Negative - Positive Campaign - Why?

Political pundits in both parties have lashed out at candidates for going "negative" - in other words - campaigning against their opponents by digging up their records. To me, candidates need to do exactly that because voters need to know who the candidates are and in many ways, they are the only checkers of the candidates.

First of all, the Primary is in fact the only time where candidates are tested, purified and blessed with the GOP's approval before running in the national election against the incumbent or against the challenger. It is this process that a party chooses the right candidate - a person whom the majority of the conservative agreeing with. There is only one way these candidates, that is holding them accountable for what they did in the past and their political views. For instance, Gov. Romney, in my view, must be held accountable for his "individual mandate" healthcare policy when he was Governor of Massachusetts. And it is also equally reasonable to go after Newt Gingrich for his "pro-environmentalism" and "progressive" ideologies, and off-course voters need to know Sen. Santorum's outrageous spending and year-marks, and Rep. Ron Paul's outrageous foreign policies. These candidates cannot pretend to represent Conservatives of America by burying their past dealings.

Secondly, the office which these candidates are seeking is the office of the people, therefore the country needs a man in there who is honest, eloquent, confident, and be able to stand up to criticisms, threats etc. from within or without, and run on his record. It is therefore paramount that candidates proved themselves capable of the magnitude of the responsibility of the office they seeking. There are no ways to chose the suitable candidates other than to bring out everything that the candidates have done in the past.

However, there is a danger of overstepping and misrepresenting each other maliciously or by simple errors, but it is a huge part of the process. Candidates have the right to go after other candidates since they are competing for the same office, and if a candidate misrepresents the other, it is the responsibility that candidate that is to put things straight. Because of that, it is important that the party puts in place some kind of boundaries for candidates to follow, for instance, if a candidate fails to prove his criticisms, he or she must be fined. Since this is a primary, the party is charge of the organization and who should represent the party and the Conservative voters. They need to take complete control of the situation.

Whether voters or Americans in general approves of the way the ads played out int the past few months, these ads simply worked. And it is a chess game candidates play at this state of the game. Even those who promised not to go against their opponents found themselves abandoning that pledge because it is simply natural to defend your reputation and taking jabs at your opponents. John McCain is a classic example of a candidate who was sooo careful with the way he talked about his opponent. He was careful about Obama's middle name - HUSSEIN. He was careful about how that name used or pronounced in his campaign rallies and most of the time praised Obama. Later he began taking johnny-come-lately hits against Obama. Had he went after his opponent, there would be no room for pretension and "guess-work". In truth, Gingrich is heading down hill faster than he ascended, and now taking shots at his opponent, esp. Gov. Romney. But voters now appeared comfortable with his (Gov. Romney) positions and Newt will be sliding off hill as a result.

 Two things that will determine who the winner of Iowa will be tonight: Money and Love. Money is the most important asserts for any campaign teams because it enables them to inform voters through TV or internet ads. And it is a fact that winners of party primaries are often the ones with the most bucks. Secondly, the primary actually tests the love and dedication of voters - whether DNC or GOP. For the hardcore supporters of the two political spectrum turn to vote consistently and are rarely undecided on election eve. What we've seen so far is a battle between Independents and hardcore dedicated voters, and off-course the investors who don't want to lend money to weaker candidates.

At the end of the day, the winners will be determined not by ideas but by money and party loyalists and each candidate needs to find common-grounds amongst these divided voters. You cannot appeal to one side of the camp and expect to win major electorates in Iowa or anywhere in the South.