The attack AD to end all attack ADs

[palehorse]

here's a crazy thought: vote according to each candidate's individual merit as opposed to voting along party lines. That's what makes me sick about most of these "down with the GOP" morons. why don't they just say "down with the bad candidates!" instead? there are decent candidates on both sides of the aisle people and not every GOP member is in bed with Bush and Rummy...

get a damn clue people. YOU are ruining our democracy with your polarizing animosity, jealousy, and anger.

 

[Thump553]

palehorse, you make a good point-and one that has been made many times before. I'm wondering from the tone of your post, however, don't you notice the same sort of offensive ads coming from the GOP? I certainly do. In the eighties the Dems were "soft on crime", these days the Dems can't be trusted to face down terrorism. Hogwash.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Thump553
palehorse, you make a good point-and one that has been made many times before. I'm wondering from the tone of your post, however, don't you notice the same sort of offensive ads coming from the GOP? I certainly do. In the eighties the Dems were "soft on crime", these days the Dems can't be trusted to face down terrorism. Hogwash.

like I saidm, when I vote, I do so regardless of what the Ads say. I vote based on the actual merit of each candidate, or my perception thereof.. (i've been wrong before!)

a certain amount of luck is required...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
here's a crazy thought: vote according to each candidate's individual merit as opposed to voting along party lines. That's what makes me sick about most of these "down with the GOP" morons. why don't they just say "down with the bad candidates!" instead? there are decent candidates on both sides of the aisle people and not every GOP member is in bed with Bush and Rummy...

get a damn clue people. YOU are ruining our democracy with your polarizing animosity, jealousy, and anger.

Yeah, that part I bolded is certainly true. But here's the thing, the Republican who will stand up for what's RIGHT, as opposed to whatever his party leadership tells him to do, is very rare...McCain is the exception, not the rule, and even he folded like a cheap card table on the torture issue, something I imagine he feels pretty strongly about. The problem is that it's pretty hard to tell who's not in bed with Bush and who's just screwing around because Bush isn't popular at the moment. I'm not exactly of the mind that any vote for any Republican is like a vote for Bush, but it's a chance I'd just as soon not take. I might vote for a Republican who will really think for himself and vote based on his views of the issues, or I might end up with a Republican who's head is buried so far up Bush's ass he can see the pretzel Dubya is choking on...and the odds do not seem to be in my favor.

Call it partisan animosity if you want, but I'd rather take the chance that we'll end up with a congress full of middle-of-the-road Dems than risk letting Bush keep control of congress for another 2 years. Perhaps there are individual Republicans who will buck the trend we've been living with for a while now, but they haven't done a lot to prove that...while at the very least I know a Democrat probably isn't in the tank for Bush. You want an election that isn't about party lines? I'd say a good place to start would be not having so many party line votes in congress, if I could find a fair number of Republicans who think for themselves, I might believe there are others. Hell, the Republican partisans FREQUENTLY attack the Dems for not being more "unified", like that's a GOOD trait in Congress.

Bottom line, I'm happy to vote for individuals...if you see any, let me know.