Why do cons always run their election campaigns on slurs, hyperbole and conjecture instead of intentions?

Because they have no integrity. Small people slur and make conjecture. Little people defame and blame.

It takes a wise person of character to do an honest and intelligent campaign with facts not conjecture or casting shadows on others.

I guess you have never heard a democrat talk???

He is doing the right thing.....talking about what the other party wants to do, and how it is wrong, and what he wants to do.

Read the end of the article....John Edwards was trying to slur on Rudy saying he is tinkering.....with millions of lives of un-insured.....

The only problem is his statistic. He says that all these millions of people are uninsured and face financial ruin....right.

The way he comes up with the figures that the Clintons first used was simple.

You take the number of ILLEGAL RESIDENTS, that get medical attention for free, or through medi-care.

Add to this all the people that are CHANGING JOBS, and are without heath insurance for 30 days or less.

Add to this, all the people who are planning on retiring within the next 12 months, and are "un-insured" while the paperwork is processed (though medicare back dates all insurance claims, so they are not out of anything).

Then add to that figure all the college kids that CHOOSE not to have insurance, since they are young, and don't want to pay for insurance.

Then take all the family's where both working parents are able to get insurance, but one doesn't since the other has the insurance already, and you have the figure that Hillary used and still uses for her Health Insurance Plan. That is how Edwards and Hillary try to slur the Republicans.

As for takes, when was the last time you heard a Democrat calling for lower taxes??? I HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE, EVER. Lets see, more money for me with lower taxes, or more money for the government with higher taxes.....hmm. And this is a slur?

The Democrats wanting everything to be government controlled, the Republicans wanting the Private Commerce to take control of their own fates......hmmm....and this is a slur how???

Just take what every party says, do your own homework, and realize it is politics.

Name-calling and slurs are old tactics in the world of politics.The right seems to use it more than the left, as it's more prone to tactics such as wrapping yourself in the flag ("Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"--Dr. Samuel Johnson) and calling your opponents "communists" or "socialists" (in America, the nearest thing to saying "my opponent eats kittens and dead babies for breakfast").

To some degree, however, I have to blame the left for allowing the right to set the terms of the debate. As an example, when Michael Dukkakis was running against George H.W. Bush (Bush 41), he fell into the trap of trying to be as tough on defense as his opponent, ending up in a disastrous "photo opportunity" in which he rode around in a tank, looking rather ridiculous.

The left and progressive side of the spectrum has to set the agenda for the debate itself and not allow the right to do so. A perfect example right now is health care. With Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" on the public mind, there are many people who are aware of the weakness of the American health care system. On Yahoo Answers, the neocon teenagers who post questions and answers like to call universal health care "socialism" as if that word alone was bad enough to make anyone turn away from universal health care. All that the left has to do is continue to drive home the point that even people with insurance are one medical disaster away from bankruptcy and possible death or disablity due to denial of coverage. I'd like to see just one candidate say "If universal health care means that you don't have to fear bankruptcy or worse because your insurance company denies you coverage, then I'm a socialist!" It might go ever better than anyone could ever imagine.

The Democrats do the same to the Republicans regularly. It is just that very few Republicans complain about it. We generally know it is part of the thing and to cry foul does not good at all.

The Democrats regularly go on television and demand apologizes which only has the effect of highlighting the criticism to the entire general public (and gets the public thinking, which generally does not benefit the Democrats).

It will do no good to make a argument that Republicans nor Democrats should do such things...for they will do it and they should do it. It is the public vetting of ideas and candidates and it is good. It is Democracy.

Interesting you should say that. I can think of several examples where the other side has flat out lied. One such example took place in Missouri when Claire MacCaskill was running against Jim Talent for his senate seat. Her commercial stated that Jim Talent voted against special body armour for the troops. He did not. It was a flat out lie. Clever of her to do that when there is an air force base right across the river from St. Louis, and two other military bases in Missouri.

Don't ask stupid questions like that when both sides bend the truth during campaigns.

Why can Democrats call Republicans Nazis, and call it pointing out facts? The same Republican can accurately state "(insert Democrat here) voted (for/against) Senate bill (insert bill number here)" and be accused of personal attacks.

I have asked this question before.

It seems that campaigners win elections by sullying their opponents names... pointing out the flaws in their competition instead of highlighting their own virtues

The winner is always the least bad candidate.

Both parties do it, it's called appealing to the lowest common denominator. The part that's really sad is more and more people seem to fall for it.

The other candidates do the same, they only manipulate the wording to make you think it is different. When confronted the only answer they can come up with is 'I did not have sex with that woman.'

Because if they came right out and admiited that they are traitors even republicans wouldn't vote for them.