The Repercussions of Nasty Campaigning

Nasty Campaigning seems to have become the norm for several of opponents in the current Presidential Campaign.

Barak Obama is trying very hard to avoid getting into this mess by renouncing the comments made from one of his former advisor.

He prefers to rightly focus on the issues that matters most to the people of this country and for this he may seem to be weak depending on how we measure weakness.

However the other participants had better take a leaf out of his book and start to make this campaign a cleaner one because nastiness will have serious repercussions in the years to come.

President George W. Bush decimated his fellow Republican in the 1990 campaign but went on to have a very poor performance in office with the Iraqi war, 935 lies been reported, the possible regression in the economy, the firing of the US attorneys , and the resignation of Attorney General Gonzalez to name a few.

Could that time in the past have been John MC Cain's moment or is it now? Only time will tell.

Bill Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary to Paul Tsongas in 1992 in both votes counted and delegates received, yet his advisor James Carville dubbed him the “Come Back Kid”, thereby leading people to believe he had won and he never looked back.

Deception was sown then and there and came back to haunt Bill Clinton several years as the nation suffers humiliation at his impeachment trial.

The whole world watched the US highest office holders as he tries unsuccessfully to deceive the nation regarding his infidelity.

Nasty Campaigning does repercussions and many of our present leaders have better take note.

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines did not use the media but assassins to kill his political opponent Benigno Aquino in 1983 but was soon driven from office by powerful non- violent People for Power Movement.

The repercussions were too strong for Mr. Marcos and he died six years later in exile, a far place from his former place glory and wealth.

Whether it is the nasty campaigning or the bullet, the effect is the same, the opponent is removed from the fight and a corrupt victory has been achieved.

Michael Dukakis, a brilliant man who would have been an excellent President, was destroyed with the use of negative campaigning in the presidential campaign with George H.W. Bush in 1988.

However the winning president at that time did not have a very successful term and served only one term losing to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Leaders must realize that they will reap what they sow and sowing evil seeds to destroy an opponent does not immunize them from reaping the harvest from it during their time in office.

Sowing to the wind will always result in a reaping of the world wind that can have serious political, economic, and even military conflict.

When it was disclosed that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction it must have been most humiliating for the leadership of this country and he nation as a whole.

This is an example of reaping the world wind.

Presently Mrs. Clinton and her team of strategist are seeking out every possible way to destroy the credibility of Barak Obama who seems irresistible to many nationwide.

They have accused him of plagiarism, stained him as corrupt by associating with a Tony Rezko who he cross path with several years ago, and then with the NAFTA issue which was stupid of the Obama campaign and blown out of proportion by his opponent.

The nation deserves better than this and donations received should be better spent so that people can be helped to see who will be best able to lead them out of their economic struggles.

Communicating nasty news about each other benefits the news organization in terms of publicity, market share and financial gains, but at the end of the day the nations suffers, especially when voters are not presented with quality information they need on critical issues help to determine how they cast their votes.

The repercussions that may emanate from these nasty campaigns may prevent both parties not having enough time to be healed and be able to defeat the opposition.

The White House is both a physical and symbolic place where the most honorable, ethical, trusted, and reliable president presides over the nations business; yet aspirants are throwing dirt at each other in order to take the position.

Is it ethical to sow evil to receive the highest honor in the land? I don't think so.

However it is also unethical to hide information about one past while pursuing any political office.

Therefore based on the performances of several of the past Presidents who have sown much dirt and destructions, it seems the time has come go forward to end such despicable practices. It should be conclusive enough for readers to agree that the perpetuators of nasty campaigning will eventually get damaged in a greater way in the future.