Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Another Stick in the Eye of the MSM

Foot in mouth prize to CNN and the Associated Press for running with Richardson asks Democrats to keep campaign positive.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is proposing a rule that is common on kindergarten playgrounds but doesn't usually work in politics -- be nice to each other.

Richardson hasn't always followed the principle while running for office in his home state of New Mexico. And the leading candidates don't seem to be embracing the idea in the 2008 White House contest, either.

"I believe the Clinton-Obama spat is not helpful," Richardson said in an interview Tuesday while visiting Washington. "We should stop those kind of attacks on each other and surrogates. We should talk about the issues and be positive."

But during his first run for office in 1980, Richardson criticized opponent Republican Rep. Manuel Lujan for his ties to energy companies and his spotty attendance record. Richardson unexpectedly came within 1 percentage point of victory.

"When you're a big underdog, you've got to go after the other guy's record," Richardson wrote of his decision to go negative in his autobiography, "Between Worlds."

His negative ads in 1980 were against a Republican, not in a primary race like his proposal would affect this time. But the case raises questions about how to define a personal attack.
Richardson said in the interview that his 1980 campaign "was a combination of positive and negative," but he said he didn't attack Lujan personally and instead "talked about a record."

You've already negated your premise here guys. If you go back and listen to Richardson's speech you'll recall he was referring to personal attacks against other Democratic candidates. He said, and I quote, "save it for the Republicans". Good advice that, we all know their record on personal attacks don't we?

I'd seriously question whether bringing up a candidates ties to energy companies and their work attendance record would even fall into the category of "personal". Seems pretty relevant and work related to me. Unlike say, fretting over a candidate smoking a cigarette or what church they attend which is about as personal as one could get.

Must be a slow news day because you guys are really scraping the bottom trying to make this a story worthy of anything better than lining the bottom of the litterbox.


TomCat said...

Wooo Hooo!! Time to change my box!! :-)

Not Your Mama said...

Ah well, the Las Vegas Gleaner blog ran with it, couldn't wait to bash on Richardson I guess.

Rather highlights what I was ranting on about the Las Vegas Democratic political machine dontcha think?

Republicans don't have to worry about beating us to death here, Las Vegas does it for them.

Just My Thoughts said...

Beating up an opponents record is not the same as beating up their personal life.
What a political figure does as far as voting is fair game.
Whom they might date or other personal data is not needed.
It just might be time for the politicos to realize that they have the same human screw-ups as everyone else.
They are no better than myself and no worse in personal behaviour.
What they do at our behest, as elected officals, they have to be above the common and set an example. This is what many of thse people lack.
They do not have any respect for the people that vote them into office. That lack of respect goes both ways.

Vigilante said...

As Randi Rhodes pointed out the other day, it's nice to have a golden rule that Democrats will not speak ill of other Democrats during the primary; unfortunately, as she pointed out, the primaries are 'dust-up' testing grounds where contenders have to prove their ability to both take a punch and give it back, because in the finals, there is no quarter asked or given.

TomCat said...

Just my thoughts, I agree, as long as they do it honestly. In 2004, there were two major competing bills for funding the troops, one from the GOP and one from the Democrats. Kerry voted for the Democratic version (which included more body armor than the GOP version) and against the GOP version, and Bush's minions attacked his voting record for voting against body armor for the troops.