Despite a pledge to avoid political attacks on yesterday's somber anniversary, the Obama campaign couldn't help itself from injecting negative attacks into its communications, despite a promise that it would do just the opposite:
Yesterday marked the passing of eleven years since the atrocities of September 11, 2001. The Romney and Obama campaigns pledged to respect a one-day mutual political ceasefire to commemorate the anniversary and to offer a joint gesture of national unity. [...]
The Obama campaign chose not to fulfill their end of the agreement. As Katie Pavlich reported, both the president and David Axelrod fired off overtly political tweets during the day -- and Carol Platt Liebau noted Obama's appearance on a Florida radio show with someone called "DJ Laz," also known as "the pimp with a limp." [...]
Romney made no mention of the election, his opponent, or specific policy disputes. The Romney campaign would not comment on Obama's "pimp with a limp" interview, citing their commitment to abide by the no-politics agreement. One of these men is running an honorable campaign. The other values power and winning above all else. Will the media hold the latter candidate accountable for breaking yet another promise in order to gain a slight electoral edge over his opponent, who was perversely disadvantaged by adhering to agreed-upon rules?
Do you think that agreeing not to attack the other side is a good idea for political campaigns? Or is it silly because such mutual agreements are non-enforceable?