Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Make Believe


Now Kennedy is depicting that she has actually done stuff in court. Kennedy, the oft mistaken Democratic candidate for Marion County Prosecutor, is pretending to be a trial attorney in her latest commercial. In the ad, Kennedy is seen asking questions of a witness in a courtroom with the word experienced.

The Marion County Republican Party issued a request for the ad to be pulled from the air due to it misleading viewers.

Looks like it is just one more ridiculous event in the worst run campaign ever!

UPDATE: Tully has some interesting insight into the event:

Kennedy on the air
Posted by Matt Tully

Republicans are a little shook up over Melina Kennedy's latest campaign commercial. The Democratic candidate for prosecutor's new ad centers on this theme: "Experienced. Tested. Tough."
As you may recall, that is the exact tagline Republican incumbent Carl Brizzi has used in his campaign commercials. The Brizzi team says Kennedy has "hijacked" its theme.
Is it clever or a cheap shot? You decide.
One interesting scene in the new ad puts Kennedy in a courtroom, where she is questioning an actor/witness. Kennedy, who has faced criticism from the GOP about her lack of courtroom experience, visited The Star today. She was asked whether she has ever questioned a witness in court, as she is seen doing in the commercial.
She said she had, "in a small claims case ... in the early 90s."

Kennedy didn't become a lawyer until 1997, so whatever she did, she would not have been an attorney.

8 Comments:

At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep. Bart IS desperate.

 
At 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously? "The Worst Run Campaign Ever"?

Then why is Kennedy ahead of your boy Brizzi in independent polling.

Way to go "Broady" (Mike).

 
At 4:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Republicans want a positive bio spot pulled?

They seriously want a positive, bio spot pulled. Go cry some more. Seriously, I think a certain governor in this country would call you girly men.

On the note of girly men, why did Carl Brizzi wear makeup to the coroner's office?

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger IndyU said...

Indyu has an interesting post you would enjoy on this subject.

 
At 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about Carl's claim in the Brizzi Brief that he "appointed a deputy prosecutor to work out of the Julian Center and focus on domestic violence crimes?" See pg. 28 of your boy's brief. It's a lie. Not a mischaracterization, not a misstatement - just a lie. Trying to take credit for something else that Newman did. There has been 1 deputy prosecutor position at the Julian Center since 2001 . . . Carl even wasn't in the office then. Someone needs to be careful before accusing his opponent of playing fast and loose with the truth.

 
At 11:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, cut Carl some slack...he needs to look good on those cameras if he's going to move up in the polls...

 
At 4:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My question is why no one is looking into the fact that Meliar is blatantly fabricating on many issues. One of those issues is when Matt (face to face) asked Meliar if she had in fact ever questioned a witness. Meliar’s response was “She said she had, "in a small claims case ... in the early 90s."


If Meliar was not even an attorney until late 90’s what does this tell the public. It tells me that when questioned (put on the spot) all she can do is lie her way out. I thought someone might dig a little deeper into this issue and find out the dirt.

Meliar accuses Brizzi of not knowing what was going on in his administration but how about Kennedy and Peterson knowing about Anderson in the Mayor’s administration. This just seems like such a double standard.

Not to mention Meliar’s commercial insinuating she has tried criminal cases. Kennedy’s camp retort is “Well, in Brizzi’s commercial he is walking down a dark alley, when has he ever done that?” I will not even comment because you really have to search to find the relevance or the connection. Hint: none there. To try to connect Kennedy portraying experience in the courtroom to Brizzi never walking down a dark alley is just stupid.

 
At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My question is why no one is looking into the fact that Meliar is blatantly fabricating on many issues. One of those issues is when Matt (face to face) asked Meliar if she had in fact ever questioned a witness. Meliar’s response was “She said she had, "in a small claims case ... in the early 90s."


If Meliar was not even an attorney until late 90’s what does this tell the public. It tells me that when questioned (put on the spot) all she can do is lie her way out. I thought someone might dig a little deeper into this issue and find out the dirt.

Meliar accuses Brizzi of not knowing what was going on in his administration but how about Kennedy and Peterson knowing about Anderson in the Mayor’s administration. This just seems like such a double standard.

Not to mention Meliar’s commercial insinuating she has tried criminal cases. Kennedy’s camp retort is “Well, in Brizzi’s commercial he is walking down a dark alley, when has he ever done that?” I will not even comment because you really have to search to find the relevance or the connection. Hint: none there. To try to connect Kennedy portraying experience in the courtroom to Brizzi never walking down a dark alley is just stupid.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home