Dracoid wrote:
if a british party launched a campaign that touched in the slightest way on someones military record they would be ridiculed in the press for months.
It has been tried on several occasions, and in every case I recall, has back-fired on the person questioning someone else's military record.
Most recently,
Michael Portillo's withdrawal from the Conservative Party leadership was blamed mainly on some of his supporters challenging IDS's service record. The smears were universally condemned and Portillo's campaign folded.
Generally I suspect that's more about an underlying difference between US and UK Hustings.
Negative campaigning (bashing the other candidate) seems acceptable to the US electorate/media. In the UK, this approach is seen as underhand, weak and a sign of desparation. I can't recall any successful negative campaigns; the Tories tried it in 2001 (a series of Party Political Broadcasts criticising named members of the Labour Party). The campaign made some very accurate descriptions of incompetent and/or shabby behaviour by Government members, but it resulted in a significant drop in the Tories' ratings.
I wonder if it's because of a British sense of "fair play" (doubt it), or whether British voters receive more impartial information which makes us ask the obvious question "Yes, but what are
you proposing that's better?