One thing that I like is a good debate. A few days ago, the League of Women Voters held a pretty good one. Their first rule was “No Personal Attacks.” The first thing Ogonowsky did was launch into an attack of Niki Tsongas. Initially, she wisely did not return fire. After some time passed, she had to, and did, very effectively.
So, what did Ogonowsky say? First, he opened the debate with the promise that Niki Tsongas would distort your views through some Democratic magic. Second, the Lowell Sun, stated that Ogonowski was attacking Niki Tsongas for stating that Social Security should continue starting at age sixty five. He even painted a pleasant picture of his parents being chagrined if it was raised to sixty seven or so. Third, Ogonowski pointed out that he would sit in a bunker, lying in the sand, and down, “a couple of Budweisers (apparently, he drinks Budweisers).” I do not believe that Ogonowski has ever claimed to serve in Iraq, but he sure painted a picture of an amiable commander downing a couple of brewskys with his men in a desert nation. Where was that sand located? He didn’t say.
Fourth, Ogonowsky apparently recently learned from Karl Rove how to be a good Republican candidate. One of the Independent candidates brought that up, I wondered why Mrs. Tsongas did not. Mrs. Tsongas treated Mr. Ogonowsky with respect. It is too bad the Republican was not polite enough to extend the same courtesy.
She would not call him by name. She called him “My Republican Opponent” as reported by the Lawrence eagle tribune. There is nothing more disrespectful than not calling your opponent by name. It is a cheap political stunt. One I can understand, because Niki Tsongas can’t beat Jim Ogonowski, but thinks she can beat “her Republican Opponent.” It was a calculated disrespectful move.
<
p> Bringing up someone’s record is not a “Personal Attack”. None other than Ms. Tsongas’ campaign chairwoman’s husband, Marty Meehan, said as much in 1992 in a debate with Chester Atkins. Mr. Meehan said as reported by the Lowell Sun,
<
p>
Nice try though.
…reminding viewers that Ogonowski is her “Republican opponent” is disrespectful? That’s beyond silly, it’s absurd.
<
p>
It is an accurate, and quite temperate, description of him. At least she didn’t call him an “ass wipe,” which is what one commenter here called–who was it?–tblade on another thread.
at all is disrespectful beyond belief, raj. And you know it. Jim Ogonowski has a name. All Niki’s stunt goes to show is that she knows that she cannot beat Jim Ogonowski and has to paint him as a boogey man in order to win this election. I made phone calls yesterday for the campaign. I have never made phone calls in which the person on the other end of the line says, “Let me stop you right there, I’m voting for jim, my son is voting for Jim, my brother is voting for jim, my mother is voting for jim, and most of my friends are voting for Jim.”
<
p>
Ogonowski has reached the hearts of the people of this district and there is unbelieveably deep support for him. While I know signs don’t vote, I drove through the district and Jim has outsigned Niki at least 10 if not 20 to one.
<
p>
Niki has the support of the beautiful people, like you raj, not the guy who struggles to pay his mortgage.
<
p>
I spent a lot of time yesterday talking to every day people in the district. I heard a lot of the following types of sentiments.
<
p>
“Jim seems like a real guy, down to earth, Niki isn’t even from here. I like Jim.’
<
p>
I asked a bartender what he’s hearing from people. It is overwelmingly that Jim seems to understand our problems, because he lives them. He has to worry about balancing a checkbook every week, and whether he’ll have enough money to send his kid’s to college. Niki’s never had to worry about that.
Not using Jim Ogonowski’s name at all is disrespectful beyond belief, raj. And you know it.
<
p>
It’s interesting that you apparently believe that you can read my mind. Other right wingers and self-described Republicans have claimed to be able to do that on other web sites, so I’m not surprised that you would claim to be able to do that, too.
<
p>
All Niki’s stunt goes to show is that she knows that she cannot beat Jim Ogonowski and has to paint him as a boogey man in order to win this election.
<
p>
I have not been following the campaigns of Tsongas or Ogonowoski all that much–I don’t lieve in the district and cannot vote for (or against) either of them–but perhaps she used the “Republican opponent” to remind the viewers that Ogonowsky (which is the correct spelling?) that Ogonowski is a Republican, whereas Ogonowski might be running away from the Republican appellation. I have no problem with that. It’s called advertising: framing your message.
<
p>
A few observations regarding the subsequent portions of your comment.
<
p>
One, your working the Ogonowski phone bank is interesting, but one might seriously wonder who supplied the phone number list that you were supposed to call. That might skew your impression of the level of support for Ogonowski in the district. I suspect, but cannot prove, that your personning the phone bank was more in the nature of a get out the vote (“GOTV”) effort than anything else. If that’s the case, then the numbers you were supplied with were likely primarily those that the Republican party might consider likely to vote for Ogonowski.
<
p>
Two, your signage remark is interesting, but I wouldn’t take it seriously if I were you. During the 2006 gubernatorial election, here in Wellesley, there were many more signs indicating support for Healy than for Patrick. But Patrick beat Healy in Wellesley by a wide margin.
<
p>
Quite frankly, I don’t care who wins the election. It isn’t going to change the management of the House, so it seems a little silly to spend a lot of time on it. Your “disrepectful” issue was and remains rather silly, though.
It is common practice not to address an opponent by name, as that merely ups their name recognition. Particularly when you have a race where somebody is running based on their name recognition and party, and the other person is desperately running away from his party, it’s no surprise that Tsongas is making this choice. If you want “disrespectful beyond belief”, look at people who explore the vein of racism as a cornerstone of their campaign. Or mocking an opponent’s war injuries.
<
p>
I’m not going to lie — Ogonowski is enjoying a good stretch right here. Person to person, the voters probably do like him better than Tsongas, and that may be enough to win the election. That said, the fact that his election would necessarily enable and further Bush’s agenda is a fact he can never get away from, and we all know that.
It’s not disrespectful at all, it’s standard procedure, and everyone does it.
<
p>
Socially, it’s a little wierd, but then this isn’t exactly a social situation, is it? You NEVER use your opponent’s name in any statements outside of a debate. It’s free advertising. And you never use it when addressing anyone, other than the opponent himself.
<
p>
If that’s the biggest problem you have with Tsongas, you should vote for her.
She didn’t use his name in a debate setting when directly addressing Jim Ogonowski. It’s rude, and arrogant. And was called out by three newspapers, the Lowell Sun, The Eagle Tribune and the Boston Globe. It is not sitting well with the people of the District. Niki Tsongas is arrogant and comes across as entitled to this seat. It is her downfall.
…EaBo is probably merely using this as an excuse to bitch and moan against Tsongas. The complaint makes no sense whatsoever.
…our republican commenter [if I don’t use eabo’s fake online name, is that disrespectful?] was one of the people who called me an “ass wipe”. Hmmm….
I did not see the debate. But the passive-aggressive technique you describe being used by the Widow Tsongas was also employed by the bubba when debating GHWB.
He refused to observe the common courtesy of acknowledging the President by name or title.
<
p>
It’s a childish, arrogant show of disrespect. But it’s subtle enough to allow the nominee and her sycophants plausible deniability.
Just like FoxNews, who spoke of “President Bush” and “John Kerry” throughout the entire 2004 campaign.
one childish, arrogant behavior by pointing to another is so, umm… adult.
I had my Republican playbook open at the time.
A Republican bitching about disrespectful politics and cheap political stunts. Irony is not dead folks.
<
p>
I’ve never seen eabo once criticize Republicans for disrespectful politics or cheap political stunts (or scandals for that matter). This means either the Republicans don’t engage in disrespectful politics (purple heart band-aids in 04 at the GOP convention mocking combat vet Lt John Kerry were quite respectful by eabo’s standards) and don’t engage in cheap political stunts.
<
p>
<
p>
LOL. Yeah, that’s much more disrespectful than lying about or slandering an opponent.
<
p>
I’m pretty sure that eabo calls his opposition the “Democrat” party. This game called debating has certainly devolved over the years since the Lincoln-Douglas speeches. Some of the comments below confirm that this type of “insult” has been a time honored tradition for at least a few years. In this day and age of mass media, why give your opponent additional name recognition – make them buy it in 30 second increments.
By not using his name, she took away opportunity for him to have like 30 second rebuttals to her comments. It’s common practice.
…by not using Ogonowski’s name, but by mentioning the only opposition Republican candidate by appelation, she took away opportunity for him to have like 30 second rebuttals to her comments. That might stand to reason in a debate involving multiple opposition Republican candidates, but it doesn’t stand to reason in a devate merely involving one.
It still stands. In a debate, you have to mention the person by name in order for them to get a rebuttal. This was made evident in one of the Republican debates when someone referenced “the former Massachusetts governor” or something to that effect and when Mitt asked for a rebuttal they didn’t give it to him. Niki probably trained herself to avoid his name for that reason.
Oh the disrespect!!!
<
p>
Here’s the transcript of the 2004 2nd CNN presidential debate. Perhaps someone can point to the place where the President referred to “my opponent” by name.
<
p>
http://www.debates.o…
<
p>
<
p>
As for the one out of context phone call with all the Ogonowski supporters in the family, perhaps it would be useful to know if that family were D’s, R’s, or I’s. At least then we’d know a little something more than one story of one family.
<
p>
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong. There’s no doubt that Niki’s not a great candidate, and even more, that her campaign is clueless. But at the end of the day, I wonder how many people in that district want someone to go to Washington saying we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and we need to make sure that poor children don’t get health insurance. That’s the kind of guy who “understands the needs of working families” apparently.
Shocking.
<
p>
I went through that transcript using the browser’s search feature (ctl+f) and found Bush did not utter the words “John”, “Kerry” or “John Kerry” once during that debate. Good work, thinkingliberally.
<
p>
That’s one hell of an argument you got there, eabo. With arguments like that, it’s no wonder Lt. Colonel Jim Ogonowski (respectful enough?) fever is sweeping the Merrimack Valley; This shows that you are truly an asset to the campaign.
<
p>
When can we look forward to either your retraction or your assault on President Bush’s “cheap political stunt” that reminds him that “there is nothing more disrespectful than not calling your opponent by name”?