Speaking of Dr. Phil… I Hope Brodkorb Acted Alone
Posted by Andy on June 19th, 2007
I have to agree with Mitch on this one, delving into someone’s personal and or online dating life is just plain wrong.
But as a fellow single guy, I gotta say - let’s leave Barkley’s personal life out of the public discussion. A person’s family, and/or his primary relationship (and especially any kids involved) - no matter what their party, platform or for that matter preferences - should be their refuge from all the BS of public life. His search - even on a personals website - should be his own business.
I’ve condemned leftybloggers in the past for their habit of publishing peoples’ work and home numbers and bringing hordes of drooling droogs after the families of those who disagree with them. This isn’t quite the same - it’s a personal profile, not a home address - and ergo in no way as base and loathsome.
But it’s high time there was a gentleman’s (and ladies’) agreement; leave peoples’ personal lives out of the public conversation, unless that life affects their ability to do the job.
Is there nothing sacred anymore? Seriously, this is the kind of crap Democrats do, trying to scare anyone from running for office. And in this case here is the right doing it because they used a dating service that thousands of other Minnesotans have. This is the kind of crap that turns people off from politics and usually ends up biting the right in the arse.
This negative crap hurts our side more than it helps. If you find pictures of him in bed with a young boy or dead horse, then fine, run with it, but the gotcha crap like this is uncalled for.
Yeah, MDE is the place to find Democrat dirt in a snow storm, but this one is not the kind of stuff that helps the cause.
The guy filled out the Match.com survey.
So what?!
Look, here’s the bottom line, online daters are a pretty big segment of the population today. According to a PEW poll, 31% of Americans know of people who have used online dating sites. The trend is growing. Here’s something from PEW’s research that I hope hits home.
At the same time, while online dating is becoming more commonplace, there are still concerns in the wider public about the dangers of posting personal information on dating sites and about the honesty of those who pursue online dating.
Rep. Bachmann is going to kick the snot out of anyone who dares to face her. She doesn’t need this underhanded kind of help. As Mitch put it, Barkley is a “sacrificial lamb”. This attack on him could end up helping him and getting him sympathy. I certainly hope the Republican Party is not wasting time searching Match.com for OPO.
Barkley was a US Senator, like it or not. Those outside of the GOP do not see Ventura as such a failure as we do. In fact they probably blame Republicans for Ventura’s failures. So again, this kind of attack on him, from a GOP operative with ties to the top, is going to hurt our side.
Stick to the goll darn issues. Republicans will win on them every single time.
Let’s try to work on promoting our candidates and why people should vote for them, not against the other guys. There is a pretty good track record of that not working too well on election day.
(AAA’s note: I mean no disrespect, but this crap has got to stop. We on the right should raise the bar and set an example, not stoop to their level.)
Sphere: Related Content
June 19th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Not to argue your fundamental “be nice” philosophy, but politics ain’t beanbag. I don’t think you can win without tossing a little mud or, far better, having someone else doing it for you. The problems arise when the mud gets too slimey and too far removed from honest questions about character and past “patterns of behavior.” The other problem is that “defining the opponent” has to be done early, and it has to be replaced, well before the voting, by a POSITIVE message, giving people something to vote FOR. If both candidates are covered in mud, voters stay home. I think that’s part of what happened to MNGOP candidates last year– that they never switched to the positive message.
And just to cover all the bases, there is a flip side. Republicans have to get past the constant Democrat criticism about “negative campaigning” when all we do is tell the honest truth, often in their own words, about the Democrat candidate. Needless to say, we lose campaign “effectiveness” if we make an honest criticism and then back down against dishonest reaction.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:17 am
It is one thing to define, like by pointing out policies and issues Barkley has stood for. It is another entirely to try to take an everyday occurrence, which thousands and thousands of Minnesotans share with Barkley and try to make it scandalous.
It is as silly and insensitive as wasting time making fun of the freedom to poop act. Stupid and over bearing law? hell yes! But as bad as others? eff no.
I am just offering my advice to those running things in the GOP to cut this crap out. (no pun intended)
Defining the candidate is not attacking their personal life! If he was a member of the KKK or code pink, then fine. But he probably shares a lot of the same answers with most people.
Oh and the erotica or what ever angle they want to play.
How well did it work out for George Allen to run with the Jim Webb pedophile books? Not very well! Not only did it cost him the Senate seat ( along with one stupid word) but it ruined what could of been the perfect Presidential candidate for the conservatives.
Think before you run with the opo. That is my advice. Mud for mud’s sake is not a winning plan. Oh and since we’re so far out, this crap now is meaningless to voters, if they even care. Just because you can find something, does not make it ground shattering. Trust me.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[...] Sen. Barkley’s predilections have been legion across the local righty blogosphere. Mitch, Andy Jeff have all taken issue with MDE’s [...]
June 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I’m with Andy on this one. Michael’s post was pointless and less than classy. So, a lonely guy goes on Match to look for companionship, big deal. So, he is okay with kissing the woman that he loves or desires in public, big deal. So, he’s open about the fact that he’s looking for intimacy, big deal. Other than coming across as a bit of a dweeb, he doesn’t really have anything to be ashamed of.
It is personal attacks like these that turn people away from politics. I, for one, would like to be part of a party that is better than this and not willing to stoop to the standards of the liberals.
Michael, you are good at what you do and this post (or all three that you had on it) was below you. (side note - your site keeps eating my comments)
June 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
That’s what I said, I think, that “going negative” and “defining your opponent” can and must be done without getting down into the slime of personal peccadilloes or whispers thereof. Even a history of drug or alcohol abuse (G. W. Bush), mental illness (Thomas Eagleton), or marital infidelity (Rudy Giuliani) are necessarily disqualifying or fair game for negative campaigning. Looking for love isn’t even in the same league.