I don’t mind a good fight over policy and principles. I don’t mind when a debate gets a bit contentious – that’s face to face and rebuttals are permitted. It does bother me when a campaign targets its primary opponents with the kind of facts that Reagan ascribed to Liberals “They know so much that isn’t so”!
Steve covered the push poll phone calls which appear to be associated with the Lambert Campaign, in which several questionable statements about his primary opponent, Marilinda Garcia, were made.
I have received a number of emails from the Smith campaign suggesting that Jim Rubens is not conservative, and quoting specific examples which look bad at first glance, until you study the details. Normally, I’d let oppo research carried out by the campaign mininions roll right off me, but yesterday’s example had the truth claiming whistleblower status as it recuperated from the torture chamber.
The technique which got my attention was a naked ploy of creating guilt by association. Under the title “Jim Rubens — Not What He Appears to Be,” the claim is made that: Jim Rubens is friendly with a left-wing talk show host. The talk show host is a gun-grabber. Therefore Jim must be a gun-grabber, too!
Ooops! Let’s try the facts, shall we? In 2009, Rubens had a book out, “OverSuccess”, and was seeking publicity, and as a result, was happy to be interviewed by almost anyone, which naturally included some on the left, due to the philosophical nature of the book. One such interviewer was Mike Pappantonio of Ring of Fire Radio (which also displays a “GoLeft” logo), and exhibit A in the guilt by association ploy. Did the interview cause Jim to take on the host’s viewpoints? Of course not!
Speaking of the book, an earlier missive from the Smith Campaign claimed Rubens wanted the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, and claimed to find those exact words in his book. This one is a milder stretch, but it is a stretch, nonetheless…
After deploring the vacuousness of much current programming, Rubens noted that the Communications Act of 1934 contained a clause requiring “public interest programming”, and argued for its renewed enforcement, to increase educational and current affairs programming….. OR….. the Communications Act should be repealed in its entirety to end the charade. He specifically argued against what is popularly called the “Fairness Doctrine” by stating that the notion of of providing equal time for two opposing views should not be reinstated, because most issues do not neatly divide into two positions (IE Republican vs Democrat).
(I personally believe that technology has overtaken this issue with the vast increase in cable and Internet channels available.)
Is Bob the better candidate? Let him show it in the debates, instead of imputing positions to his opponent which are not supported by the evidence.
Let me tell a little story: In 2010, certain friends and supporters of Bob Giuda were inclined to tell those of us who were backing Jennifer Horn that we were stupid to do so. Hindsight is 20:20, and they were right – but they didn’t win the argument by their tactics, and Bob came in a distant 3rd. Get the evidence right, and let it sell itself.
