I agree.

The former president of my company, a man named Richard Tarrant, was both wealthy and conservative, and didn't have any use at all for the Vermont congressional delegation, which tends to be anything but conservative. He thought about running against Patrick Leahy in 2004 and concluded, thanks to focus groups and media research and this and that and the other, that he would have to run "one of the most negative campaigns of all time" to have a chance against Leahy. I know this because he sent an email out to all us employees saying why he wasn't going to run.

So, then, in 2006 he decided to run for the other Vermont Senate seat, which had come open with the retirement of Jim Jeffords, against our legendarily left-leaning current Congressman, Bernie Sanders. Sanders was and is very popular in Vermont despite his well-left-of-center politics, and I said "Tarrant's gonna run against him? If he thought it would take a historically negative campaign to unseat Leahy, I'd hate to think what he's going to feel is necessary against Sanders."

Tarrant ran a campaign that ranks as the most expensive of all time in Vermont and was just abysmally, psychotically negative. I mean, it was just so over the top that it was like something out of a bad movie.

And he lost by a margin of *more* than 2 to 1.

I couldn't stop cackling and laughing for about an hour after the polls closed. The various media outlets called the race basically the *moment* they shut the doors at the polling places and it was just a matter of how badly Tarrant would lose. When he lost with only 33% of the vote I was one very, very happy guy, and you have to remember, this is the former president of my company I'm talking about. I was so happy *because* his delusional, savage, vicious campaign tactics had met with their just deserts.

jayfurr 7/16/2008 8:26pm