Ohio2006 Blog

News, analysis, and comments on Ohio elections.

Monday, October 30

Ohio Sen 3rd: Dispatch Endorsement of Goodman (R) Draws Fire

The lame endorsement by the Columbus Dispatch of incumbent Sen. David Goodman (R-New Albany) over energetic challenger Emily Kreider (D-Westerville) has attracted well-deserved criticism. From Democratic Underground:
Looks like the Columbus Dispatch may have dropped the ball on [their] endorsement of State Sen. David Goodman. As I recall it was not so long ago that the Dispatch was telling us we should not vote for candidates that sling mud at [their] opponents on TV. Well as we all know David Goodman [has] done nothing more than attack his opponent with over $1,000,000 worth of TV ads to date. Yet the dispatch went out of its way this morning in making the most unbelievable statements I have heard so far this fall about Emily Kreider: "her attacks against Goodman [...] have been shrill and sometimes ill-considered." Come on, Mrs. Kreider is running one of the best campaigns I have seen in a long time. She has knocked on over 6,000 doors. It is grass roots as well as informative to the people of the 3rd Senate [District]. Emily Kreider has worked hard to take the high road in this race as she is still being attack[ed] by Goodman and his Republican party. David Goodman is hiding, he will not tell us what he has done or what he will do for the people of central Ohio. Mr. Goodman sir you are a coward along with your Friends at the Dispatch.
From Blue Bexley:
I challenge the Dispatch or the Goodman campaign to name one shrill attack she or her staff has made against Goodman regarding school funding. One. I know there are a number of Goodman supporters who read this blog. If there is such an attack out there, point me to it. I think that I've been more attuned to every piece of public information in this campaign than anyone, including the Dispatch editorial board, and I can't think of one. They state that there have been 'attacks' (plural). I won't call them out as blatant liars if someone can point out just one single shrill or ill-considered attack that I've missed. ...

... I don't fault the Goodman team for having campaign talking points, I blame the Dispatch for writing something that sounds like it came (to paraphrase one of the more apropos recent criticisms of one of my pieces) from a clueless high-schooler. ...
I've met Kreider several times and I read the Dispatch endorsement and it is totally wrong-headed. Their backhanded dismissal of her innovative, positive campaign as "simplistic" and "shrill" is simply ridiculous. They praise Goodman for his talking point of wanting to "reduce wasteful duplication and competition" in college education, but that turns out to be merely a disguise for buying into Ken Blackwell's dangerously extreme educational platform. Goodman is the candidate who said in a debate that he doesn't need this job, and the voters ought to go ahead and relieve him of it.

I wish Ohioans would draw the right conclusion from the fact that the Republicans are spending a million dollars to try to fend off a challenge by a political newcomer, most of it devoted to their truly absurd attack on whether she voted in every election going back to her mid-twenties. The fact is, Goodman has a miserable record of non-accomplishment, and the residents of the 3rd District deserve better. In any event, money doesn't always carry the day in elections, especially in a year like this, and Kreider has the benefit of an endorsement by the Suburban News Publications and a formidable array of willing volunteers.

Goodman is using the utterly baseless "shrill and misleading attacks" language from the Dispatch endorsement in a new TV attack ad running today. Disgusting.


At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are you censoring posts?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home