Subodh Chandra on discussing your opponent's record

This post is the next installment of my write-up of the event with Subodh Chandra in Columbus this past Saturday. Click here for the last post. It the last part of his talk, right before he broke for questions.

Next, Subodh brought up the issue that "we're not supposed to go after our fellow Democrats" in the primary. (All the Democrats who ganged up on Howard Dean in late 2003 and early 2004 must never have gotten that memo.)

Why? Because we all want desperately to win. None of us want to upset the apple cart. But there are certain issues that become legitimate, and fair game. And if one is going to tout one's experience as a lawyer as a justification for why they should be hired for Attorney General, then it is a legitimate point of discussion to say, "Okay, let's talk about how well we've done the job."

It's perfectly legitimate. And if we don't do it, my friends--you know, this group isn't just a group of progressive organizations, this is an organization of recovering mourners of lost elections. Right? I'm a charter member. And why do we mourn? We mourn, not because of all the hard work we put in, because all of us are used to hard work. And all of us would be devoting our energies into anything productive if it weren't for the election. No, we don't mourn for the hard work we put in. We mourn for the people we were trying to help. That's what we mourn for.

So we better understand that if we bury our heads in the sand, we will get kicked from behind. And whatever discussions that we have or fail to have now about people's backgrounds and their preparation for the job, nothing compares to what the Republicans will do. Because as much as I feel right now, in trying to discuss things, that I've got one hand tied behind my back, they'll use both fists, their knees, their feet, knives, and the weapons that they're concealing. (Audience laughs)

So, as a result of having done this background check, I'm not in a position to have anything new come out. And so what this choice is going to come down to is between qualifications, preparation, record of accomplishment on one hand, and background on the other is this...

Whom would you trust to be your lawyer? Would you trust somebody-would you *trust* somebody who actually too on predatory lenders once and Jim Petro and beat them in court? Or would you trust somebody who has to explain now, why a client in his firm's care served four months for a crime that had been struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court and repealed, and didn't exist?

Would you trust somebody who has actually slashed outside counsel spending, and *saved* the state money that can be spent on more productive purposes, or, a theoretician. Maybe well intended, but hasn't done it. Those are the kinds of challenges that face us.

Regardless of the outcome, we cannot permit Betty Montgomery to be the next Attorney General. We cannot. As a Democrat, I have to tell you, I believe strongly in recycling, but there are some substances that are too toxic, and too worn out, to be recycled. And Betty Montgomery is one of them.

See also Ohio Coingate - We have a new Rock Star by Pounder

Alternate link for comments