Don’t worry…I’ll be sure to follow you around and refute this wherever you may decide to post the same nonsense.

The paid for line is “Paid for and Authorized by Friends of Jeanette Rishell”. This isn’t an independent expenditure. I believe that there will be a tremendous backlash against this piece. Rishell will be asked to back up these attacks with fact, and will either be proven to be a liar, or is stretching the truth so far that she cannot make her case. Whichever, this was a big, big mistake.

As you pointed out, a campaign can work “negative” and be effective, as long a reasonable person can make the connection, when presented with supporting facts. However, if the supporting facts are weak, then the campaign looks foolish. If their is no supporting fact, and the campaign proven to be making false accusations, then they look desperate.

I would guess that Rishell has been getting an earful when she goes door to door, and her poll-numbers aren’t moving in a positive direction, so they decided to do a hit-piece. Problem is, all it will end up doing is pissing people off at her, and will end up losing ground as a result. Also, she fired the first shot in this cycle. Look for the Miller campaign to hit back…hard. I believe an immigration piece would do the trick, as Rishell has plenty to cite showing she’s not only weak on immigration, but actually “pro-illegal”.

I’m very disappointed; I have no problem going negative on someone as long as there is factual evidence to back it up. This seems to be a big stretch at best.

See the post before this. Greg got a picture up before I could finish my post.

Frankly, I was shocked too. I would have put money on this kind of attack being beneath Rishell, whom I have always thought of as being very nice. I assumed that someone from her campaign would have posted by now telling us when Miller voted to raise his own salary. That is such a clear statement of fact that I assumed they would have some evidence to back it up. But two days after the mailer went out, nobody has been able to find any vote, in Richmond or on the Manassas City Council, that would have raised his salary. You just don’t see blatant lies like that very often. That is, lies referring to a specific, definable event that not only didn’t happen, but which is easy to prove did not happen.

The thought of political power affects some people badly, I guess.

Do you happen to have an image of this piece? I would really like to see the whole thing.

I am shocked that Jeanette would be out something this negative (in addition to the “Bad Hand” piece discussed earlier).

Prove it.

4-5-06 - 12 min. late
7-5-06 - absent - organizational meeting only (swearing in of new council members)

In fact, out of the 57 meetings (the amount of meetings in 2006 held before Miller was sworn in as delegate.) Miller was late or absent 28% of the time.

Late - 9 times
Absent - 7 times

The real story is in what he actually missed.

2-6-06 - 11 min. late
2-13-06 - 2 min. late
3-15-06 - 7 min. late
3-22-06 - 12 min. late
6-5-06 - absent - informational meeting only. no missed city votes.
6-7-06 - absent ” ”
6-21-06 - absent ” ”
7-19-06 - 15 min. late
7-24-06 - 8 min. late
9-13-06 - absent - missed consent agenda vote only. nothing serious.
10-4-06 - absent - ” ”
10-18-06 - absent - informational meeting only. no missed city votes.
10-30-06 - 5 min. late
11-13-06 - 37min. late

41 other meetings he was on time and present. Dosn’t seem like such a big deal really. When you look at the minutes, Miller didnt miss much more than the rest of the city council.

As I have said before, I disagree with Jackson quite often but have found him to be very honest and forthcoming. When Jackson sent out hard hitting mail last year against Rishell it was issue oriented and as Mr. Harrison pointed out in this post, he always referenced where he got the quote or information. This piece references nothing. I thought some of it was slightly negative but it was never over the top.

Rishells piece today is hardly issue oriented. In fact this piece basically attacks Miller the person. Not Miller the politician. It calls him greedy, corrupt, and lazy. It says nothing about the issues or where he stands on the issues.

1. GREEDY - votes for a self pay raise.
2. CORRUPT - makes votes to line his own pockets.
3. LAZY - misses or is late for 25% of his council meetings in 2006.

Jeanette, this is as nasty a piece as I have seen in Manassas politics. This makes the Chapman/Parrish primary (which was the most negative race I had ever seen in Manassas) look like vanilla pudding.