How about a little Truth for a change?

It seems the DNC is already gearing up for more of the same old campaign tactics: distortion, deception and fear-mongering.

Not that the RNC has been much better, of course.

There are very clear differences between Clinton/Obama and McCain. Differences that are obvious and clear and that will both appeal to the left-wing base and sway many undecided and independent voters. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate and distort. It insults the electorate and demeans the process.

Why not spend the time, effort, and money to explain to the voters why their candidates have better ideas and why their positions make more sense?

For example, they don’t need to distort McCain’s statements about staying in Iraq for dozens of years. The DNC knows damn well he didn’t mean he wanted to fight a war for dozens of years, but was instead referring to a stabilizing presence - just like we’ve had in Korea, Germany and the Balkans. Now there are perfectly good arguments against such a presence (frankly I think we should withdraw most of our troops from Germany and Korea), and there should be such a debate. But let’s be honest about what was said and what was meant.

Another example is the lie that McCain’s immigration position reflects the extreme right wing. What’s so extreme about this?

“As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.”

         [ ... ]

“Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities“

Doesn’t exactly sound like Ann Coulter, does it? This is from Hillary’s issue statement on her website:

”Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country and an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers.“

Sounds to me like they’re not that terribly far from each other, frankly. I’d like to hear an intelligent arguments about the subtleties of their positions. But if people just listen to the national committees, moveon.org, Rush Limbaugh, et. al., then they’ll have the impression that the candidates are shrieking left/right wing radicals bent on the destruction of our democracy.

Note to the DNC/RNC: if you really believe in your candidates, if you really believe that they have better ideas, why do you feel that it’s necessary to distort and lie? Isn’t the truth enough?

Read the whole story:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html