An Ohio Ceasefire...On Two Blogs, At Least

Tim Russo (the prominent Ohio blogger/politico) and I this morning emailed back and forth and, at least between the two of us, came up with a pretty solid agreement about how we will both write about the Ohio Senate race in the future. Bottom line: substance and issue positions are fair game, personal attacks are not.

Here's what we basically agreed on: its fine - and even good - to use blogs and the media to get candidates all over the country to elucidate their positions on issues and to fact check candidates statements. That is the basic definition of public education, and we should all want the public to be educated about the issues and candidates before votes are cast. It is even fine to advocate for one candidate over another.

But ascribing motives about the candidates as people will be out of bounds, at least on both of our blogs - as will trying to ascribe nefarious motives of bloggers/writers when those bloggers/writers have none.

On the candidate stuff, for instance, there's a case to be made that my rhetoric was too heated when I debunked Paul Hackett's he claim that Sherrod Brown voted for the 2003 Iraq invasion because Brown voted for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. However, it wasn't over the line for me to point out that Hackett's statement was highly inaccurate, and deliberately so. Thus, from now on, when issues like that come up on either side, we should just point it out as factually inaccurate, but try to keep the rhetoric less charged.

On the blogger/writer stuff, for instance, many have claimed that I either used to work for or currently work for Sherrod Brown, or have personally profited from Brown's campaign - that's just absolutely, 100% not true. And Tim has agreed to not spread that inaccurate claim anymore.

The truth is, both Brown and Hackett are heroes in their own ways, both good people, and ultimately on the same side in trying to take down right-wing Republicans. Sure, I may like one candidate in this race, and others may like another candidate, but we should focus on trying to get BOTH of these candidates on record on the issues. That doesn't mean we have to go easy on them - on the contrary, I think it is critical to hold their feet to the fire, and be tenacious. But we must be tenacious in focusing like a laser on the issues (not the charisma, petty scandals, and personal attacks) because ultimately, where they are on the issues is really what's most important. If they are elected, their main job will be to cast votes - and it is important that we know where they are on these issues so that we know how they will cast their votes.

I pledge to do my best to stick to that issue focus as this all moves forward - and I appreciate others like Tim who understand the importance of this focus, too. I'm hopeful other bloggers who are covering this race will try to keep the focus on the issues. Hell, if Tim and I can agree, I think others can too.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry