Archive for negative

Republicans Worry About Negativity


Really? After all these years I was pretty sure it was their specialty. Via.

National Republican leaders "are voicing increasing dismay over the course of the party's presidential primary, which has fallen into such a negative grind that they warn it could cost them the White House," Politico reports.

"At the core of their concern is the atmosphere of daily vituperation between the top candidates. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are now engaged in a seemingly constant knife fight, interrupted by only the sparest of positive, policy-oriented debate."

Notes former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D): "In terms of sustained negativity, there's nothing like it in history."


All that mudslinging "is making all the GOP candidates less likable to independent voters."


The Republican presidential candidates are throwing mud nearly as passionately as they're throwing money. They literally have their grubby little hands so full of grime, cash, and grimy cash that they seem to have forgotten about voter backlash. And if the polls are any indication, independent American voters are not exactly loving all the negativity emanating from the GOP PAC pack.

What happened to all that march-in-lockstep, stick-togetherness they're so famous for?

The L.A. Times' Doyle McManus:

Fiscal conservatives don't have much use for social conservatives. Libertarians and moderates don't get along with either camp. "We are factionalized now as a party," lamented Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). "We have to come together."

She's right. Why? Because the long and relentlessly negative campaign is making all the GOP candidates less likable to independent voters, who will probably determine the outcome of this fall's general election.


To add to the muddy fun, Rick Santorum is now attracting more attention after his three recent victories (I will not succumb to "coming from behind" and "surge" jokes, I will not succumb to "coming from behind" and "surge" jokes, I will not succumb to "coming from behind" and "surge" jokes...).  Some commentators are speculating that he could even become the nominee.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In a Fox News poll last month, GOP voters ranked Santorum first among the candidates as a "true conservative," well ahead of Romney and Gingrich. And in the ABC-Washington Post poll, they ranked him roughly on par with Romney as "honest and trustworthy" — well ahead of Gingrich, whom only 7% considered the most honest. (Even most Gingrich supporters said they didn't consider him the most trustworthy candidate.) 

The more America sees, the less they like. Join the club, Republicans, welcome to our world.

Oh, and thanks for doing the Democrats' work for them.


VIDEO: Mitt Romney takes President Obama's words out of context in new ad


Ooo, scary Obama is saying stupid, icky things!

What's that? He's not? But it's right there in a grainy, echo-y, ominous, creepy, distorted video.


[A]s the New York Times points out, the line, "which is perhaps the spot's most devastating moment, is also the one that seems to be the most taken out of context. In fact, at the time, Mr. Obama was referring to something that an aide to his then opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, had said in reference to the McCain campaign -- not Mr. Obama, then or now."

Willard, you blew it in your very first ad.


Obama "needs to take a Valium before he comes in & talks to Republicans. He's pretty thin-skinned."


President Obama met with Senate Republicans today, for over an hour. A fat lot of good it did him.

Actually, the outcome is pretty much what one would expect, given the political climate these days. And by these days, I mean since President Obama was elected by a wide margin and the Party of No filled with panic and resentment:

"He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) told reporters. "He's pretty thin-skinned."

Good attitude, Pat. Way to talk about the commander in chief. Let's think back to 2001-2008 for a minute, shall we? What if the Dems had treated the worst president ever the same way? Would you have uttered similar disrespectful words about him? Even after he invaded a sovereign country illegally? Even after he tortured detainees? Even after he illegally spied on U.S. citizens? Even after he lied us into a fraudulent war? Even after he lost the trust of the whole wide world?

But back to the meeting.  What was the takeaway?

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.): Testy."

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.):  A "lively discussion."

And by lively, he meant testy.

The president: "We had a good, frank discussion on a whole range of issues."

And by frank, he meant testy.

Robert Gibbs:

"Obviously, there were continued differences on some of these issues. But the president believes that direct dialogue is better than posturing, and he was pleased to have the opportunity to share views with the conference."

And by continued differences he meant testy.

Brownback said Obama explained and explained that he was "under pressure from his left".

And President Obama asked for bipartisanship.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn. questioned "the audacity" of Obama's asking for Republican help Tuesday after bipartisan talks on financial reform broke down and his landmark health-care bill passed solely on Democratic votes.

"My question is again: How can you reconcile that duplicity? You say that, but then the big issues have been constructed in such a way to absolutely be partisan," Corker said. "How can you come in on a Tuesday after [the financial bill vote]? . . . It was odd to me."

What's odd to a lot of us is how one party, the GOP, can allow obstructionism to trump democracy, even after the president continues to reach out over and over again. That's what's odd to us.

It also makes some of us a little... testy.