Tuesday, December 10, 2013
By Kieran Hanrahan
I'm writing in response to your Sept. 26 article, "King camp recognizes its strategy needs work." I worked for the King campaign as a college intern in June and July but am no longer associated with the campaign.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kieran Hanrahan is a resident of Portland.
Your article depicts the King campaign as mismanaged and attributes by silent association Angus King's declining poll numbers to his campaign's supposed incompetency.
In said article, your reporter Steve Mistler quotes Maine Sunday Telegram columnist Michael Cuzzi as saying, "I'm not privy to the campaign's internal strategy here, but it seems to me that they've been relying upon the idea that he's very well known, he has high name recognition, he's very well respected and that is sufficient to carry him."
First, does The New York Times quote its own columnists? No. That's lazy journalism. It might be easy for a reporter to get a great quote from Paul Krugman, but instead any mention of Krugman stays in the Opinion section.
Second, Cuzzi is flat out wrong. The King campaign has always campaigned as if its candidate were the underdog. Not once has it sat back and relied on King's name recognition to carry him to victory. King doesn't have the support of party infrastructure that Cynthia Dill and Charlie Summers do, and he's worked tirelessly to make up for it.
King's opponents have tried to cast him as Goliath and themselves as David. It's OK for Summers to go to a Republican fundraiser in Washington, but not for King to go to his own. Summers and Dill have concealed their allegiance to the very parties that have paralyzed the nation.
King is not the establishment man here. He's the only one with the vision and courage to challenge the parties that are holding this country hostage for their own gain.