Catania mailing with Bowser's photo next to "Scandal" like the tv show & referring to the show

[jsteele]

I think the flyer is an obvious winner because this thread has people talking about Bowser and scandal, something the Washington Post editorial board ignored and few beyond me have discussed here previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's going to backfire. (I will never vote for Bowser btw and will probably vote for Catania.) But here's the thing -- people love Kerry Washington and somehow this equates Bowser with Washington so it feels like a) an attack on the much-beloved Washington and/or b) drawing attention to Bowser as comparable black woman leader and attacking her for fitting into that category.

I know there are posters who will call me crazy for this but that's how it felt to me. Instead of just attacking Bowser's choices, it categorizes her as a black female who should be attacked for her choices.

Ding, ding. Kerry Washington is the hottest personality in black culture right now. Any attempt to link Bowser to KW's character is only a positive for Bowser.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I think the flyer is an obvious winner because this thread has people talking about Bowser and scandal, something the Washington Post editorial board ignored and few beyond me have discussed here previously.

We're not talking about Bowser and scandal.

We're talking about Bowser and Scandal.

See the difference?

[Anonymous]

I didn't catch the TV reference, but the mailer flipped me from on the fence and leaning Catania to Bowser. I think this sort of attack is pretty dirty and mean-spirited politics. Catania already has a reputation for being nasty and unable to get along with people. This move confirms that reputation. It's not his best quality. I loath the DC machine, but i fon't want an *sshole for a mayor either.

[Anonymous]

^^^don't

[Anonymous]

^^^don't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't catch the TV reference, but the mailer flipped me from on the fence and leaning Catania to Bowser. I think this sort of attack is pretty dirty and mean-spirited politics. Catania already has a reputation for being nasty and unable to get along with people. This move confirms that reputation. It's not his best quality. I loath the DC machine, but i fon't want an *sshole for a mayor either.

This sounds like a flack for the Bowser campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't catch the TV reference, but the mailer flipped me from on the fence and leaning Catania to Bowser. I think this sort of attack is pretty dirty and mean-spirited politics. Catania already has a reputation for being nasty and unable to get along with people. This move confirms that reputation. It's not his best quality. I loath the DC machine, but i fon't want an *sshole for a mayor either.

This sounds like a flack for the Bowser campaign.

Nope. I have been on the receiving end of this sort of tactic as a campaign staffer, but that was a long time ago in another state. I just don't respect it and I loath the cynicism that drives it. Instant turn-off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't catch the TV reference, but the mailer flipped me from on the fence and leaning Catania to Bowser. I think this sort of attack is pretty dirty and mean-spirited politics. Catania already has a reputation for being nasty and unable to get along with people. This move confirms that reputation. It's not his best quality. I loath the DC machine, but i fon't want an *sshole for a mayor either.

This sounds like a flack for the Bowser campaign.

Nope. I have been on the receiving end of this sort of tactic as a campaign staffer, but that was a long time ago in another state. I just don't respect it and I loath the cynicism that drives it. Instant turn-off.

PP Again. Plus, it wasn't that smart. Any campaign worth its salt knows it's very hard for male candidates to attack female candidates without looking like jerks. (Lots of research on this.) A male candidate with a likeability problem isn't going to improve his chances by attacking a woman who is generally perceived as nice. It's a dumb move.

[jsteele]

Interesting that being a jerk is apparently worse than being corrupt. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Interesting that being a jerk is apparently worse than being corrupt. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

I'm the pp you are referencing. Cynicism is a corruption and it's profoundly damaging to our government and polity. I was ready to vote for Catania, jerk and all, but when he went negative like that it showed me that he's corrupt too, if more subtly so. So it's not just that he's a jerk. He's cynical. Much worse.

Not to mention, he has plenty of record to run on, why go there? Women are typically perceived as less qualified, even when they are better than their male competitors, and in this case, he had a legitimate claim to the argument that he's got the better track record. All he had to do was keep pounding that message. The comparison was obvious. There's nothing he gains by painting her as corrupt that he doesn't already get by highlighting the differences in their policy accomplishments.

And yes, being a male perceived as a jerk when running against a woman who is not so perceived is, generally speaking, not a winning position. Voters don't like to see men being mean to women. (Hillary might be the exception, but that's because we think she's strong enough to take it.)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Interesting that being a jerk is apparently worse than being corrupt. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

I'm the pp you are referencing. Cynicism is a corruption and it's profoundly damaging to our government and polity. I was ready to vote for Catania, jerk and all, but when he went negative like that it showed me that he's corrupt too, if more subtly so. So it's not just that he's a jerk. He's cynical. Much worse.

Not to mention, he has plenty of record to run on, why go there? Women are typically perceived as less qualified, even when they are better than their male competitors, and in this case, he had a legitimate claim to the argument that he's got the better track record. All he had to do was keep pounding that message. The comparison was obvious. There's nothing he gains by painting her as corrupt that he doesn't already get by highlighting the differences in their policy accomplishments.

And yes, being a male perceived as a jerk when running against a woman who is not so perceived is, generally speaking, not a winning position. Voters don't like to see men being mean to women. (Hillary might be the exception, but that's because we think she's strong enough to take it.)

This is one of the strangest, most baffling arguments I encountered in ages. Apparently to you, everything is about process. Catania is being judged on his campaign tactics, not the realities on the ground. I assume that you are aware that when Catania questioned Bowser's record, he was accused of being racist and sexist? Did you see the debate in which Bowser objected to Catania saying that her school plan was a "platitude" (her school plan is "Alice Deal for All") and Bowser interrupted him and told Kojo Nnamdi, "you know why he is doing it, Kojo"? When questioned about her record by the Washington Post, she said such questions were asked because she was a young, black, woman.

During this campaign, Bowser lost her top strategist because of his involvement in an illegal shadow campaign in Philadelphia, she has stood by two supporters (one of whom is her East of the River coordinator) who are under federal investigation due to missing rent payments at Park Southern, and she has associated herself with a corrupt former city official who is involved with an illegal shadow campaign. Yet, to suggest that Bowser is linked to scandal is "cynical" and, moreover, that "cynicism" is worse than the actual corruption that is rife in the Bowser campaign.

I can understand objections to the campaign tactic. But, knowingly ignoring actual scandal because someone called it a "Scandal" makes know sense at all.

Can you confirm that your actual, real-life position is: Bowser's ties to multiple scandals is less important than Catania's campaign flyer?

I seriously have a hard time believing that an otherwise intelligent person would have that position. So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Interesting that being a jerk is apparently worse than being corrupt. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

I'm the pp you are referencing. Cynicism is a corruption and it's profoundly damaging to our government and polity. I was ready to vote for Catania, jerk and all, but when he went negative like that it showed me that he's corrupt too, if more subtly so. So it's not just that he's a jerk. He's cynical. Much worse.

Not to mention, he has plenty of record to run on, why go there? Women are typically perceived as less qualified, even when they are better than their male competitors, and in this case, he had a legitimate claim to the argument that he's got the better track record. All he had to do was keep pounding that message. The comparison was obvious. There's nothing he gains by painting her as corrupt that he doesn't already get by highlighting the differences in their policy accomplishments.

And yes, being a male perceived as a jerk when running against a woman who is not so perceived is, generally speaking, not a winning position. Voters don't like to see men being mean to women. (Hillary might be the exception, but that's because we think she's strong enough to take it.)

This is one of the strangest, most baffling arguments I encountered in ages. Apparently to you, everything is about process. Catania is being judged on his campaign tactics, not the realities on the ground. I assume that you are aware that when Catania questioned Bowser's record, he was accused of being racist and sexist? Did you see the debate in which Bowser objected to Catania saying that her school plan was a "platitude" (her school plan is "Alice Deal for All") and Bowser interrupted him and told Kojo Nnamdi, "you know why he is doing it, Kojo"? When questioned about her record by the Washington Post, she said such questions were asked because she was a young, black, woman.

During this campaign, Bowser lost her top strategist because of his involvement in an illegal shadow campaign in Philadelphia, she has stood by two supporters (one of whom is her East of the River coordinator) who are under federal investigation due to missing rent payments at Park Southern, and she has associated herself with a corrupt former city official who is involved with an illegal shadow campaign. Yet, to suggest that Bowser is linked to scandal is "cynical" and, moreover, that "cynicism" is worse than the actual corruption that is rife in the Bowser campaign.

I can understand objections to the campaign tactic. But, knowingly ignoring actual scandal because someone called it a "Scandal" makes know sense at all.

Can you confirm that your actual, real-life position is: Bowser's ties to multiple scandals is less important than Catania's campaign flyer?

I seriously have a hard time believing that an otherwise intelligent person would have that position. So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding.

Let me simplify: Bowser is part of a corrupt machine. Big news. Ha! I don't see the DC machine changing under anyone, except possibly Wells, but if it can be harnessed to do some good, we might get a decent chance at a reasonable city government. So, I guess that kind of corruption doesn't worry me that much because I kind of see it as impossible to change and maybe not necessarily a total impediment to effective governance. Is the assumption that clean government = good government really true?

Now, explain to me how an angry, cynical guy who is willing to engage in negative and discredited campaign tactics will be able to govern? He already alienated everyone and now he's lost the moral high ground so he can't even shame people into better behavior.

Maybe I should be voting for Carol.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Interesting that being a jerk is apparently worse than being corrupt. I guess we get the leaders we deserve.

I'm the pp you are referencing. Cynicism is a corruption and it's profoundly damaging to our government and polity. I was ready to vote for Catania, jerk and all, but when he went negative like that it showed me that he's corrupt too, if more subtly so. So it's not just that he's a jerk. He's cynical. Much worse.

Not to mention, he has plenty of record to run on, why go there? Women are typically perceived as less qualified, even when they are better than their male competitors, and in this case, he had a legitimate claim to the argument that he's got the better track record. All he had to do was keep pounding that message. The comparison was obvious. There's nothing he gains by painting her as corrupt that he doesn't already get by highlighting the differences in their policy accomplishments.

And yes, being a male perceived as a jerk when running against a woman who is not so perceived is, generally speaking, not a winning position. Voters don't like to see men being mean to women. (Hillary might be the exception, but that's because we think she's strong enough to take it.)

This is one of the strangest, most baffling arguments I encountered in ages. Apparently to you, everything is about process. Catania is being judged on his campaign tactics, not the realities on the ground. I assume that you are aware that when Catania questioned Bowser's record, he was accused of being racist and sexist? Did you see the debate in which Bowser objected to Catania saying that her school plan was a "platitude" (her school plan is "Alice Deal for All") and Bowser interrupted him and told Kojo Nnamdi, "you know why he is doing it, Kojo"? When questioned about her record by the Washington Post, she said such questions were asked because she was a young, black, woman.

During this campaign, Bowser lost her top strategist because of his involvement in an illegal shadow campaign in Philadelphia, she has stood by two supporters (one of whom is her East of the River coordinator) who are under federal investigation due to missing rent payments at Park Southern, and she has associated herself with a corrupt former city official who is involved with an illegal shadow campaign. Yet, to suggest that Bowser is linked to scandal is "cynical" and, moreover, that "cynicism" is worse than the actual corruption that is rife in the Bowser campaign.

I can understand objections to the campaign tactic. But, knowingly ignoring actual scandal because someone called it a "Scandal" makes know sense at all.

Can you confirm that your actual, real-life position is: Bowser's ties to multiple scandals is less important than Catania's campaign flyer?

I seriously have a hard time believing that an otherwise intelligent person would have that position. So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding.

Let me simplify: Bowser is part of a corrupt machine. Big news. Ha! I don't see the DC machine changing under anyone, except possibly Wells, but if it can be harnessed to do some good, we might get a decent chance at a reasonable city government. So, I guess that kind of corruption doesn't worry me that much because I kind of see it as impossible to change and maybe not necessarily a total impediment to effective governance. Is the assumption that clean government = good government really true?

Now, explain to me how an angry, cynical guy who is willing to engage in negative and discredited campaign tactics will be able to govern? He already alienated everyone and now he's lost the moral high ground so he can't even shame people into better behavior.

Maybe I should be voting for Carol.

If he wins the election, he will obviously not have alienated everyone. He has always been aggressive, yet has managed to pass an amazing amount of legislation. If you want the machine to change, the obvious choice is someone who is not beholden to the machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be precise, Tommy Wells retweeted message from Dave Stroup, former digital communications manager at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, saying that he, Dave Stroup, is not impressed by it (meaning the mailer).

Emblematic of Wells' irrelevance. He should hand back his paycheck.