The SkepticalObserver (here) picked up on a Bob Marshall story that is most unfortunate (here).
Marshall is insisting that Jim Gilmore accept the Bob Marshall position on the abortion. What Marshall seems to be doing is forgetting that modern politicians do not take mudslinging personally. Politicians pretend they are not angry. They forget and mend their differences. Silly. Stupid. Best not to sling the mud at all, but what is done is what is done.
Voters are more traditional. Voters still expect politicians to show some backbone. On an issue like the abortion issue, Gilmore cannot arbitrarily change his stance just to gain Marshall’s support. If he did, Gilmore would lose whatever credibility he has.
At this point, Marshall has the same choice as everyone else. He can support Jim Gilmore or he can support Mark Warner. If Marshall cares about the abortion issue, and the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, then he should support Jim Gilmore.
In addition, for his own sake, Marshall should forgive Gilmore. A grudge is a burden best cast off.
Yes and no. Both campaigns said things that were unnecessarily edged. Words have meaning.
Gilmore is pro-life. Every action he has taken in his power when in office has been pro-life. To say he isn’t based on his personal view of life starting etc. is wrong. You can debate him on the issue of when life begins (at conception is the right answer – although I read that old Hebrew tradition said 10 days after conception), but don’t call him pro-Choice when he spent a lot of time sticking his neck out in public for the sanctity of life.
Both campaigns over-played their hands with their rhetoric. I know how passionate elections get, but some more restraint is needed in the intramural party contests and the away games with the Dems.
To some extent, everything is based upon one’s point of view. All I can honestly address is my own perspective.
I think Marshall stated what he thinks are Gilmore’s positions and he contrasted those positions with his own. If those difference seem edged, it is because those difference are important to Marshall and — for that matter — to you.
Contrasting ones positions with ones opponent is a normal part of campaigning. The other side may have found it obnoxious, but they were given ample opportunity to respond. In fact, Marshall offered Gilmore the opportunity to debate and to make his own contrasts.
What did Gilmore do? With imperial indifference, he tried to ignore Marshall. Then at the last minute, he gets scared, and he floats these pathetic mailers that so irritated Marshall.
Gilmore completely failed to show Marshall and his supporters the respect they had earned and to which were entitled. And that is what started this infernal nonsense. If Gilmore has any sense, he will agree to meet Marshall and ask for his ACTIVE support.
Marshall is no idiot. To gain his support, Gilmore does not have to change his position. As a practical matter what Gilmore has to do is make it adamantly clear that unlike his opponent, he will not approve funding for abortion or approve pro-abortion judges. What Gilmore has to do is show that he offers a better alternative than Warner.
Gilmore does not have money. He must run a grassroots campaign. If Gilmore can gain Marshall’s support, the volunteers that Marshall can rally will be invaluable to him.
I for one will not support Gilmore until he changes his position.
PWConservative – Your inaction will contribute to the election of Mark Warner. How do you justify that?
“What Marshall seems to be doing is forgetting that modern politicians do not take mudslinging personally. Politicians pretend they are not angry. They forget and mend their differences. ”
This is interesting! Thanks for the insight. I never really have understood how politicians view mudslinging and all that because they have these poker faces….and I’ve never been a politician.
kgotthardt – Politics substitutes cutting words for cleaving swords. Instead of bullets the footsoldiers of our civil wars use ballots. Nonetheless, wounds still fester in the souls of the combatants. But we don’t want to see those wounds. We don’t want to be reminded of the seriousness of the contests. That is particularly so if we see big government as a solution to all our cares and concerns.