/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, September 25, 2006

What is she hiding

--posted by Tony Garcia on 9/25/2006

I have left a message at the Michele Bachmann campaign and with the NRCC asking for proof that she voted in the 2004 Presidential Preference poll. Considering that the NRCC is expecting others to be able to prove the same then Bachmann ought be held to the same standard.

There has been no response.

What is Michele Bachmann hiding?

I'm just applying the candidates to the same threshold of standards that they try to hold their oppositioin to.



Blogger King said...

So you DO understand that the NRCC ad was not done with her knowledge, and she had no input into the ad, as required by campaign finance laws?

September 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

I understand that very clearly. My objections yesterday with the party lines Marty was offering were on 3 points. (And since show prep from him is extremely light it is difficult to capsulize in a better manner.)

1) Had the roles been reversed (and they have been in other races) the GOP and their mouthpieces would have been jumping up and down screaming "we deserve to know what coordination there may have been".

2) The amount of evidence of "illegal activity within the Klobuchar campaign" is exactly the same as the amount of evidence of coordination between Bachmann's campaign and the NRCC. Nothing beyond semi-reasonable conclusions based on 100% speculation.

3) The attack of all people with "D" behind their name with the insinuation that they are required to answer questions or they are hiding something is a blatant double standard which very few people call the GOP on. The reverse is that the GOP, when someone with an "R" behind their name is involved, takes the position that questions can only be answered after the justice system runs its course. Consider the wagons that were circled around Tom DeLay from the very get go in what easily seems to be money laundering, while saying that absence of answers to any questions from a Democrat is an indication of 'hiding something'.

In all seriousness most of these issues (on both sides) indicate something more troubling: neither candidate really wants the front story to be about their positions. Both sides are being incredibly ridiculous in what they are demanding and it is, imho, destroying further any foundation for healthy discourse or confidence in our elected public officials.

I have no issue with negative campaigning iff (not a typo, that is shorthand for 'if and only if') it is fair and honest. I have huge issues with dishonest campaigning (and in the case of Bachmann AND the NRCC, outright lies in their campaign).

September 25, 2006  
Blogger King said...

The Klobuchar campaign had the ad for five days, and the apology from them reaches the Kennedy campaign only AFTER the press starts calling for a reaction, and it was still several hours before Kunin posts his account/apology. That's a big difference. Conflating these is demonstrating your patent antipathy towards Bachmann, which is approaching Dumper standards.

September 25, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

5 days between obtaining an ad and giving an apology is in no way analogous to a crime. Marty's contention yesterday was that "questions must be answered" because of the possible "dissemination of stolen property". Based on what? The time between obtainment and an apology has ab-so-lute-ly no relevance beyond, "why did it take so long to apologize"--and, dammit, who gives a rip about apologies? My position on public apologies has been quite clear: they are stupid and useless.

The conflation you speak of is between these items:
a) Assuming illegalities within the Klobuchar campaign based on what amounts to only specultaion


b) Assuming illegalities between Bachmann & NRCC based on what amounts to only speculation.

These both have the same amount of validity: reasonable speculation, but, alas, only speculation.

At no point did I say any apology (or lack of one) was relevant.

However, what I find interesting is the lack of criticism of the NRCC piece, you know, the one with the severely misleading (understatement) 'voting record'.

So, can Michele prove she voted in the 2004 Presidential Preference poll? What is she hiding?

Again, same burden of proof being placed upon Michele that is being placed upon Patty.

In all seriousness, while I privately campaign for a "skip the 6th" there is one way that Michele could win. Stick with the issues...and tell the NRCC and everyone else helping her to stick to the issues. At any point turning the campaign into personalities makes the race more of a crap shoot. Patty is wrong on the issues, bad at discussion on the issues, underinformed on the issues...but make the race into personalities over issues and Michele may as well flip a coin. Frankly, I don't care...it is a piss-poor on the issues candidate vs a piss-poor person Clinton-esque phony. Either way the constituents of the 6th lose.

September 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home