Deeds goes negative on Day One
By Brian Kirwin | Thursday, June 11th, 2009 | PoliticsI remember a Blogs United conference where Creigh Deeds was a featured speaker and he said,
“We have to change the tone of the debate and put a stop to the endless bickering and gamesmanship that has come to define politics. We have to reject the poisonous language that is used to describe the other side?”
I guess Deeds was talking about everyone else but himself, because his first email blast contains a good bit of “poisonous language” describing the other side.
Deeds gets shrill writing about “the disastrous economic and social agenda of Bob McDonnell” and that McDonnell is “going to try and buy this election.”
He even uses the standard attack line “Virginia simply can’t afford four years of Bob McDonnell.”
I knew Creigh Deeds would ditch his promise of a positive campaign. I just didn’t expect him to break it on the first day.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
20 Responses to "Deeds goes negative on Day One"
You expect a Democrat to keep thier promises?!
[...] Gets Dirty On Day One Posted on June 11, 2009 by Riley Bearing Drift has the scoop on how Creigh “Dirty” Deeds has already ditched his promise of a positive [...]
Is this serious? The Democratic candidate for governor critcized the Republican candidate for governor, and you get the vapors? Do you really consider this “poisonous language?”
Look, I know you don’t really believe this, because I occassionally read your writing and your obviusly smarter than that. But on a personal level, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t write such adsurd stuff and torpedo your credibility so early in the election. Otherwise, I’ll be bored by September.
Since you’ll be campaigning for Deeds, Aznew, I guarantee you’ll be bored by September no matter what I do.
The Washington Times called it “denigrating.” I sat in the room where Creigh Deeds said he would run a positive campaign and I pushed him in a question about it, and he was resolute.
First day out of the gate, and it sounds like the same old negative attack campaign.
If Deeds didn’t make the remarks, I would let it alone. But he set his bar high, and then went negative immediately. He should apologize, either for the snow job he gave in previous speeches, or for his negativity now.
How exactly is this poisonous? All he did was state an opinion.
Ha.
In all seriousness, notwithstanding the Washington Times characterization, as far as “negative campaigning” goes, this is pretty tame stuff. The statements were made inthe context of afundraising email as a rationale to donate to Creigh, not so much as a slam on McDonnell.
As you know, we just came through a primary where every critcism was met by charges of “unfair negative attack!” It got tiresome after a while.
All campaigns feature criticism’s off opponents’ records. They are, by nature, negative, not necesarily poisonous.
I understand your argument about Creigh’s remarks and tying it to that, but I’m not so sure the statements Creigh made in the email is inconsistent with his earlier remarks you cite. As you know, all politicians assert they are as pure as the driven snow. Even Bob McDonnell has said on his website, in decrying a negative ad against him, “Bob McDonnell is running a positive, issues-based campaign.” Well, not exactly.
If criticism gets personal, then it ought to be called out. But I think we would all do better by our candidates by dealing with the substance of legitimate critiques, than arguments over whether the critique should have been levelled at all.
For myself, earlier in my blogging career, I used the appelation “Taliban Bob” for McDonnell as a form of mockery. I was taken to task for it, and although I defended myself, I think now I was wrong to use it and have not done so for months.
Similarly, the clown on one of the righty blogs (I can’t recall which one right now) who insists on calling Creigh “Dirty Deeds.” I certainly understand it as a tactic, but I don’t really respect it.
Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about that?
Posted on Wally World – Creigh Deeds?- Don’t Trust Your Soul To No Back Woods Southern Lawyer.
I think AC-DC is an excellent band.
Well, so do I, but now it seems you’re the one trying to have it both ways, arent you?
So, Creigh arguing that Virignia can’t afford four years of Bob McDonnell is poisonous, but childish name calling is apparently ok. I have actually since found the site where I was this — Virginia Vitucon, or something like that. In fact, these posts are touted on this site (which I think is excellent, BTW – coverage of the RPV convention was fantastic) — it says the site is “on fire.”
Truth will set you free!
The blogger in question didn’t stand up and give a speech about ending negativity in campaigns. Creigh Deeds did.
I respectfully disagree. Negativity, in the sense of a comparison, is what campaigns are all about. Each candidate says two things to the voters:
1. Vote for me (positive)
2. Don’t vote for the other guy (negative)
Creigh was clearly talking about the personal and poisonous language that dominates so many contests, like when I would call McDonnell “Taliban,” or when the BIQ (Blogger in Question) calls Creigh “Dirty Deeds.”
You try to couch your critique of Creigh in the language of hypocrisy (he called for an end to negativity, then he went negative), but your real argument gives away the game: you decry average comparative campaigning directed against your candidate, it seems to me, while defending the poisonous language directed against the one you oppose.
I don’t mean that as an accusation against you (in case it sounds that way), but rather as an observation.
I was there. I know what he was clearly talking about. I know what I asked him, and how he answered.
Do you honestly think “Virginia can’t afford four years of Bob McDonnell”??
Creigh should’ve written “Either of us would serve admirably in the Governor’s mansion. But I think my priorities are closer to Virginia’s best future, and my solutions for Virginia’s problems are what’s right for all Virginians”
But he didn’t. He called McDonnell’s agenda “disastrous” – that’s plainly silly. He said McDonnell was going to buy the office with special interests, as if he will take no money from no special interests?
Deeds did what you have so gotten used to – negative campaigning.
And again, I’d have no problem with it per se. The problem I have is he looked me in the eye and told me he would never do it.
[...] ditch his promise of a positive campaign. I just didn’t expect him to break it on the first day. Read more. Share and [...]
Aznew wins
It was in a fundraising email for Democrats.
Its exactly the same stuff that is coming out in the RPV emails lately.
Its red meat/blue meat to get partisans to donate money to the campaign thats all.
Now, I will say the hit piece on Cuccinelli in the Post today was way overboard.
Nova, Deeds made the promise. You may respect him for not living up to it.
I’m not.
If “Virginia can’t afford four years of Bob McDonnell” is the most negative thing said in this campaign, it will be the most positive campaign in the history of Virginia, and maybe U.S., politics.
Aznew, since you are a bit new to the Virginia blogosphere, let me explain something. This is Brian’s schtick. Every year, he goes around trying to arouse emotion by playing the “hypocrisy” card. A few summers ago, at a Blogs United conference in Virginia Beach, Creigh Deeds made those comments about negative campaigning.
Ever since then, Brian goes around every year claiming that any time a Democrat raises a legitimate question about a Republican candidate’s record, or even disagrees with a Republican’s policy platform, it’s negative campaigning.
When you point out that he and other GOPers are engaging in childish name-calling and in some cases toxic labeling, he demurs that he wasn’t the one who pledged not to go negative. He then defines any legitimate attempt to debate the issues as negative campaigning.
It’s basically a double standard. We should never, never express any disagreement with any Republican. But they should proudly slam us every which way to hell.
Of course Brian is much smarter than that. But you can’t blame a guy for trying.
The only proper response is that we are not dumb enough to unilaterally disarm ourselves just because Brian wants to shop that tactic. Saying it once is sufficient. Don’t let him rope you into a 16-part debate about it because he is as tenacious as he is clever. If nothing else, he will wear you down and tire you out, even if he doesn’t actually convince you.
AIAW – I do believe those are some of the nicest comments Brian has ever received on this blog.
Boy, given the folks commenting, one could easily mistake this blog for Raising Kaine!
Thanks, AIAW. I didn’t think that Brian (I hope it’s okay to use his first name, as I don’t know him) really belived what he was saying, but it’s a long way to Election Day, and I just thought I’d try to create a record to dismiss on the preliminaries sooner rather than later, as there are more important issues to discuss.
But I’ll be just as happy if the Conservative blogs want to debate this rather than substance. Given the role blogs play in politics these days, people will soon enough tune this noise out and go where there is genuine debate over the issues.
So, Brian wants to discuss some comment he heard out of Creigh years ago. I think the real relevant debate is whether the Commonwealth can afford four years of Bob McDonnell.
Nice to see the left tenaciously clinging to their negative campaigning.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.