Bill Richardson wants candidates to pledge against negative attacks on each other

[bigtree]

Could such a pledge work, here at DU?


WASHINGTON Feb 27, 2007 (AP)— Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson is proposing a rule that is common on kindergarten playgrounds but doesn't usually work in politics be nice to each other.

Richardson hasn't always followed the principle while running for office in his home state of New Mexico. And the leading candidates don't seem to be embracing the idea in the 2008 White House contest, either.

"What I am proposing," Richardson said last week at a candidate forum in Nevada, "is that every Democratic candidate sign a pledge that we will not engage in any negative campaigning toward each other."

story: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2909185

[Horse with no Name]

1. Hasn't he already taken shots at Obama and Clinton?

And also at Congress as a whole?
Now he wants to stop? Why doesn't this surprise me?:eyes:

[paulk]

2. what shots are those?

I'd like to see what you're refering to.

[Horse with no Name]

5. If you care to do a search

it is functional at this time. There were some things that were discussed here. I'm not an Obama or Hillary supporter so I just read them. I have other reasons not to like Richardson that are greater than not wanting to play in the sandbox nicely, therefore I didn't bookmark the threads.

[bigtree]

3. that's like saying this call for a pledge is a 'shot'

He agreed with Clinton that Geffen's remarks were off the mark and said the candidates should present a "positive message."

So, your answer to my question about a DU pledge would be 'no', I presume?

[Horse with no Name]

4. You want me to pledge to not tell the truth about your candidate?

How very "democratic".:eyes:
I have NEVER engaged in the calls about his womanizing and drinking...not only because I cannot prove them, but because I could really care less about his moral turpitude regarding those issues.
However, I take great offense in his participation of covering up the minority undervote in New Mexico.
THAT I do have proof of AND I take great offense.

[bigtree]

7. No, obviously I want you to tell the truth

That was an attack on me, wasn't it?

[Horse with no Name]

9. No....

I didn't attack you.
But you have called several times for people not to "attack" Richardson.
Telling the truth is not an attack. I just want you to realize that because I have told every person IRL who has expressed an interest in the campaign of Richardson what he did and I will tell every person online what he did.
He bogarted Democracy in New Mexico. I will sing it loud and sing it long and at the end of the day, all I did was tell the truth and never attacked the man once.

[bigtree]

10. you've got me all wrong. I'm not trying to stand in the way of any 'truth'

I answer many of the charges. But, I don't tolerate unfounded or un-documented charges provided without proof. I have refrained from focusing on other candidates, preferring instead to highlight my choice of candidate. I think its much more productive.

Sing all you want.

[Debi]

6. Is Geffen running for President? Or is that Richardson's back-handed attack on Obama? n/t

[bigtree]

8. It was a comment which he was prodded into answering at the Nevada forum

He said he didn't agree with Geffen's statement (which basically called the Clintons liars) and said it wasn't helpful.

[Debi]

11. Under Richardson's 'be nice to each other' policy are all campaigns supposed to gag their supporters

[bigtree]

13. right now, that's only in your interpretation

that's not what he said, although I would acknowledge that it will be hard to separate legitimate criticisms from 'negative campaigning'.

I do think most folks know what negative campaigning is when they see it. I just don't think everyone is going to agree on the interpretation.

edit: I think he means the candidates and perhaps those who speak directly for them. I don't think there would be any value for him in parsing who he considers responsible down the road when the attacks come from within his campaign, as they surely will.

[Debi]

15. Was it negative campaigning by the Obama campaign when a former

Clinton supporter,current Obama supporter, said something negative about Clinton? or was is negative campaigning by the Clinton campaign when they asked that Obama admonish their supporter?

Will Richardson be the negative campaign policeman? Or will he just throw out the pledge and hope nobody says anything about his record?

[bigtree]

17. you see, you've gone ahead and conflated Geffen's remarks with Obama

Richardson didn't and neither do I. He merely said he didn't think the comments were helpful when asked repeatedly about it by George Stephanopolos at the forum. He didn't elaborate or implicate Obama at all. He said the comments weren't helpful. He's right.

I don't think he's going to be shy about defending his record. It would be more productive, however, if our candidates focused their campaigns against the republican opponents and not against each other. I think that's what he's saying. I assume if you sign a pledge it means you would be responsible for yourself and will not need policing.

[Debi]

19. So nobody should look at a candidates past record or behaviors

and only at what the republicans have said and done?

[bigtree]

20. that's my own preference here, to highlight my own choice and leave it at that

I don't think that's what Gov. Richardson was proposing.

He's asked the candidates to refrain from attacking each other. For example, they should perhaps avoid name-calling, or personal attacks which have little or no bearing on policy or performance in office.

[Forkboy]

12. It's a foolish idea

Because you don't even have to say something negative for it to be portrayed that way,and then the person looks like a hypocrite.

Not to mention that pledges are silly just on principle alone.

[bigtree]

14. It may be unworkable, but it sure would be nice

btw, I've pledged here at DU against negative attacks on other candidates and I've had no problem at all in resisting the urge to jump in and criticize the others - preferring instead to use my posts to highlight the issues, accomplishments, and the intentions of my own choice for president

[youngdem]

16. Never happen. We are MILES from living in a country where such is possible

Hell, we can't even agree on COUNTING all of the votes, saying truthful things about opponents, or avoid committing felonies every election cycle ranging from wire and mail fraud to election law violations to break ins and extortion. Agreeing to play nice seems hilariously quaint in light of the above listed transgressions already well underway by every campaign in the race.

Bill is a nice guy with nothing to say. He has no platform that has been sticky, and he is boring as shit to listen to.

Besides, begging for the game to be played more fairly is always the plea of the guy getting his ass kicked all over the court. Shows weakness.

[bigtree]

18. How productive are your criticisms? Really?

I don't think I've shown weakness here by refusing to criticize the other candidates. I think my posts have generated questions and assertions from posters, but I don't think my efforts would be served at all in abandoning my promotion and defense of my choice to attack the others. I think this could apply to the candidates if they wanted.

[bigtree]

21. kick

[skipos]

22. I think it would be totally realistic

for the candidates to critique eachother without throwing mud. We do with with family, friends and coworkers all the time. Save the mud for the Republicans.

[bigtree]

27. exactly. why dirty up our own candidates for them?

when one of these people gets in the general I want them standing as tall as possible

[Kelly Rupert]

23. Too easy to step around.

Just do what Bush does. "Now, I, I'm not like some other people. I think we should defend America. I'm in favor of winning the war on terror. And I don't fuck toddlers either."

[RB TexLa]

24. I propose no one ever make this stupid proposal again

Someone does this stunt every campaign.

[MoseyWalker]

25. One of the "primary" reasons

for a primary is to learn the most one can about those who wish to represent us, and though I don't necessarily like negative attacks, if the information provided is truthful, then I want to know.

A pledge against negative attacks is unreasonable to the extent that some may interpret information provided about a candidate as a "negative attack" even if it is proven truthful.

There is a difference, but suscribing to a blanket wish such as this makes no sense to me; that is, if democracy is to continue unfettered in some remote way.

[bigtree]

26. do you really think he meant that issues couldn't be discussed?

Issues are discussed all of the time on the Senate floor without too many instances of personalizations or 'attacks' against the opposition in debate. As the poster above stated, we do this all of the time with our family, friends, and co-workers.

I think name-calling, questioning patriotism or commitment to national security, allusions to a candidate's sex life or drinking or smoking habits, allusions to a candidate's weight or appearance, questioning honesty without specifics, attacking family members, or character attacks which have little or no bearing on a candidate's performance or policy are just a few examples of behaviors I think the candidates should commit themselves to refrain from.