Thursday, July 26, 2007
|
|
Michelle Malkin & Sam Brownback
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
8:50 PM
|
Michelle Malkin is criticizing Sam Brownback.
You see, Brownback is using (gasp) phones to contact voters and tell them negative information about his opponents. In other words, he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing at this stage in a campaign. When you're a long shot candidate, it's not enough for voters to like you -- they've also got to dislike the other guy(s). Think that's dirty? Think it's beneath you? That's politics.
Now, let's be honest. I agree that Brownback cannot win -- and cannot raise money. But there's something more important at stake here. You see, I can't help but worry for our country when I hear pundits criticize candidates for "going negative." Elections are about choices, and voters have the right to make informed choices. And since conservatives surely can't count on the MSM to report the truth, much voter education must come from the candidates.
And guess what: politics is more civil now than it's ever been. If you really want to have fun, do some research on how they played politics in the old days...
But back to the issue at hand. Pointing out that Ann Romney donated to Planned Parenthood isn't a scurrilous attack -- it's merely pointing out a fact. Now, voters may dismiss it because they decide ... it wasn't much money ... that the candidate's wife doesn't matter ... that too much time has elapsed ... or any reason they choose -- but at least they have the right to know. (Note: Apparently Brownback is also attacking Tancredo. I'm less familiar with him, so I'm not in a position to state whether or not those attacks are based on truth).
The bottom line is that (next to campaign finance reform) the surest way to guarantee the frontrunner(s) will win is to punish outsiders for throwing some elbows. If you want to essentially guarantee incumbent protection (or frontrunner protection), then insist on "civilized" campaigns.
Criticizing a candidate for "going negative" during a campaign is tantamount to criticizing a football player for hitting his opponent too hard (on a clean tackle). Sometimes you've got to let the players play the game.
Ultimately having this debate now is a good thing. Whoever wins the GOP nomination will have to face these issues sooner or later. If these issues are truly disqualifying, it's better we find out now. And if they turn out to be minor, this is a good chance for the candidates to practice knocking them down.
Democracy is messy. Won't you join me in encouraging a vigorous debate?
|
|
Without the likes of Coulter and Malkin the GOP would be far better off. The insulting and fearmongering they so skillfully use to sell books and stir up fawning males has made them wealthy women at the expense of the GOP reputation of being the adults. Thinly veiled racist sentiments are the hallmark of their writing. What they lack in real talent they make up in unbridled vitriol.
Lap it up frat boys - they will never know you exist. |
|
|
there would be no real conviction in the conservative movement!.......If conservatives think that the GOP Top Tier is conservative, then conservative thinking is lost.........I suspect that ONLY the GOP is lost when middleclass America helps them understand that there is a price to be paid for BETRAYAL! |
|
|
Michelle was dead on. Brownback is being disingenuous at best. Romney is pro-life and his record proves it. Also, he attacks Ann in the present tense rather than the past tense.($150 donation in 1994). Brownback show some class while you exit the race! |
|
I think Big Tent's criticisms of Malkin have some validity.
She has a lot of intelligent things to say, but she also has a tendency to cite extreme anecdotal cases in support of the case for immigration enforcement.
So I would agree, Malkin is guilty of some of the same transgressions that she criticizes Brownback for.
That, of course, doesn't get Brownback off the hook. |
|
|
Sam Brownback is free to fire off as he will, but he should take heed as to who he is serving by his personal attacks. Each person should have in mind when he speaks who the enemy really is. His behavior should more than please the left wingers. He is doing their work for them. It reminds me a bit of the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai, when Colonel Nicholson got so wrapped up in building a first rate bridge for the enemy that he forgot that they were the enemy. We know what happened in the end. Don't be him. |
|
Malkin criticizes people for going negative?
This from the queen of snark.
Wanna scare people about immigration - take one criminal case and extrapolate to twelve million.
Wanna scare people about Aztlan? Say that the NCLR is a hate group. Praise the Lou Dobbs musings which were based on information from people who claim to have seen Chinese troops on maneuvers in Mexico.
Wanna justify locking up all Muslims? Make an inaccurate argument that the internment of Japanese was just and proven correct by history.
Those who say Coulter or Malkin need to be Pres/VP need to go live on an island with the truthers - Fantasy Island.
Malkin - the oracle of all things truthful and just -- riiiiight |
|
|
Great line. However, not every voter appreciates mud wrestling. Going negative has costs and they have to be weighted carefully. Some attacks are more successful and acceptable than others. |
|
|
I always thought that if I were a candidate asked about "going negative", I would say "Hell yeah I'm going to tell you every true and relevant negative thing I know about him. If I thought he was a good candidate for the job I wouldn't be running against him." |
|
It takes little money to run Robo calls especially if you only run them in large metro areas with local phone lines. Brownback was not on the radar screen in any of the IA polls. Huckabee has about 4 %.
I do not trust the polls as any candidate with a little money and some organization can buy into the straw poll. I would think that Brownback would be doing well in IA being from next door.
His money would be better spent getting straw vote tickets for Brownback supporters than attacking Tancredo. That looks like a really dumb move. You would get a lot more votes attacking Rudy who has conservative support but a pro abortion position and Fred who has questions about his past positions. |
|
|
It goes to show how desperate Brownback is if that is his "best shot" to be seen as a serious candidate. He should do the right thing and get out while he can with some semblence of dignity. |
|
Robo trash calls are standard fare in a campaign. However, they irritate a lot of voters and in this case may help the targets as much as they hurt.
Most voters know the Romneys were Gov of MA and used to be more moderate. There is no news in the ROBO call. On Tancredo, Brownback must fear running behind Tancredo. There is news in the ROBO call but it is suspect.
Attacking both of them and having both of them complain publicly only adds to Brownback's image as a gadfly instead of a serious candidate. He can only tear down others.
Overall, on Romney, Brownback and his campaign come across as unabashed bigotry. Not because of this particular ROBO call (which is issue oriented) but because of earlier attacks and his relentless campaign against Romney.
It is one thing to attack on issues. It is another to have a extensive campaign history of mixing personal and religious attacks with attacks on issues. You lose your credibility.
In this case attacking Tancredo at the same time as Romney weakens the effect of the attack. It looks desperate and mean. Particularly since the attack on Tancredo is based on oblique evidence. |
|
contrary to what Ellen Waldstein writes her credibility is NOT in the toilet just because you say so. Michelle is very credible; have you read any of her books? She is on-target 90%+ of the time especially on issues of immigration and illegal aliens. Quoting Andrew Sullivan is really counter productive. The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the fact that Andrew Sullivan can't stand her speaks very well don't you think?
Seems like most of the straight thinkers who are no PC or wimps are female. Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin blow the doors off anything the opposition can send our way. It's just too bad all the Republican candidates are such politically correct wimps.
Ann for president and Michelle for vice president; not there is a fantastic conservative ticket.
|
|
Malkin's credibility is in the toilet.
Andrew Sullivan gives out "Malkin Awards" every day to the biggest liar in the past 24 hours.
But, she had a nice ride. |
|
Matt Lewis,
It's a little sad that Sam Brownback's campaign doesn't have any central issue other than the fact that the wife of another candidate once wrote a check to Planned Parenthood 15 years ago.
Maybe in Brownback's world, 9/11 never happened.
Matt, in previous posts, you've gloated about how excited you get when the Brownback campaign has attacked Romney over abortion or Romney "stealing" Catholic voters---so, this is obviously just an extension of that.
And Matt, abortion does appear to be your #1 issue---hey, just like Brownback !
Your defense of Brownback is that he's just engaging in "politics" as usual---and that's fine.
But I don't understand how you expect the Romney camp to respond other than the way in which they have---do you expect them to send Brownback a bouquet of flowers and a sweet note thanking him for the attack ?
Speaking of encouraging "vigorous" debate about issues, your candidate John McCain has been too shy to appear on the radio programs of Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, and Dennis Prager because he fears a "vigorous" debate about issues and Senate votes with those particular talk show hosts.
McCain was also nowhere to be found at CPAC, Club for Growth, Heritage, and National Review conventions because, again, he didn't want to engage in "vigorous" debate with members of the conservative base who attend those conventions.
And Matt, buddy, you're the only registered Republican in the country who appreciated Chris Matthews' nutty questions at the GOP debate at the Reagan library a couple of months ago.
Many of the spurious questions asked by the blustery, cheesesteak-eating Matthews hardly qualify as "vigorous" debate. |
|
|
the GOP, and Senator Brownback is a great example! This is a man that had a wonderful conservative voting record up until last year. He allowed the GLOBALIST within the party to convince him that the base had no COMMITTMENT against illegal immigration. A strong supporter of "right to life", he was suckered into the "Ted Kennedy/George Bush Open border Fiasco", and actually voted 2 years in a row for "Amnesty"! Both s-2611 last year and s-1638 again this year..........The "Big Pot Of Gold" waiting for the corporate puppets to help secure cheap labor, did him in.........He can now scream "Anti Abortion" all he wants, but he will be remembered as an open borders senator forever..........And the middleclass base has had enough of it.........GOODBY BROWNBACK! |
|
|
People don't even listen to ann coulter anymore, let alone the coulter-wannabe malkin. |
|
|
He's an open-borders candidate who can't hold McCain's tightie-whities and McCain is already out. That there are so many silly candidates running in both parties is a testament to how weak the top tier candidates really are. I'm running in a statistical dead heat with half of these guys. The top three in the GOP are garnering barely half of the vote (Rudy 20%, Thompson 20%, Mitt 10%). The front runner is "undecided" which means "none of the above". Let's have a vigorous debate but let's first get some serious conservative candidates in that debate who actually have the courage to step up and say something that might be controversial. |
|
|
I gotta side with Michelle Malkin on this one....people are tired of "politics" as you put it. We want to hear what candidates bring to the table, not the past mistakes of their opponents. |
|
|
|