Every four years, when it’s time for America to elect our president, it sadly has been decided by both political parties that negative attacks on your opponent work. We have all seen the vast coarsening of our politics that has led to total inaction by our Congress. With the bitterness between the political parties, bipartisanship is nowhere to be found.
Currently all we hear is Barack Obama or John McCain has flip-flopped on the issues. Certainly both Obama and McCain have enough changes in policy to justify the label of flip-flopper. But the worst of the flip-flopping has just taken place. And this nation is suffering from that decision.
The Rove style of personal attack politicking has now become the method of choice of McCain. We all heard, over and over again, John McCain claiming that, after he became the presumptive nominee, he would never go negative, that attacking your opponent personally adds nothing to the debate.
Yet all it took for McCain to flip-flop on that promise was the seeming reality that he could not win the election solely on the merits of his plans for America. He had to go totally negative to possibly win.
It reminded me of the outrageous and unbelievable sleazy claim by McCain that Obama would rather lose the war in Iraq if it meant winning the election. McCain has to look in the mirror, for it seems he would rather attack his opponent personally than win on the merits of his plans for America. So, in reality, who is the great flip-flopper?
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy