Mud Slinging...

Tweet

They all do it, in fact, no one has one the White House without it. I have complained about it myself, but is it really anything more than just a talking point? The sad fact is, it works. It doesn't really affect those of us who have decided already, but it does affect the decisions of the undecided... and elections are won and lost by the undecided, so why shouldn't the candidates sling a little mud? I also notice that some complainers can't tell the difference between mud slinging and simply pointing out the down sides of the opposition. Pointing out the down sides are accusation that are true. Mudslinging is either outright lies or taking a true point to the extreme. Cases in point: "Obama has close associations with a domestic terrorist." This is an example of pointing out the down sides of Obama. Why? Because it is true. "Obama is a terrorist because he pals around with one". This would be mud slinging because Obama and Ayers don't "pal around" and even if they did, it doesn't mean Obama is a terrorist himself. "If elected, McCain will continue the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research." This would be an example of pointing out the down side of McCain (if you happen to support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research). "If elected, McCain will ban all stem cell research". This is an example of mudslinging since it is a blatant lie. I will say there is an up side to mudslinging... It is nothing short of hilarious to see someone complain about the other candidate's mud slinging, but ignore or defend that of the candidate they happen to support. ;~D