Skinner has no courage.

[bfealk]

During the 2006 election cycle Nancy Skinner did an interview on community television in Waterford. It was broadcast over the cable system in that city.

Last week I contacted the station and asked if I could get a copy of the DVD of Nancy's interview and was told that I'd have to contact the host of the show for permission, which I did. The host said it was no problem. I contacted the station manager and he said he'd make a copy of the DVD for me to pick up at the studio.

The same host interviewed Nancy on Monday of this week. I have to imagine the host of the show mentioned to Nancy that I had requested a copy of the previous interview.

Yesterday I received a call from the station manager saying that the host had withdrawn her permission for me to receive a copy of the previous interview.

My question, what is Nancy Skinner hiding? Why does she care that I get a copy of her interview?

If Nancy Skinner had any real courage she wouldn't care at all, and would actually encourage people viewing this interview, since I'm sure it's all just things that she's already said in public.

Another example of Nancy Skinner saying one thing and doing another. She says she'd be a Congress woman with courage. If she had the courage of her convictions, she'd stand by what she has said in public interviews. I don't know about you, but I'm starting to see a pattern here.

[livvy]

1. Only an idiot sets themselves up for an attack....

and Nancy is no idiot. Think about it. Why should she cooperate with your wishes? She knows you will take whatever she said and twist it, so that you can make her look bad.

What is the deal, Bruce? Why do you feel this need to tear her apart? Why don't you just let the primary process do its work? I'm not in her district, so my opinion really makes no difference. Let the people in the district make their decision.

If you want to work for Peters' campaign, that's fine. Just do it. I don't think that includes smearing Nancy, and I find it hard to believe any honest politician, Peters included, would approve of what you are doing. Smear is the Repug's tactic. It has no place in an honest political discourse.

[bfealk]

2. Attack?

So I guess you think there must be something on this video to attack Nancy over?

[livvy]

11. That is exactly the kind of spin I'm talking about.

You have taken my words and twisted them into a meaning that is not what was intended, or even considered.

[ray of light]

18. bfeake, i think you have no moral standing that you smear and attack without evidence or

proof whatsoever.

You do an extreme disservice to Peters. And after reading your smears all over cyberspace, I can tell you hell will freeze over before I vote for Peters over Skinner.

Clear?

Back off the smears and try to run a campaign with INTEGRITY and DIGNITY.

[bfealk]

3. What is Nancy Skinnery trying to hide

That's my question. The interview was already broadcast in Waterford and her not wanting the show to get more play makes me wonder, What is Nancy Skinner trying to hide?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

6. I am really beginning to think you are....

insane.

Really.

[bfealk]

7. not at all

but thanks for thinking of me. LOL

[bfealk]

8. Republican tactics don't work

I think it's interesting that Skinner supporters want to attack me like Nancy does, but are not interested in the lies that their candidate tells the voters.

You can attack me all you want, but I'm going to insist on answers to my questions.

All I want is direct answers to my questions. Nancy likes to post here and on DailyKos, then she disappears. She should buy ads in the newspapers or on television if she doesn't want anyone to talk back. I think that's why she hosted a talk show, she has no capacity to listen. She just wants to talk, talk, talk. I think that's why every time she is invited to speak and given a time limit, she takes twice as much time as she is allotted.

[JNelson6563]

9. I'm not for Peters or Skinner

I am not in that district, have no horse in that race and will gladly support the winner of that primary.

I am interested in fairness and have no interest in bashing any Dems. I have certainly had the pleasure of hearing Nancy's show in the past and I recall it being much different than what you recount here. She took calls and there was plenty of input on her shows.

I should caution you Bruce, just as your mud-slinging wasn't warmly received at MichLib, it won't be long tolerated here either.

I would add, in closing, my honest assessment of this race is that Peters will likely win this primary. I mean he's got all the machinary behind him. All you are doing is alienating Nancy's supporters from having any interest of supporting Peters in the general election. You may want to think beyond this hard on you've got for Nancy and think big picture, if you are able. I admit I may be giving you too much credit in supposing you are capable of such. After all, didn't you get booted from not one but two campaigns in the past for playing the SFM? You seem to be determined to firm up your reputation throughout MI as a SFM that candidates want nothing to do with.

Julie

[bfealk]

10. Mudslinging?

Julie,

I don't know what you consider mudslinging. I don't think I've done anything that I'd consider mudslinging. Everything I've said has been the truth.

Quite the contrary. In fact, the moderator had to remove one of the Skinner supporters' comments yesterday for the foul language that was contained in the message.

I'm not familiar with your acronym, SFM.

Your personal attacks are par for the course for a Skinner supporter. Just like Nancy, you attack the messenger instead of looking in the mirror.

[JNelson6563]

12. I think it is hopeless

I tried to make a couple of valid points with you, namely how you are alienating Nancy's supporters from supporting Peters in the general and you completely disregarded any of that.

And if you think the post that was deleted was due to "foul language" then you are obviously unfamiliar with Democratic Underground. Watch this: fuck, fuck, fuck. This post will not be deleted. Swearing is perfectly legal here Bruce.

But hey, all that aside, if you really think your time is well spent posting and reposting your issues with Nancy well then I doubt there's anything that can disabuse you of that notion. I'm waaaaaaaaay up here in Traverse City so I have no vested interest in this particular primary race. I am a dedicated Michigan Democrat and simply believe we Dems should not be attacking each other. I certainly do not think we should be doing so ad nauseum as you are doing. My efforts at party building are testament to the fact I spend my time on building up the Dem cause, not tearing it down.

Julie--ever grateful we don't have a primary race in the 4th District

[maddogesq]

13. "alienating"

Thank goodness someone found the word I have not been able to find in all of my rantings. This is EXACTLY what I am feeling right now. In fact, this whole thing has given me such a bad taste that I may even sit this election year out completely as far as on-the-street involvement. I problably will be involved and that previous statement is likely all bluster, but damn it I feel that way right now if the only way to win is to send people out to use the same dirty, nasty tactics that that the Repoops use.

[bfealk]

14. Nancy uses Republican tactics

If you had been at the Troy Forum or if Nancy had posted the video from it, you would have seen that Republican tactics is exactly what she came up with. When I asked a question about some of the things that didn't happen in Nancy's last run, instead of answering my perfectly legitimate question, which by the way, was a lot more tame than anything the Republicans will throw at her, should she be the Democratic nominee, she attacked me by saying I've been following Joe Knollenberg around and I had sent her nasty e-mails, which I never did and I've challenged Nancy and/or Sharon Baseman to post here and they've never done because no nasty e-mails from me to Nancy exist.

So don't tell me about my using "Republican tactics." when your candidate has consistently done
exactly that.

By the way, if you choose to respond, I won't be able to get on line as often as usual for a while. I'll be visiting my family.

[maddogesq]

15. Repub tactics? I don't chase people down at functions.

I don't specifically go to any event with the sole purpose of starting stuff with candidates or other individuals. Yes, I do vote positions at local, county and state things as a precinct delegate. I do have opinions on the direction of the party or campaigns, but I don't think I am pushy. I speak my piece when asked and then shut up. I don't start attack thread after attack thread about other Democrats at different web sites--a charge I have made that you have never answered--in hopes that somehow I can turn the masses against a candidate I don't currently support.

Based on what I have heard and seen, you are the Skinner gadfly of all gadflies. Will you now wait at every meeting where Nancy might make an appearance, just to "catch" her at something? Will you now be the Allen Funt of the 9th and say "Hi Nancy, you're on Candid Camera!"? Everyone I talk to knows who you are and what you are about.

And let’s say Peters wins the primary and looses to Old Joe. Will you then blame it on Nancy? I know that is hypothetical at this point, but you get the idea. Conversely, would I blame Peters if Nancy were to loose to Old Joe in November? Not likely. I might put part of the blame on MDP, but not Peters.

[bfealk]

16. I want answers to my questions

I would be at Nancy's next couple event, but I'll be out of the country for a while, so I won't be able to attend. I don't know what a Skinner gadfly is, but I'm pretty certain I'm not one.

I don't have to catch Nancy at anything. She is doing a fine job of attacking Gary Peters all on her own. I suspect she will self destruct, since she has taken to blaming the party for her failure in 20006. This will be her last chance at elective office and I suspect attacking the MDP and the DCCC won't be looked upon kindly by party insiders, which no matter what Nancy says, are still needed to be successful as a candidate. Nancy just doesn't have the common sense to realize that.

Once the 4th quarter fundraising totals are in, I suspect Nancy would be wise to reassess her chances. But she probably won't do that. She'll just forge ahead attacking the party, hoping that her grassroots will still try to drag her across the finish line.

I did find some interesting things in her interview on community TV in Waterford. I will offer an analysis soon and post some video for all to see.

[maddogesq]

17. If you are so confident she will self-distruct, then...

why do you keep starting threads? Surely you must have so much confidence in Peters that you need not go on the attack every other day. Still, you don't answer my charge about that, because you know it's true.

By the way, Skinner has in no way, shape or form asked me to waste my time dealing with the nonsense in these threads you start; it is my decision to do this and my decision alone. I believed in her the first time I ever heard her on the radio. I was a regular caller on her show. I was a believer the first time I heard her speak in person.

I look forward to your special edit of that Waterford video. Do you have friends and FOX to help you add the nice touches? Just teasing...:)

[ray of light]

20. he can't say good things about Peters so he has to smear. At least that's

the impression his attacks give.

I have to admit that I'm sick to death of his smears across cyberspace. I came into the Michigan forum to look for some answers about something different and all you see are his LIES everywhere!

What a jerk!

[ray of light]

19. His mudslinging and smearing has pushed me and my family and friends to

not vote in the general if Peters is the candidate.

[bfealk]

21. What do you consider mudslinging?

This is so interesting. I'm really curious, what you consider mudslinging. Other than the persistent rumors of some inappropriate behavior in Traver City at the National Governor's Conference, which I personally can't confirm, but others seem to have some evidence of and circumstantially there seems to be something to the rumors, what is mudslinging? All I've talked about is Nancy's inability to raise the money necessary to mount a serious campaign against Joe Knollenberg and her lack of ability to fulfill promises she made to bring certain celebrities to help her campaign raise money in 2006.

I have held a fundraiser for Gary Peters and as far as I can see he has the progressive position on all the issues we care about. He wants to bring the troops home safely. Nancy says we can do it in 6 months, most military experts say it will take 12-18 months to bring the troops home safely and all of our munitions, which if not brought home will end up in the hands of the many militias.

Gary has actually won an election and served in the legislature and written and passed legislation. Nancy hasn't ever served in elective office. She has been a talk radio host and only talked about the things Gary Peters has actually done.

Gary has actually raised a substantial amount of money needed to wage a campaign against an 8-term incumbent. Nancy raised $420,000 in her last campaign, not nearly enough to mount a campaign and put TV ads on the air.

So, if drawing those distinctions is what you call "mudslinging" I guess I'm guilty. But if you are realistically looking at distinctions between the two candidates, I call them facts.

[ray of light]

22. What YOU do is mudslinging B... LAY OFF IT.

I am telling you that instead of generating support for Peters you are driving people away from him.

You continually cross any kind of ethical campaign line.

You provide innuendo. You lie. You basically make Peters look like such a money grubbing shmuck that has to hire a tiny hit-man, such as yourself, to spread rumors online.

Frankly, this DU forum SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SMEARS. I came to this forum to find information on the primary. Instead I had to wade through your multiple pieces of sh*t. Your pieces of crappy innuendo should be deleted so that DU can actually provide a REAL SERVICE for people who want to KNOW MORE about real issues in Michigan instead of the garbage you spew.

I see you do this at other sites too. And that makes it even worse. How much do they pay you? And If they don't pay you then you should consider calling them up and introducing yourself as the Michigan-Democratic-KARL ROVE. (Yeh..the piece of slime who YOU protested YOU are MODELLING!)

I basically think you are hurting the Peter's campaign and you'd better STFU!

Grow up!

[bfealk]

23. Wow.

What one fact do you consider a lie? I've presented rumors as rumors and things I know to be facts as facts. I don't think that would be considered mudslinging. If Nancy can't take friendly fire, how will she take on the Republican machine?

So why don't you STFU?

I had an up close look at how Nancy Skinner campaigns. She attacked Gary Peters in Try.I have seen the interview she gave on community television and she is at it again. So, no, I won't STFU.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

[ray of light]

24. Your choice. You report rumors as rumors. Makes you no better than FOX NEWS

Grow up.

This isn't junior high anymore.

[ManiFesto]

25. Ya'll are funny

Seriously.