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.
1 posted on
08/21/2005 10:54:38 AM PDT by
wagglebee
To: wagglebee
2 posted on
08/21/2005 11:06:25 AM PDT by
stylin19a
(In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")
To: wagglebee
The statement that "We won't descend to negative campaigning" means nothing. As bill clinton might say, it depends what you mean by "negative." I got a particular kick out of this zinger:
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.
3 posted on
08/21/2005 11:06:42 AM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: wagglebee
all she needs to do is tell the truth about what Hitlery has done. 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.
4 posted on
08/21/2005 11:07:00 AM PDT by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
To: wagglebee
Republicans always find ways of tying one hand behind their back.....
5 posted on
08/21/2005 11:17:07 AM PDT by
Stellar Dendrite
( Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. -Churchill)
To: wagglebee
Maybe it's due to the fact that Pirro has some negative baggage herself.
7 posted on
08/21/2005 11:19:48 AM PDT by
Clemenza
(Proud "Free Traitor" & Capitalist Pig)
To: wagglebee
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
8 posted on
08/21/2005 11:20:54 AM PDT by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: wagglebee
"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.
To: wagglebee
"Republicans who want us to throw mud at [Hillary] will be disappointed," 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.
To: wagglebee
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.
11 posted on
08/21/2005 11:28:43 AM PDT by
AmishDude
(Join the AmishDude fan club: "ROFLOL!" -- tuliptree76)
To: wagglebee
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.
12 posted on
08/21/2005 11:36:26 AM PDT by
AliVeritas
(Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
To: Mia T
13 posted on
08/21/2005 11:36:45 AM PDT by
AliVeritas
(Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
To: wagglebee
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. "Ive won many." 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
15 posted on
08/21/2005 11:43:41 AM PDT by
NeoCaveman
(The constitution is not in exile, it's in a nice safe deposit box in the Cayman Islands - Lileks)
To: Mia T
16 posted on
08/21/2005 12:04:29 PM PDT by
jla
To: wagglebee
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.
To: wagglebee
We wont engage in negative attacks
As opposed to positive attacks?
19 posted on
08/21/2005 12:34:01 PM PDT by
murdoog
(The first amendment gives me the right to question your patriotism)
To: wagglebee
When Republicans do it, telling the truth about opponents is what the media regards as "negative campaigning." Pirro will lose if she keeps to her promise and will get tagged for breaking it if and when she does attack Hillary. This is another example of Pirro's inexperience and lack of substance as a candidate.
Asked about "negative campaigning," the A+ answer for Republicans is to say that all campaign advertising that the candidate approves will be truthful and directed at legitimate issues. The public correctly regards that kind of advertising and comment by candidates as acceptable and useful.
To: wagglebee
IOW's Pirro is telling Hillary she won't fire the first shot.
Should Hillary go negative, just watch how fast Pirro launches a counter attack.
Go Hillary..go :)
24 posted on
08/21/2005 2:31:35 PM PDT by
spectre
(Spectre's wife)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson