Dishonest campaigning

Really, if you Republicans cannot see how offensive this kind of lying is then there really is no hope...and if you can understand how slime-laden this is then you understand why I refuse to vote for Bachmann.

The National Republican Congressional Committee claimed in a brochure sent to 6th District voters this week that Democratic candidate Patty Wetterling failed to vote in three big election years, including 2004.

The hitch? Wetterling voted in both the primary and general elections that year, when she made her first run for Congress in the suburban and exurban district.

NRCC Press Secretary Jonathan Collegio cited Wetterling's voting record from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, which shows no evidence of her voting in a March 2004 presidential preference ballot.

OK, so the NRCC is saying Wetterling did not vote in 2004 because there is no evidence of her participating in the March caucus' presidential preference ballot.

But that's because there are no official voting records on anyone from that ballot, which was conducted by the political parties at precinct caucuses, said Kent Kaiser, a spokesman for the secretary of state's office. News reports said scrap paper and Post-It notes were used as ballots in some busy precincts.

The reason I refuse to support Bachmann is, while her platform is very close to what I would want in a candidate, this kind of thing is indicative of her character. While normal people show a disdain for 'politics as usual' this kind of abject disregard for honesty or truth is the norm from those who support Bachmann (and from Bachmann herself).

Republicans should be ashamed that they are using their hair to wash the feet of this the person. They should be outraged that the NRCC would stoop to such a dispicible level. GOP members should also be insulted. Constantly (well, at least before 2006) it was said by GOP members that "we win on the issues, if only the issues were discussed" but doing this kind of campaigning shows people that you are not confident that your positions are winning positions.

Furthermore, this is supposed to be someone that is a "public servant". Maybe the partisans don't, but I expect more from those who wish to be public servants.

Collegio on Wednesday said the NRCC won't back off its claim. The record shows that Wetterling didn't vote in the 2000 or 2002 primary elections.

Really, so what! If this were worth making an issue of then it is the general elections people should be worried about. And from the viewpoint of the voter...90% will go, "Neither did I. So what." Then what light will the attacker be in? A bad one.

Ethically this is slimey at best. Factually this is misleading. Tactically it is stupid.

"If Patty Wetterling wants to produce documentation showing that she did in fact vote in the 2004 presidential preference ballot, then we will take a look at it," he said.

First, explain HOW that would be demonstrated. Second, explain why a sudden call for voting in a caucus is worthy of attack. Third, explain why you are wasting money on mailings about this instead of issues.

Hey, Bachmann, provide documentation that you have never no-showed to a scheduled appearance. Same burden of proof.

Wetterling (and her campaign) is inept and her platform objectionable to me, that can be attributed to incompetence, ill-informed and differences in opinions. My objections to Bachmann, on the other hand, are not induced by her incompetence. Her issues are from malice.

And isn't she the one who thumps her biblical beliefs at each turn?

Too bad the parties did not forward a worthy candidate. I will just have to continue going door-to-door advocating the "skip the race".