<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Negative Campaigning: Leaked McCain Strategy Memo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politicsanew.com/2008/08/08/negative-campaigning-leaked-mccain-strategy-memo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politicsanew.com/2008/08/08/negative-campaigning-leaked-mccain-strategy-memo/</link>
	<description>Opinion and Commentary of Over 500 Women Political Bloggers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:02:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mignon evans</title>
		<link>http://politicsanew.com/2008/08/08/negative-campaigning-leaked-mccain-strategy-memo/comment-page-1/#comment-12744</link>
		<dc:creator>mignon evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicsanew.com/2008/08/08/negative-campaigning-leaked-mccain-strategy-memo/#comment-12744</guid>
		<description>Actually, you need an update.  We ARE winning in Iraq.  The Times of London reports that a combined force of American and Iraqi troops in the attack on Mosul (the last terrorist stronghold in Iraq) broke the back of the insurgents.  And the flow of new recruits from across the Syrian border has slowed to a trickle. And, yes, we are now talking about a tropp drawdown.  
That SHOULD make you happy.  Does it? Or were you hoping for an American defeat there?  
Next question: WHY is it negative campaigning to point out the weaknesses and liabilities of an opposing candidates proposals? 
Isn&#039;t that a discussionof the issues?  
Aren&#039;t jobs (their creation and their continuation) important to us as women?
It seems obvious to me that Obama&#039;s economic proposals will lead inevitably to massive job losses; in turn, to declining govt. revenues; then to a devaluation of the dollar; then to greater budget deficits.
But - - -somehow- - -it&#039;s negative campaigning to talk about that????????</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, you need an update.  We ARE winning in Iraq.  The Times of London reports that a combined force of American and Iraqi troops in the attack on Mosul (the last terrorist stronghold in Iraq) broke the back of the insurgents.  And the flow of new recruits from across the Syrian border has slowed to a trickle. And, yes, we are now talking about a tropp drawdown.<br />
That SHOULD make you happy.  Does it? Or were you hoping for an American defeat there?<br />
Next question: WHY is it negative campaigning to point out the weaknesses and liabilities of an opposing candidates proposals?<br />
Isn&#8217;t that a discussionof the issues?<br />
Aren&#8217;t jobs (their creation and their continuation) important to us as women?<br />
It seems obvious to me that Obama&#8217;s economic proposals will lead inevitably to massive job losses; in turn, to declining govt. revenues; then to a devaluation of the dollar; then to greater budget deficits.<br />
But &#8211; - -somehow- &#8211; -it&#8217;s negative campaigning to talk about that????????</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

