Schmidt Begs Wulsin; Stop Attack Ads
Schmidt campaign failing with 70% of voters. What happened to truth and fairness in reporting? Less than two weeks before the November election, Jean Schmidt says she is NOW willing to conduct her campaign "openly and cleanly" in a pledge which would halt personal attacks. Schmidt calls it her "Clean Campaign Pledge" and she offered it to Wulsin and Krikorian during the WCET debate on Wednesday, October 22, 2008. She made it clear after the debate, however, that she's NOT willing to do this unless her two opponents agree to sign her pledge. Otherwise, it's dirty politics as usual. So much for principles.
The Krikorian for Congress campaign can't decide which is worse, Schmidt's disingenuous desire to "play nice" less than two weeks before the election or Wulsin's after debate response stating she has "always run a clean campaign". Both are tough sells to anyone who's been paying any attention to either of their campaigns.
Per Ben Fischer's political blog on Cincinnati.com (posted October 22, 2008), " the National Republican Congressional Committee has an ad up running right now slamming Wulsin. That's an independent expenditure, which Schmidt said she "would repudiate" if her opponents went along with the pledge. But she won't repudiate it until then." That means Schmidt can sign the pledge, the NRCC can run her attack ads for her, while she repudiates. Does that sound like clean campaigning?
Contrast this with David Krikorian who decided the day he entered the race to conduct his campaign "openly and cleanly" and he has. Krikorian does not represent a political party and does not accept contributions from PACs or special interest groups. He is running to represent the people of OH2. The Krikorian for Congress campaign has focused on the issues throughout the US House race and has avoided the bitter and personal attacks constantly leveled by Schmidt and Wulsin. The Wulsin campaign, for example, has devoted an entire website (embarrassedbyschmidt.com) to expose a multitude of Schmidt's past issues with the truth, while Schmidt has accused Wulsin of controversial experiments and a host of other offenses. At KrikorianforCongress.com, you won't find any of this. Our website, like our campaign, is focused on the issues.
"Schmidt didn't need my help to create her low approval ratings," says David Krikorian. "Her past record, theatrical debate performances and general lack of understanding of the economic issues facing our country has voters justifiably concerned, while Wulsin also lacks the understanding, background and experience in business and finance to address those issues. Our economic security is at stake and Schmidt is so upset about Wulsin's attack ads, she wants to call a two-week truce. It might have something to do with the fact her campaign is failing with 70% of the voters. Our in house tracking survey has been showing that voters are very dissatisfied with Schmidt as their Representative to Congress."
In regards to Ben Fischer's article (Debate focuses on economy, October 23, 2008), it is almost as disappointing as Schmidt's "Clean Campaign" stunt and the first on-line reaction calls him on it. The reaction challenges the objectivity of the report and the fact that Krikorian's comments where not reported in proper context. Excerpts of the online reaction: "Krikorian proposed to eliminate the federal Dept. of Ed because of redundancies at the state and local level. He proposed to modernize our broken entitlement system because it is insolvent. It was all in response to a question about cutting spending, and [Krikorian] looked at real ways we can cut, including our foreign intervention [His opponents] can only talk about "pork barrel spending", which comprises less than 1% of our national budget. Way to step up and make some hard choices!" It's for this very reason our government doesn't balance the budget. Spending is easy, it's the not spending that's difficult.
"In response to Schmidt's pledge," said David Krikorian. "I had the opportunity to read it after the debate. First of all, let's be clear, I haven't ran any attack ads against either of my opponents and do not plan to. Why should I sign a pledge to stop doing what only Schmidt and Wulsin have done? In the debate, Schmidt dramatically said the voters "deserve" her "Clean Campaign Pledge", but she's been UNWILLING to campaign cleanly in this and past elections. Wulsin too. Only my campaign has given the voters what they "deserve" according to Schmidt.
While my opponents have been spending their PAC and special interest contributions on attack ads, I've been out meeting the voters from one end of OH2 to the other. I've been running an issue-based, grassroots campaign. I have met and spoken with thousands of voters about the issues and specifically my plan to restore our economic security (The Krikorian Plan). Schmidt and Wulsin don't have plans so they take the low road, while I take the road to the voters."
"I'm concerned signing this pledge would imply I am guilty of something I'm not," continues David Krikorian. "Let the two guilty parties sign. I don't want to join their guilt club. My principles guide me. I don't need a two week pledge to do what's right. The people of OH2 deserve better.
I instead challenge my opponents to drop all TV advertising and to agree to a third televised debate which would help my opponents focus on the issues and allow the voters of OH2 to better decide who they want to represent them."