How many have been through a contested primary before?

This brings up a good point (5.00 / 2)

Everyone want to just go positive until Tuesday? Nothing but why our candidate rocks? Show the Republicans we can be clean? Or not, just a thought.

---

by: Matt Hardigree @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 04:22:47 AM UTC

Lets go that way in the blogosphere (0.00 / 0)

Since that is all we can control, I am with you 110%, Matt!

The campaigns on both sides will do what they will, but those of us who idealistically and wholeheartedly support our respective candidates go positive until the votes are in when the polls close!

We both may kvetch and piss and moan, but we are complaining about which end of the egg to open in compared to other issues (Jonathan Swift anyone for lit references).

Thanks for more than a modest proposal, Matt.

---

by: energyecon @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 04:30:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This may be what you're looking for (5.00 / 6)

David is the survivor of many battles.  It makes him wise and worth listening to.

Reposted here with explicit permission, but with immense respect.

Please permit me to offer a different perspective to think about, if you will, regarding "negative  campaigning."

  "Negative campaigning" is in the eye  of the beholder.

In the eyes of Gammage supporters, the Bell  campaign letter from pro-choice activists was negarive campaigning.

In the  eyes of the Bell campaign, it was a letter exposing relevant facts for the  benefit of Democratic Primary voters.

In the eyes of Bell supporters, the recent  Gammage campaign letter was negative campaigning.

In the eyes of the Gammage  campaign, it was a letter exposing relevant facts for the benefit of Democratic  Primary voters.

I am aggressively attacking Greg  Abbott and I'm only going to get more aggressive from here to November. I  will be exposing relevant facts for the voters. The Abbott campaign will call it  negative campaigning.

One person's exposure of facts is  another person's negative campaigning. Please make your judgments based on  whether or not you agree with the information presented by either side's  letters. But the fastidious expressions of horror about "negative campaigning"  that we've picked up from the embedded corporate media are in my humble  opinion squishy nonsense. The power elites sell this foolish  fastidiousness to us because turning politics into polite tea parties  protects the courtly mandarins who protect the status quo.

But notice the media only push that  when it's Democrats who are the aggressors. When the Republicans are the  aggressors, the media call it "spirited campaigning."

So then you'll say, "but negative  campaigning is what Republicans do to us." I disagree. Aggressive campaigning is  not "what Republicans do to us." Aggressive campaigning is what we should expect  the R's to do.

That's not what beats our candidates. What beats our candidates,  what beat Dukakis '88 and Kerry '04, is our candidates' refusals  to come out swinging. You can't win basketball games
by playing not to  lose, you have to play to win.

Same thing in politics.  It's not "what they  do to us" that's the key; it's "what we do to us" through our candidates' wimpy  fears of confrontation and polarization.

Then you'll say, "but these attacks  between our Democratic candidates will hurt us in November."

To which I  respectfully say, with all respect for my friends, "Baloney."

Most voters  like fighters and fighting candidates. This intra-family  political squabble we've got going in our primary is the best thing that could  happen to us to help us win in November. If you're a Bell supporter and you like  the glowing newspaper endorsements Chris recently received, you should  thank Bob Gammage for them. Without an aggressive contest the editorialists  could have cared less.

If you're a Gammage supporter and you like the glowing  endorsements Bob has received within the Democratic community, you should thank  Chris Bell for them.

Without an aggressive contest to provide motivation, the  endorsers wouldn't have had a reason to come out. Whichever one wins the  primary, when the general election campaign begins the next day he will already  have much more visibility than he would have had without an aggressive primary  contest.

  I know Bob Gammage and Chris Bell  both and I will be mighty happy to campaign with either one of them as a  ticketmate. Whichever one wins the primary is going to be the next governor of  Texas. Make your voting decision on the basis of which one you prefer, but  I submit, don't require either one to pretend that he is not in a fight for  votes.

Don't assume that voters are not intelligent enough to separate truth  from fiction, because they are - so long as both sides participate in the  contest.

The Republican national candidates keep winning on lies because the  Democratic national candidates keep failing to fight thus keep letting the R's  fight a one-sided contest.

Anybody will win a fight if he/she is the only one  fighting! And our candidates might as well  be honing themselves now for the fight they are gonig to be in against Perry and Strayhorn.

Respectfully,
David Van Os
Democratic Candidate
For Texas Attorney General

---

by: Texas_Kat @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 04:47:39 AM UTC

David Van O's (5.00 / 1)

is awesome.  I agree with everything he said in that post.

I still wonder, however, if the Gammage & Bell activists will actually support the other on March 8.

---

by: Ian @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 15:23:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this... (5.00 / 1)

is my first primary that was contested -- I voted in the 2004 primary, but had no real choices.

With that said, it has left somewhat of a bitter taste in my mouth and I'm surprised some have called it "tame". Lol.

I know who i support (and already voted for) and I dislike the other guy, but, in the end, if I have to replace one sticker with another, I will and will vote for our nominee in November b/c Perry has got to go.

---

by: Matthew D. @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 16:39:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ann Richards/Jim Mattox deathmatch (3.67 / 3)

Take my word for it this has been a pretty 'tame' primary (at least in the Governor's race) and I've been through some real doozies.

Nothing since has compared to the Ann Richards/Jim Mattox deathmatch, so have a cup of good cheer and grin a little.

---

by: Texas_Kat @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 16:58:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I imagine most (5.00 / 1)

will follow the lead of their candidates.  The winner will need to reach out, the loser will need to step up.

Just as important as the activists, though, are the contributors.  Will they cross over and will the Dems giving to Strayhorn decide they'd better back the Dem as well?

---

by: aerialist @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 16:51:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Texas_Kat! (0.00 / 0)

That's it exactly!  I was unfamiliar with Mr. Van Os before I started banging on the keyboard to post here on BOR, getting introduced to his words is a big bonus from our collective gladiatorial blogathon.

---

by: energyecon @ Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 16:39:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

contested primaries? (5.00 / 2)

can you say "iowa caucuses"?  talk about a freakin' bloodbath... yeesh!

what we've got going here between bell and gammage pales in comparison.

Fudd's first law of opposition: Push something hard enough and it will fall over.

---

by: annatopia @ Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 19:34:24 PM UTC