PDA

View Full Version : New York Republicans In Senate Debate Fiasco


ECW
08-16-2006, 06:13 AM
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10debate.html)

The two Republicans seeking to unseat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton clashed ferociously last night in a debate that centered far more on questions of marital infidelity, nepotism and other personal attacks than on what either candidate would do if elected.

Kathleen Troia McFarland, a former official in the Reagan-era Pentagon, repeatedly hammered John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers, for having an extramarital affair with a city employee while he was mayor, having relatives on the city payroll, and raising property taxes. Mr. Spencer fought back, accusing her of distorting his record with “lies and innuendos and half-truths” while ignoring her early pledge to run a positive campaign.

“She’s insulted my wife, she’s insulted my children, she’s insulted my military record, criticized my service in Vietnam,” Mr. Spencer complained when he was asked about the tenor of the race. “I do not think that my personal life, or Mrs. McFarland’s personal life, or problems that she may be having, are part of the dialogue that the state and the people of New York care about, or the nation.”

Ms. McFarland responded that the issues her campaign raised were fair game.

“You brought up your wife, and I must tell you that that’s not a personal issue,” she said. “That’s a professional issue. Because when you were mayor of Yonkers, you had an affair with your secretary while you were married to somebody else. You tripled her salary and made her your chief of staff. You were living with her. You doubled your own personal income. You got financial gain from that. And you had two children.”

Their debate, at Pace University in Manhattan, was the latest flashpoint in a primary campaign that has, at times, more closely resembled reality television than a Senate race.

more...

Clueless Republicans using personal attacks on each other in hopes of having Republicans vote for them in the primary. Issues? What issues? Who said anything about issues?

EDIT: Removed adjective from headline non-applicable to content of posted article.**Keep it objective or don't post it.**This is supposed to be news, not editorial. We have a section for that.

Nathan Brazil
08-16-2006, 07:39 PM
So here you've posted a link to an article condemning a candidate for raising a valid issue. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=1090&pid=9011&)

HERE you've posted an article condemning the candidates for NOT focusing on "issues".

Which way is it? (Oh, and the voters get to decide what issues are important to them, not you. That's the way things work.)

sbannon
08-16-2006, 08:58 PM
EDIT: Removed adjective from headline non-applicable to content of posted article. Keep it objective or don't post it. This is supposed to be news, not editorial. We have a section for that.

This post was last modified: Today 06:44 PM by PittsburghAfterDark.
Wow, utterly amazing! PAD, you've posted the following headlines (each containing editorial adjectives and additions) into the Democrats forum:
Democrats Likely to Lose a Moonbat (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=981) - the Moonbat label is an editorial add-on that never appears in the article used for the threads posting.

Joe Biden: All American Racist (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=726) - Biden made an insensitive and racial remark, but does that really earn him the editorial title of 'All American Racist'? If so, then you must apply the same to George Allen's comments this past Friday. Where's that thread from you?

Felons & Drug Addicts? Core Democrat Constituants (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=902) - A single candidate's campaign workers enlisted workers form a drug-treatment center for a single campaign event and that makes felons and drug addicts the democrats' core constituents? In Bazaroo Land maybe, but here in the real world it was just one more editorial addition of your own to the title of a story actually being discussed.

I stopped with 3 examples, there's no doubt more. Now, I don't know what the adjective in question on this thread was, but unless it was grossly profane I think there should be some accountability or explanation for the obvious double-standard PAD's applying here.

I don't oppose rules or guidelines to keep the forums on-track and organized, they'll make it a better site for everyone--but let's fairly apply them or this site could fall to crap fast.

ECW
08-17-2006, 03:55 PM
It wasn't grossly profane. It was merely as insulting as the threads you mentioned. I guess the two-way traffic in handing out insults has been edited down to one lane.

AlonzoMourning23
08-17-2006, 03:59 PM
bannon, you forgot his "ditch bitch" topic.

sbannon
08-17-2006, 04:04 PM
alonzomourning23, I stuck with just the Democrats board simply because PAD's reason for editing on the Republican board stated "This is supposed to be news, not editorial. We have a section for that."

Perhaps the 'ditch bitch' title, though inappropriate itself, was on the appropriate board?

AlonzoMourning23
08-17-2006, 04:24 PM
Eh, I thought it was on the dem board. Just looked it up and realize it was on current events.

wonder cow
08-19-2006, 03:56 AM
sounds to me like some admin or mod likes to dish it, but can't take it.

as to the topic, the two republican canidates should be nice to each other as neither has a snow ball's chance of beating Hillary.