Posted on 08/21/2005 10:54:36 AM PDT by wagglebee
When Jeanine Pirro announced her interest in running against Hillary Clinton, she reminded reporters who dismissed her chances: "I'm a fighter."
But already Pirro appears to be unilaterally disarming - by issuing a promise not to fight back against a vicious series of personal attacks by Mrs. Clinton's media surrogates.
"Republicans who want us to throw mud at [Hillary] will be disappointed," Pirro campaign manager Kieran Mahoney tells New York magazine, before stating flatly: "We won’t engage in negative attacks."
Asked to certify the no-negative-campaign pledge with a formal promise, the Pirro insider responded: "Jeanine already has."
Instead, Mahoney said, the thrust of his boss's campaign will be to complain that Mrs. Clinton is a "part-time" Senator with her eye on the White House.
What about critics who say that line's likely to wear thin sooner rather than later?
"Those people have never won a New York statewide election," Mahoney scoffed. "I’ve won many."
Pirro's "stay positive" pledge would seem to take a whole host of winning issues off the table.
Issues like:
* Hillary's role as first lady in appointing Jamie Gorelick to replace Webb Hubbell as her eyes and ears at the Justice Department - a particularly disastrous move given Gorelick's "Wall of Separation" directive, which critics say blocked the FBI from questioning lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta a year before the attacks.
* Mrs. Clinton's decision to criticize President Bush's handling of the Iraq war to the Arab press in a May 2004 interview that her office at first tried to deny. According to an account in a leading Iranian newspaper, Hillary blasted Bush Administration policies as "arrogant and insolent."
* A claim by media mogul and one-time former Clinton supporter Steven Brill that Hillary had her office provide false documentation showing that she had dozens of meetings with 9/11 victim families. "None of it turned out to be true," Brill said after checking with the families themselves.
* Hillary's continued reliance on Sandy Berger as a senior national security advisor, even after Berger pled guilty to stealing top secret 9/11 documents from the National Archives - and shredding some of them. In March, the New York Times reported that Berger helped Mrs. Clinton draft a speech she gave to a German security conference.
we have a winner !
Instead, Mahoney said, the thrust of his boss's campaign will be to complain that Mrs. Clinton is a "part-time" Senator with her eye on the White House.
If that isn't negative campaigning, what is? It's not exactly a clear statement of Pirro's position on Social Security or the Highway fund.
Agree. It seems, to the LMSM, tellin' the truth hurts the 'RATs...while the sHrILLARY's media shills will "bring up" anything about her opponents' views/lifestyle/beliefs w/ regardlesss of the truth/facts.
Republicans always find ways of tying one hand behind their back.....
Stupid Republicans...always trying to place nice with Rats.
Maybe it's due to the fact that Pirro has some negative baggage herself.
It is far better that she remains sweetness and light in comparison to Hillary. Hillary would suffer in that instance by going negative.
Regards, Ivan
"It isn't necessary for Pirro to be "negative" about Hitlery, all she needs to do is tell the truth about what Hitlery has done."
THAT IS THE PROBLEM...if the GOP tells the TRUTH about a dem, then the dems and the media label it going NEGATIVE.
I fear that they have just announced that they will not be aggressive in informing about how Hillary really is, which will result in a loss.
Why does she think they want her to run? Because they love her policies? Politically, she's the same animal as Hillary. The point of running her is to soften Hillary up for the main event. Even a NY Republican can't be too stupid to understand that simple fact.
If Pirro (can I be the first to call her Phyrro? Maybe I am the only one who would get it, but still) is as much a Democrat as some FReepers think she is, than this is nothing but a lie.
Well, we do the slinging anyway... not to worry.
She can focus on the record...we can focus on the rest and get it out.
Ping
.
HILLARY & BILL CLINTON:
On the side of our Terrorist Enemy HO CHI MINH during th Vietnam War
On the side of our Terrorist Enemy OSAMA bin LADEN now
Refused 3 Free Offers from the Sudan during the 1990's to give us OSAMA bin LADEN on a Silver Platter before he could hit us real hard here at home =
9/11 Lifesaving Hero RICK RESCORLA, R.I.P.
http://www.RickRescorla.com
http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
.
OMG, Why do I think that Pirro is going to do about as well as Howard Mills. Who is Howard Mills? The guy who lost to Schumer in the biggest blowout of 2004, yes even bigger of a blowout than Keye's loss to Obama
fyi
Hmm. Since there is nothing positive to say about Hillary, what other way is there to campaign against her than the negative way? And if one is not going to campaign negatively against Hillary, one can hardly be said to be campaigning at all. Therefore WTF.
She's a fool. She is a pink in a place where they elect reds. She's a horrible candidate and will be beaten in a landslide.
As opposed to positive attacks?
Once again, I am underwhelmed at the Ghandi republicans. Hillary is going to chew Pirro alive and spit her bones into the corner. *sigh*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.