a.j.c.- anon 4:46 doesnt know anything, clearly. he/she is a bennett plant. they're the only ones who are oblivious enough to believe anything about scam bennett. i say this becaus ethey are the only ones receiving the DNC talking points. dent bush big oil blah blah blah. bennett great awesome criminal.
And you said Severenson was bad, this makes Charles W. Dent lower than whale sh*t. And I guess you support Charles W. Dent in his race to be the lowest bottom feeder in the LV. I'll bet it's the Democratic party doing this at the direction of "Boss" Long to make Dent look bad. When it's O'Hairs chosen one, he forgets about the way he ranted at the negative ads from the Dems, but he'll blame somebody. Just wait.
Hmm, looks like i gave him a little more credit than he actually deserved. The way some people talk, he will win by a landslide based on his merits. So why this?
Instead of sticking to the point, Charlie this is just plain misleading. All this tells us is that her pay reduction occured in the middle of the year, hence, the higer annual pay for 2007. If you are trying to make a point about her salary,that's fine. But don't mislead us Charlie.
I do not oppose negative campaigning per se. They are very effective and often very necessary. In this race, both candidates are running negative campaigns. If you look at the parody site, you'll notice the disclaimer by the Dent camp. In addition, you'll also notice that the claims being made are supported. It's honest.
This differs significantly from the kind of campaign run by Severson. He operated in the shadows, with anonymous ads and anonymous robo calls. The information he posted about Brian Monahan was, at least in my view, libel per se. He actually claimed that Monahan had obstructed justice, a ridiculous allegation.
I also am repulsed by personal attacks, like photoshopped pictures of candidates behind bars. That's when you go from a hard hitting negative campaign to outright smear.
"This is horrible. Politics has gone to a new low thanks to Charlie Dent. I and voting for neither of them now. This is terrible."
To be fair to Dent, it's pretty easy to point out Bennett's various flaws, shortcomings, scams, schemes, empty rah-rah crap rhetoric and overweaning ambition.
Yes. I am voting for Dent. This isn't negative campaigning.
As has been said a number of times here and elseware, Dent is running his ads based on factual information and statistics. Bennett is the opposite. She is making stuff up and is trying to mislead voters.
The ads may be factual, although they do stretch the truth for the salary thing (she did cut her salry to $55,000, however she did it in the middle of the year)and they make it out to sounds like she did something illegal (which was never proven).
My question is: If Charlie Dent is such a great guy and did so many wonderful things while in Congress, why does his campaign resort to attack ads? Shouldn't he as a sitting representative in congress be above attack ads? Why doesn't he tout his outstanding record? Why is he hiding behind attack ads?
Why is Charlie Dent afraid to run an ad on his accomplishments?
Because he HAS no accomplishments. Dent is a Bush sycophant, a proponent of the Iraq debacle and an enabler of all of the failed policies of the federal government. Dent needs to go with Bush. I'm sure he'll find a nice job back selling TV's ... or as a lobbyist.
"My question is: If Charlie Dent is such a great guy and did so many wonderful things while in Congress, why does his campaign resort to attack ads?"
Anon 9:17,
That's a valid question, and maybe Dent should be advertising the issues more, too. I would love for both candidates to stick simply to the issues, but I see Dent's ads as counter attacks against the ridiculous fictional claims Bennett has made. And, aside from the television ads, Dent has stuck to the issues a lot more than Bennett has.
For the record, Bennett's misuse of taxpayer money for her own salary and the overall poor handling of the situation after she was exposed is an issue.
I have no problem voting against Dent, but someone better has to come along first. Bennett is obviously not even close, which explains why a lot of Democrats are supporting Dent.
To counter your question: If Bennett is so great and wants to be in congress, shouldn't she be touting her plans about how she will do a better job instead of creating lies about Dent?
They're both guilty, but Bennett came out swinging.
Her lame campaign strategies show a big weakness. The lies perceive her as not being able attack Dent on the issues because either (1) he is right or (2) she doesn't understand them. Or, maybe both. That's ultimately for the voters to decide, I guess, but the facts are there and Bennett isn't using them.
In the end, Bennett knows what she wants, but has no clue as to how to get it, nor the effects that anything will bring.
I understand that both have come out swinging...although I have not seen Bennett negatively advertise on TV or create a website, but Charlie Dent has failed to tell me why I should vote for him, other than the fact that he is not Sam Bennett.
Sam Bennett at least has some substance in her ads
I think the web site is great. It is an interesting way to get the truth out there about Mrs. Bennett. To those who say the web site is "negative" how can the truth be so horrible? The site is supported by fact, not just talk.
Holy Shit thats funny. I wonder if Severson did that. I don't even think Tom is that good. This is freakin hillarious. I can't believe Charlie went to the Dark Side.
If that's not negative, then I don't know what is.
And why should we vote for Bennett? She says, Because I just don't agree with this guy. Sorry, but if you want to be in congress, you have to do a LOT better than that!
She's had opportunities now to be on television and the radio, not to mention interview after interview. She is wasting them all.
30 comments:
Wow, there is a real mature move on the part of the incumbent! Way to go Charlie, never one to stoop too low.
Dent is acting like the one trying to unseat an incumbent. He must be scared.
He's terrified. Imagine if everyone Sam gave a rake to went out to vote.
Oh, wait after she ripped the charity off they couldn't buy any rakes.
Ouch.
The home page photo is not unflattering, however.
Really funny! And right on target.
I'm a Democrat who will be voting for Obama/Biden but not Bennett.
Still undecided about whether to just skip it or go all the way and vote for Dent but definitely not voting for Bennett.
it's funny cause it's all true!!!
Anon 4:46,
You write as if you KNOW that Bennett will lose this race.
What's so low about the video? Care to back up your claim?
a.j.c.- anon 4:46 doesnt know anything, clearly. he/she is a bennett plant. they're the only ones who are oblivious enough to believe anything about scam bennett. i say this becaus ethey are the only ones receiving the DNC talking points. dent bush big oil blah blah blah. bennett great awesome criminal.
This is horrible. Politics has gone to a new low thanks to Charlie Dent. I and voting for neither of them now. This is terrible.
THIS IS A CLASSIC. SCAM BENNETT EXPOSED!!! WHAT BETTER THAN A SPOOF ON HER OWN WEBPAGE!!!
Hilarious...I cant play the videos enough. wuhwuhwuhwuwuhuhu!!!!
And you said Severenson was bad, this makes Charles W. Dent lower than whale sh*t. And I guess you support Charles W. Dent in his race to be the lowest bottom feeder in the LV. I'll bet it's the Democratic party doing this at the direction of "Boss" Long to make Dent look bad. When it's O'Hairs chosen one, he forgets about the way he ranted at the negative ads from the Dems, but he'll blame somebody. Just wait.
Hmm,
looks like i gave him a little more credit than he actually deserved. The way some people talk, he will win by a landslide based on his merits. So why this?
Instead of sticking to the point, Charlie this is just plain misleading. All this tells us is that her pay reduction occured in the middle of the year, hence, the higer annual pay for 2007. If you are trying to make a point about her salary,that's fine. But don't mislead us Charlie.
Anon 11:12,
I do not oppose negative campaigning per se. They are very effective and often very necessary. In this race, both candidates are running negative campaigns. If you look at the parody site, you'll notice the disclaimer by the Dent camp. In addition, you'll also notice that the claims being made are supported. It's honest.
This differs significantly from the kind of campaign run by Severson. He operated in the shadows, with anonymous ads and anonymous robo calls. The information he posted about Brian Monahan was, at least in my view, libel per se. He actually claimed that Monahan had obstructed justice, a ridiculous allegation.
I also am repulsed by personal attacks, like photoshopped pictures of candidates behind bars. That's when you go from a hard hitting negative campaign to outright smear.
There is a big difference.
"This is horrible. Politics has gone to a new low thanks to Charlie Dent. I and voting for neither of them now. This is terrible."
To be fair to Dent, it's pretty easy to point out Bennett's various flaws, shortcomings, scams, schemes, empty rah-rah crap rhetoric and overweaning ambition.
Yes. I am voting for Dent. This isn't negative campaigning.
It's deflating a wind bag.
This just continues Dent's negative campaign that refuses to talk about any of the real issues.
Dent has not run anything but negative ads. Dent's strategy is to make people believe his candidate is the worse person ever, then cruise to victory.
Why is Charlie Dent afraid to run an ad on his accomplishments?
Anon 7:44,
As has been said a number of times here and elseware, Dent is running his ads based on factual information and statistics. Bennett is the opposite. She is making stuff up and is trying to mislead voters.
The ads may be factual, although they do stretch the truth for the salary thing (she did cut her salry to $55,000, however she did it in the middle of the year)and they make it out to sounds like she did something illegal (which was never proven).
My question is: If Charlie Dent is such a great guy and did so many wonderful things while in Congress, why does his campaign resort to attack ads?
Shouldn't he as a sitting representative in congress be above attack ads? Why doesn't he tout his outstanding record? Why is he hiding behind attack ads?
My thinking, and this is just a guess, is that negative campaigning is quite effective.
That's real class.
That's real class.
Dent is a weasel. I can't wait to see him packing up.
Why is Charlie Dent afraid to run an ad on his accomplishments?
Because he HAS no accomplishments. Dent is a Bush sycophant, a proponent of the Iraq debacle and an enabler of all of the failed policies of the federal government. Dent needs to go with Bush. I'm sure he'll find a nice job back selling TV's ... or as a lobbyist.
"My question is: If Charlie Dent is such a great guy and did so many wonderful things while in Congress, why does his campaign resort to attack ads?"
Anon 9:17,
That's a valid question, and maybe Dent should be advertising the issues more, too. I would love for both candidates to stick simply to the issues, but I see Dent's ads as counter attacks against the ridiculous fictional claims Bennett has made. And, aside from the television ads, Dent has stuck to the issues a lot more than Bennett has.
For the record, Bennett's misuse of taxpayer money for her own salary and the overall poor handling of the situation after she was exposed is an issue.
I have no problem voting against Dent, but someone better has to come along first. Bennett is obviously not even close, which explains why a lot of Democrats are supporting Dent.
To counter your question: If Bennett is so great and wants to be in congress, shouldn't she be touting her plans about how she will do a better job instead of creating lies about Dent?
They're both guilty, but Bennett came out swinging.
Her lame campaign strategies show a big weakness. The lies perceive her as not being able attack Dent on the issues because either (1) he is right or (2) she doesn't understand them. Or, maybe both. That's ultimately for the voters to decide, I guess, but the facts are there and Bennett isn't using them.
In the end, Bennett knows what she wants, but has no clue as to how to get it, nor the effects that anything will bring.
I understand that both have come out swinging...although I have not seen Bennett negatively advertise on TV or create a website, but Charlie Dent has failed to tell me why I should vote for him, other than the fact that he is not Sam Bennett.
Sam Bennett at least has some substance in her ads
His not being like Siobhan (you know she used to make her friends call her that) should be enough reason for a thinking person to vote for Charlie.
Someone Who Knows
In fairness, Bennett's first name is Siobhan, a lovely Celtic name. I don't find it offensive that a person would ask to be called by his or her name.
Bernie --
Perhaps, but it is shallow when someone wants to stop using her given name because it doesn't play with the voters.
Someone Who Knows
I think the web site is great. It is an interesting way to get the truth out there about Mrs. Bennett. To those who say the web site is "negative" how can the truth be so horrible? The site is supported by fact, not just talk.
Holy Shit thats funny. I wonder if Severson did that. I don't even think Tom is that good. This is freakin hillarious. I can't believe Charlie went to the Dark Side.
Anon 4:55,
Did you see this ad? LINK
If that's not negative, then I don't know what is.
And why should we vote for Bennett? She says, Because I just don't agree with this guy. Sorry, but if you want to be in congress, you have to do a LOT better than that!
She's had opportunities now to be on television and the radio, not to mention interview after interview. She is wasting them all.
Post a Comment