has been going on (from all sides of the political spectrum) for a very long time now?

(They used to duel to the death. This is nothing, it's just politics.......doing politics)

Peace,
Ceeboo

moksha wrote:Newt Gingrich first introduced the Republican campaign strategy of going negative early in the political campaign. This has now evolved into a strategy of going dishonestly negative early and continuing.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Newt Gingrich has never been a nominee for President, so how did he "first introduce" this strategy? Was it in somebody else's campaign? What were campaigns like before News came up with this tactic?

I'm also not sure how that compares to Democratic campaign tactics. Do they not go "negative", or do they just go "negative" later?

cinepro wrote:

moksha wrote:Newt Gingrich first introduced the Republican campaign strategy of going negative early in the political campaign. This has now evolved into a strategy of going dishonestly negative early and continuing.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Newt Gingrich has never been a nominee for President, so how did he "first introduce" this strategy? Was it in somebody else's campaign? What were campaigns like before News came up with this tactic?

I'm also not sure how that compares to Democratic campaign tactics. Do they not go "negative", or do they just go "negative" later?

I think he's referring to Newt in the primaries. Good ole' two-dollar-a-gallon Newt, who called Romney a liar.

Ceeboo wrote:

beastie wrote:
That you chose to interpret it in that way is your problem, not mine.

Easy, friend.

I just authored a new thread, hoping we might share a smile together.

Do you deny that some republican candidates are encouraging people to ignore fact checkers because they're part of the liberal biased media? I've even seen at least one person on this site make the same claim.

No, I don't deny that at all.

Do you deny that this has been going on (from all sides of the political spectrum) for a very long time now?

(They used to duel to the death. This is nothing, it's just politics.......doing politics)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Not to worry. I don't hold grudges in these political mudfests. I know I can be a hot-head when it comes to politics. You should hear my family when we all get together... even though half of them are LDS, we're a bunch of democrats shaking our heads over the latest republican antic. I'm sure we scare outsiders.

cinepro wrote:I don't understand what you mean by this. Newt Gingrich has never been a nominee for President, so how did he "first introduce" this strategy? Was it in somebody else's campaign? What were campaigns like before News came up with this tactic?

Quick 90s brush up: Back when Newt controlled the GOPpac he also sponsored training for Republican candidates. In the training material he emphasized the strategy of "go sub (negative) early" in the campaign. This lead to success and a new Congressional class emerged, dedicated to making a 'contract on America'. The sub-prime mortgage cascade could be thought of as one of their success stories.