Posted on 10/08/2014 7:13:33 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Should election campaigns and the candidates themselves - be it in Iowa with Bruce Braley (D) saying his rival Joni Ernst (R) is tied to the hip of the Koch Brothers or be it Tom Cotton in Arkansas (R) saying his rival Mark Pryor (D) is tied to the hip of Obama - eschew such tactics?
In summation...
Should both sides (be it the candidates and PACs on the Republican and Democrat side) eschew this political tactic, or should both sides continue to employ this tactic - and how is the MSM figuring into the dissemination of this political tactic?
What say you?
The Kochs are private citizens. Obama, unfortunately, is not.
The ‘Rats can’t run from Obama.
He is their Party standard bearer and will be until a different one sits in the oval office.
Bringing up the unelected Koch brothers in a political contest is just silly. They legally give significant money to candidates and causes, just like a George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, unions, etc.
Comparing the two as campaign issues is just nonsense, worthy of a liberal-stacked MSNBC panel.
Kinda yes, kinda no. Somewhat on each side. I’m middle of the road on this, undecided. It’s 50/50. I’m not sure. Yes and know. It’s a grey area. Not something you can definitively answer. It’s middling-ground. Some people see the pros, others the cons. It’s not something you can just make a decision on. I’m vacillating. I’m not 100% either way. Slightly leaning yes, and slightly leaning no. Maybe, maybe not. Ask again later. The signs are cloudy. You can never be sure. Don’t necessarily jump to any conclusions.
So the Koch Brothers don’t put big money into the political process?
Secondly, they aren’t national figures like Obama?
Third, they aren’t national figures being tied to and lumped in with political candidates?
Ergo, this is not apples to oranges...
And then that “different one” - most likely a Republican in 2016 - will end up getting tied to Senate and House races, and thus the nationalizing of elections will continue?
Well...I meant a different ‘Rat...but the principal is the same.
MSNBC, FOX News, etcetera, don’t disseminate this tactic?
Perhaps it is both conservatives and liberals engaging in this dissemination.
So you think that no Democrat should try to tie the Koch Brothers to political candidates?
The same with Republicans and Soros?
So do you want this process to continue with a (most likely in 2016) Republican president?
You didn’t state what elective office either of the Koch brothers holds. Or even what party office either holds. THEN it would be a legitimate comparison.
In the meanwhile, they are private citizens; Obama is President of the United States and leader of the Democrat Party.
It remains apples to oranges.
Word to the wise: Never eschew ANYTHING before 6PM..
The point is that Obama’s presidency ends in January 2017, and do you want this to political tactic to continue with the most likely president in 2016 - a Republican? Would that be “responsible”?
Do you want the Koch Brothers to continue to be tied by Democrats to national elections in the presidential election cycle in 2015-16. Would that be “responsible”?
political donations and a sitting president are apples to oranges. One is the failed head of a failed party. The other is one of many large donors to a party...and frankly ones that have had minimal impact on the party direction as they are libertarian/constitution-loving individuals while the party slides further down the big government, big business, authoritarian slope.
I tend to avoid eschewing in general.
But Obama vs. Koch is like comparing Ford cars to Chiquita bananas. They are completely different categories.
It does not remain that.
It isn’t apples to oranges to say that the principle of tying figures - be it a Republican replacing Obama in 2016 and tying locally elected candidates to him or the Koch Brothers being tied to locally elected candidates - continues on and on and continues the process of making local elections and locally elected people nationalized figures and nationalized elections.
Do you want Dems trying to tie a Republican (if he wins the presidency in 2016) to locally elected people, be it races for locally elected House seats or Senate seats?
The tactic itself is what is being dealt with here...
Do you want any attempt to nationalize anyone with another person to continue, be it Dems or Repubs engaging in this tactic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.