It is what it says it is.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Grrr! Grrr! The fur starts to fly

EMILY's List must know what it's up against. It's decided to try to beat up Cafaro early, as it got an article in today's Plain Dealer essentially trying to link Capri Cafaro to Traficant. Again, only surprise is that it's happening this early. Considering the effort to take her out this early, we're starting to think that the people in the know think Cafaro is the front-runner.

In reading the article, it's clear that we have two candidates very different in style. Capri Cafaro is quoted in the article with the following:

"If these people want to place the sins of my father upon me, that's testimony of how bankrupt these people are of real ideas and real solutions!" Cafaro said. "They're throwing up this puff of smoke because I'm not an ideologue. They're upset because I support parental notification for a minor child seeking an abortion."

Sutton's response:

Sutton, asked whether she supports parental notification for minors, said it is an involved question and that "issues of reproductive health must be between a woman and her doctor."

One is direct, one kinda dodges the question. Cafaro, who received criticism in her previous race for not responding vigorously to the "Traficant" attacks, appears to have learned her lesson. Sutton comes off as more measured and more like a politician, not even taking a stand on an issue where anyone who's done a Lexis-Nexis search or checked out her voting record knows where she stands. We think Sutton can do better, and will need to in order to win this race. Her staffers should make sure she never uses the term "involved question" again, to be sure.

It is notable that already, the rest of the field, including Tom Sawyer, has been reduced to "other Democrats running" status; no comments from any of them on this issue. That should be considered a huge win for Sutton and Cafaro. If they are able to be seen as the only legitimate candidates in the media, that's half the battle.

Well, we'll have more later. And we'll give a shout out to the EMILY's list staffer or staffers who drop by regularly. Thanks for your readership.

Ohio13

6 Comments:

Blogger wpblogger said...

Just a quick note. The term "involved question" was not included in her quote and anyone who has dealt extensively with the media knows that what was in the article was a summary, not the complete work.

Next, "Sins of my father upon me" is not entirely accurate. Immunity is not granted for to those who are entirely innocent.

2:20 PM

 
Blogger Ohio 13 said...

With all due respect, and we understand your concern, at least for the first part, we stand by our reporting. The phrasing of the indirect quotation makes it likely that she did say that.

As for the second part, we will contact a few lawyers and check on it. At least two of us suspect that your analysis is wrong there (the third leans your way on it), but we'll check it out. Thanks for reading, and commenting.

OH13

3:51 PM

 
Blogger wpblogger said...

On the first point, I personally try noit to atribuite words to some one that are not direct quotes. I will not argue that it is likely, but I guess I am just one of those people who are too careful.

As far as the second, to stay consistent with my first comment. I am not saying Ms. Cafaro did anything wrong, I would not want to say that without any real facts to support. However, much like your belief that an indrect quote leads one to believe the comments were made. Immunity in a federal trial is equally as probative of there being something amiss. Thanks for your kind and honest responses and I will try to post more in the future.

4:41 PM

 
Blogger wpblogger said...

Sorry about the typos, how irresponsible.

4:41 PM

 
Blogger Ohio 13 said...

No worries... didn't notice the typos, as we make our fair share here... Thanks for commenting

6:32 PM

 
Blogger harpiequeen said...

Wait a minute. In the Traficant proceedings, Capri admitted that she gave campaign contributions under her own name and then was reimbursed by her father -- an illegal campaign contribution, which is why she had immunity. When LaTourette ran ads calling this "money laundering" in '04, Cafaro took him to court to try and get the ads off the air and the judge said no, that her actions basically did constitue money laundering and the criticism was legit.

These are not "sins of the father," babe.

8:46 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home