Desperation II

Ian Kennedy a.k.a. Hayduke  has a perspective on Ken Ulman’s new website.  He even posts a link to it.  The post is partly in response to my concerns about the site expressed in my post “Desperate“.

I’m disheartened to see so much emphasis being placed on the source of the site and whether it’s negative and not the information contained within it.

It takes time to respond to 134 pages of spin and smear if it even deserves a response.  Additionally, it doesn’t seem to matter to Hayduke that:

1. Ulman put up the website
2. Is trying to hide the fact that he put up the website
3. Is trying to convey the appearance the he is above such things

From what I’ve seen, the site in question has sourced the points it makes

I don’t know from this statement whether Hayduke has examined the claims or all 134 pages on the site.

Why am I fixated on Hayduke’s response?  Because I respect his opinion.  Although we haven’t met I like what he writes and has to say.  If he has read the entire site and examined all the claims and comes to the same conclusion then I can say fair enough.

BTW: Yes, it was me who called Ken Ulman a coward and then deleted it.  Yes, someone revealed the name of the “plant” at a candidate’s forum.  Then I asked if it was the same person who had legal problems and yes, after thinking about it I deleted both her name and my question because it was not fair.  Hayduke knows the dirty details and his little voice inside my head made me reconsider so I deleted that too.

I have offered a: “…cogent, well-sourced refutation of the website” or at least some parts of it and will find time later to get to more of it.

10-17-06 Open Thread

It is all yours.

In Allan Kittleman We Trust

I have read a couple letters to the editor that are critical of Senator Allan Kittleman’s distribution of his campaign funds to help other candidates.

I do not understand the motivation of these letter writers.  Looking up their names on the campaign finance data base one of them might have contributed $25.00 to a campaign in 2002.  They have not contributed to Allan Kittleman so they are not talking about their own contributions.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that most people are like me.  When they give money to a candidate they trust the candidate they do so because they trust the candidate’s judgement.  If the candidate judges that they want to help another candidate with finances then that is fine with me.  If I don’t want my candidate to use the money for anything else than his campaign I tell him, “This is for yard signs”, or “This is for putting up and developing www.therealken.com website, but don’t tell anyone“.

If you really care about this then find out who Senator Kittleman contributed to and find out who their primary and general election opponents were and then lets walk down the list.  I say that tongue in cheek because I am left to wonder.  Are these letter writers part of an organized campaign because Senator Kittleman did not give money to the “THEIR” candidates? 

I admit I am reading between the lines but these letters have a real tone of “sour grapes” to them.

Senator Harry Reid

Harry Reid road the high road on Jack Abramhoff and Mark Foley.  Quite honestly he should have.

Newt Gingrich road the high road on Bill Clinton.  Quite honestly he should have.

Then Newt betrayed our trust and cheated on his wife.  He paid the price as he should have.  I remember it clearly.  I could have hit the guy with a brick.  I still like Newt (a lot) but was severely disappointed.  He has since gone on to do some great things.

Harry Reid?  Well you decide for yourself because he just keeps showing up in the papers and it is the AP that is breaking these stories – not a bastion of conservative thought and opinion.  AP’s source?  A Reid staffer.  Reid’s explanation “clerical errors”

The questions?  A $1.1M land deal he didn’t report, and using campaign funds for personal expenses.

Read it here.