Friday, May 5, 2017

Just When I Was Defending Dora...

I should've known better than to defend her after all the dirty campaign stunts she's pulled over the years. So that's my bad.

After seeing the television coverage of the call and finding out that Dora was pitching the story to media and wanting to be interviewed it made me realize something important.

I wouldn't put it past Dora to have sent the call herself in order to manufacture coverage and controversy.

When I watched her speak on camera about not engaging in dirty campaign tactics on the very same day a really negative piece of mail landed against Rep Limon is when it clicked. Limon hasn't sent out negative material. I think she should have, but it's not her thing. So it's highly unlikely that it came from her campaign.

Acosta's comments seem all too convenient and rehearsed.

Dora on the other hand has refined dirty campaigning to nuclear-grade capacity. I'm not saying she did it, but I'm not saying she wouldn't be above that either.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can see her making the "wandering eye" comment, but not the rest about the Gandaras. That is too much a blow to her ego.

Not sure why you think Limon is truthful and above dirty politics. Maybe she hasn't sent out negative campaign material because she did the anonymous robocall?

Limon is nastier than Acosta, and that is saying a lot.

The Lion Star said...

If you can show me one piece of negative campaign material from Limon I will happily admit I'm wrong.

I'm just telling you it's not her campaign style and if she was gonna do the call, why would she do something that would do obviously be assumed to be from her without putting her name on it? Why manufacture sympathy for Dora? And why hit Acosta when some of her own supporters are voting for acosta because she's a Democrat.

Makes no sense.

But it does make sense if you like attention, want sympathy, and are trying to rehab your image.

Anonymous said...

It was the Russians! (Or forma? They're sort of like our local Russian agents, no?)