Actually, the whole thing was based on something I
said. I described the people who run Republican campaigns as "nasty fucks," and he said, basically, that the description applied to Democratic campaign operatives as well. I think that's a bit beyond saying that both parties partake in campaign nastiness; I'm sure that's true, but my original comment was one based on degree of nastiness, not the mere existence of nastiness.
Sorry Buster, I couldn't let you get away with this one.
You missed the point of Zap's comments. No one is arguing about the severity of campaign nastiness by either party. Zap never made a comment about comparing the two parties. Zap simply stated that both parties partake in campaign nastiness. Thus, in order to truly defeat his argument, you would have to prove that the Democratic party has NEVER done anything during campaign periods that could be seen as nasty. Well, I beg the differ. If you really want me to list specific examples, I can. However, due to the subjective nature of the term nastiness, it would be nearly impossible to disprove Zap's statement.
The debate over which party's campaign tactics are nastier is completely different. However, whether or not the Democratic party partakes in some campaign nastiness shouldn't even be a debate.