|
Planted?
Monday, Jun 12, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller Take a look at this profile of Republican attorney general candidate Stu Umholtz and tell me if you notice anything missing. Don’t worry. I’ll wait. Take your time. Did you catch it? Not a single criticism of his Democratic opponent Lisa Madigan. He talks about applying the Open Meetings Act to the General Assembly. He criticizes Rod Blagojevich. He mentions the pension raids. He talks about the lottery sale. And he closes with this never-before uttered line: “I believe if the folks in Illinois want to see change in how the people’s business is being conducted, then my candidacy will be seen as the best opportunity for change,” he said. Not a word about Lisa. I’m starting to wonder if the Speaker had something to do with Stu’s candidacy.
|
 |
|
|
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 6:34 am:
Gee, positive (except for Blah-Blah) campaigning.
The guy doesn’t have a chance.
- annon. in central illinois - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 6:40 am:
Stu who ????????? Haven’t seen that guy since before the primary.
- Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 6:56 am:
Has he been seen with Ryan Chlada (sp.?), who ran such a spirited campaign against Son-of-Lipinski? (My apologies to Rich Koz!)
- Beowulf - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 8:55 am:
Or, the possibility exists that there is not a whole lot to criticize. As a GOP voter, I don’t have a hard time accepting Lisa Madigan as my state’s attorney-general. Maybe I am naieve but I really believe she is her own woman. I don’t buy into the criticisms that she takes her orders from her step-father, Mike Madigan. I am under the impression that if she found it necessary in her role of Illinois Attorney-General, she would even prosecute leading members of her own Democrat Party or even Mike Madigan himself.
I view her in much the same vein that I view Barack Obama. I believe that they are “not” beholden to the old school of politics that you are required to sell your first born in order to pay back your Party for their support in getting elected. Lisa and Barack are a breath of fresh air in regards to the old school Democrat politicians.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 9:21 am:
What he is doing is running a great campaign. If it works this time, fine. When you are in a position like he is, it is better to focus on running a great campaign and making contacts and friends, than going negative and losing anyway.
He is working the turf and showing he can run. That gives him a leg up for the next campaign.
And for some reason, if Lisa loses, he wins and that would be fine too.
- Negative campaigning - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 10:01 am:
You guys in the media kill me. YOu b*tch and moan everytime a guy goes negative about negative campaigning. Once a guy stays positive and talks about his ideas, you b*tch and moan he isn’t going negative. Unbelivable. Stu is doing the right thing. Chances are, he cannot win. So run a positive campaign to bank some good will.
- Randall Sherman - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 10:05 am:
Rich, it took you until mid-June to realize that?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 10:35 am:
Beowulf,
Where can I get some of whatever the hell it is that you’re smoking?
- Lovie's Leather - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 12:04 pm:
We all knew 2 years ago that the Comptroller, SOS, and AG would all get reelected. The only person that didn’t know that was Dan Rutherford. I am not going to say that Stu is a stand-in…. But nobody wanted to run for AG or Comptroller. I am sure he had to be coaxed… maybe even by Big Papa….
- Wumpus - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 3:01 pm:
It is easy for Lisa to be her own woman, when daddy get’s her elected and has the big stick behind her. I am not saying is incompetent, but she’d be nothing if her last name weren’t Madigan. Maybe she should take her spouses name and see.
- One Man Can Make A Difference - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 3:03 pm:
Either way Rich it wouldn’t matter. All the things he talks about are the same things that Attorney General Madigan are ignoring.
So if his candidacy is a ploy, he’ll only bring the AG’s faults and failures to the limelight in which she’ll have to respond.
Lastly, AG Madigan will be disqualified in a lawsuit to be exposed soon. She’ll have to answer why she ignored the blatant corruption outlined in the complaint.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:17 pm:
“Negative campaigning” wrote: ===You guys in the media kill me. YOu b*tch and moan everytime a guy goes negative about negative campaigning. Once a guy stays positive and talks about his ideas, you b*tch and moan he isn’t going negative. ===
Sorry, but you missed the point entirely. He IS running a negative campaign… just not against his opponent. He’s criticizing the governor and the legislature, but not Lisa. Don’t you find that odd?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:20 pm:
Stu also said that his campaign is “the best opportunity for change.” But changing what?
- Uncle Slappy - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:41 pm:
Oh, the joys of nepotism. He’s criticizing Blago because Mr. Speaker hates Blago. He’s criticizing the legislature because it’s an entire institution comprised of both parties, rather than an individual who can be hurt by it at election time. I think it’s a pretty fair bet that Rich has hit the mark on this one. I think (unfortunately) we’ll be stuck with daddy’s little girl for one more term as AG (gee, what shrewd legal intellect and years of experience she brought to the job), then several as governor, allowing daddy to singlehandedly run the entire state. No, wait, Lisa’s an independent woman. I forgot.
- 'TGG' - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 8:45 pm:
Stu isn’t the only GOP candidate not criticizing the Dem opponent/incumbent.
The GOP candidates for secretary of state, treasurer and comptroller also have not attacked their opponents by name.
Think it’s part of the GOP strategy to reserve all the venom for the dummy at the top of the Dem ticket?
It certainly looks that way.