Scott Lockwood's Journal: To my Republican friends, please, explain this to me

If you haven't read this, please do so. My basic question is this: Do you support what your party is doing in your name? Pretending to call from the opposition, and then smearing the other candidate? Doing so at a time that it's basically too late for judicial review?

Let's get this out of the way right now: I would condem such a move if the Democrats did it. What say you?

Are we sure this is happening?

[ellem]

The buzz on this seems to be from one Josh Marshall... why do I believe him?

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

I must confess my ignorance - who's Josh Marshall?

Re:

[ellem]

Exactly.

Everything you're reading about this evolved from his blog!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ [talkingpointsmemo.com]

Not enough info

[RailGunner]

If the callee doesn't hang up, they hear a smear message from the machine about the Democratic candidate.

Define "smear". If there's a democratic candidate named... oh, I dunno - I'll channel MXC and say Juddra Babaganoosh - is it smear to say

"Juddra Babaganoosh wants to raise your taxes, wants to cut-and-run in Iraq, and wants to waste money on embryonic stem cell research instead of adult stem cell research"
- I'd say that there's no smear there.

"Juddra Babaganoosh eats babies and rapes cats" - the

IF this is illegal, it will be, and should be pros

[Scott Lockwood]

Sure, but that's a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have already left, isn't it? That's kinda like doing something aobut it after the damage is already done, in my book.

Also, using phrases like "cut and run" are smears, if you ask me. While I personally think it is in our best interest to stay in Iraq as long as we're needed there, I can appriciate that some don't agree, and I can oppose thier stance without using inflamitory language.

Re:IF this is illegal, it will be, and should be p

[RailGunner]

Sure, but that's a bit like closing the barn door after the cows have already left, isn't it? That's kinda like doing something aobut it after the damage is already done, in my book.

Maybe, but that's why it's called "Crime and Punishment" - all the law can do is prescribe punishments for certain actions, it can not stop people from doing these actions. If it could, there would be no more murder and rape - because those activities are illegal.

Also, using phrases like "cut and run" are smears, if you as

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

It is different. It conjures visions of people droping weapons and running away, which is exactly the image people on that side of the debate are trying to provoke. The discussion is SO much more productive is we avoid inflamitory name calling and other bad language. True, it's an election year, so people are heated. However, it begs the question, can you be better than your opponents, and in this case, better than your peers? I think you can. It's hard for me to really give you a good argument to illustrat

Re:

[RailGunner]

It is different. It conjures visions of people droping weapons and running away, which is exactly the image people on that side of the debate are trying to provoke.

I'd also argue that it is exactly how Muqtada al-Sadr would see it, too.

It's not hard to disagree with someone and not call them names.

It's been a long while since I let anyone provoke me into a name-calling knock down drag out flame war, and am content to disagree without resorting to an ad hominem attack.

But that's why I don't think

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

I agree with that last bit. Still, it seems to have been planed just to avoid judicial review. That's more what I wanted an opinion on - is it ok to do things that influence an election in the last stages, that may be of a questionable legal nature?

Nice

[nizo]

I hope there are public court cases over this and head roll, though sadly it will be too late by then. I wonder what kind of an impact it will have in close races? Personally I think anyone who pulls crap like this should be locked in stocks and pelted with rotten veggies.

Re:

[Scott Lockwood]

Honnestly, I suspect it will help the Democratic candidates more than it will hurt. Smear tactics almost always polorize the electorate, often against the person doing the smearing. The one thing it does that may assist the Republicans is, it discourages some enough that they don't vote. Democrats are historically more likely to not vote than Republicans, so that part may help them some.

I have a funny feeling that, in the end, it will be a corked bat. It's not legal, but it doesn't really help either.

Re:

[nizo]

Yeah, I suspect if it changes the way people vote, they won't be too happy to find out about it later. It is all good, since it will probably mean a serious butt-kicking for the Repubs in the presidential election; even sleezy tactics like this probably won't pull this election off, and will only piss people off the next time around.