Search Results for ‘negative ads’
As much there was the hope that something would emerge to comment upon, other than Ed Fallon’s continued trawl through the gutters of dishonesty, sleaze and self-aggrandizement, it is disappointing that it is just Fallon’s political tone-deafness. Barney Frank, as the first openly gay man in Congress, has led the effort to pass a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. However, to get the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, Frank had to allow a compromise that removed the ban on discrimination based on gender identity from the bill. As a result, Ed Fallon is outraged about the first gay rights bill in history to be passed by House of Representatives and believes that the first openly gay man in the U.S. Congress is betrayed the cause of gay rights.
In addition, Fallon attacks Leonard Boswell for voting for the bill. Apparently, Boswell’s support for this compromise “calls into question how forcefully he’ll seek full equality for the GLBT community in the future.” In other words, Ed Fallon is attacking Leonard Boswell for being insufficiently pro-transsexual. Apparently, Boswell joining with Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians wasn’t enough for Ed Fallon. Fallon would rather have no protections instead of a compromise.
Aside from pointing out the Republican negative ads against Fallon write themselves, this shows the fundamental political flaw with Fallon. (Besides, of course, the sleaze and dishonesty). Fallon seems to think that unless something is perfect, it’s wrong. He ignores compromise and bathes the sense of self-righteousness that enables him to believe that his IM For Iowa slush fund is perfectly legitimate and that a clean elections advocate can make up statements from the FEC. If Iowans want a Congressman who values ideological purity over getting things done, they already have Steve King and at least we know where King’s money is coming from.
April 18th, 2008
Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.
While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.
So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.
Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.
February 8th, 2007
A big thanks to Chris over at Political Forecast for highlighting our favorite candidate Eric Palmer’s new television ad. In 1992 they used to say that a vote for Clinton was a 2 for 1 deal. I’d say that this year a vote for Palmer is a 6 for 1 deal. Heck, they may be young, but I think those kids know more about what Iowa needs than Danny Carroll.
I can imagine Danny’s negative response ads already.
Black silhouette appears on screen amidst sounds of nails on a chalkboard.
Action movie announcer voice- Candidate Eric Palmer says he wants to get “strict about homework” with Iowa’s families. But it is theoretically possible that his children have forgotten to complete an assignment in full. Tell Eric Palmer that he should watch his own litter before he goes into your home and starts burying your pups in pencils and paper. Tell Eric Palmer that Iowa needs more than homework–it needs fun. And tell Eric Palmer that while homework may be good for his family, he needs to stop imposing his values on hardworking, humble Iowans. On November 7th, teach Eric Palmer a lesson.”
Can we expect anything less from the Republican Party? The swift-dopes are accusing Boswell of scraping children’s knees…
October 18th, 2006
On Thursday my esteemed colleague, Geraldine, posted about the new website IDP launched, Stop GOP Smear. I have to say though, Geraldine, I think that you’re letting the IDP off pretty easy. For starters, the site looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old. While it may be a good idea to have such a website to provide a centralized location where people can report smear campaigning, I seriously question the point of putting up such an unprofessional site.
Furthermore, I think that it is indicative of a general trend in campaigns this year that I find uninspiring and misdirected. I think attacking a campaign for ‘going negative’ completely misses the point. It is a fine line to walk between correcting fallacious information on an opponent’s mailer and using the fact that they sent the mailer as an attack on the character of the opponent. I don’t think either party has found that line yet. There are more effective ways to respond to negative mailers than to whine about the fact that a negative mailer was sent out.
I am not saying that I support negative campaigning; I don’t. But, I just don’t see the point of making your opponent’s negative campaign tactics a talking point of your campaign. I would rather see candidates contrasting their views and records with those of their opponents than resorting to a juvenile ‘he started it’ ‘no, he started it’ exchange, such as the one we witnessed in the gubernatorial debate on Monday. It is especially hypocritical when there are smear mailers and ads against both candidates. Can’t candidates find a way to criticize their opponents without criticizing them for being critical?
In short, Geraldine, I hope that in the future you will be a little more discerning in your choice of websites to frequent.
October 8th, 2006
Tonight Chet Culver and Jim Nussle sparred in the first gubernatorial debate of the election season, and I’m going to call it a Culver win. (That’s actually me trying to be objective.) Nussle was certainly more polished than Chet, but I think Chet’s ideas clearly trumped Nussle’s question-dodging answers. Besides, the grooming and smooth talking may not be a plus in Nussle’s column, since professional Washington politician doesn’t generally play well in Iowa. I’ve also heard Nussle’s tie described as a “crime against humanity.”
On attack ads and negative campaigning. Nussle went first and gave an opening statement, completely ignoring the question. Chet pointed out that Nussle aired negative ads first. The moderator then allotted another 30 seconds to both candidates, pointing out that Nussle didn’t respond. Nothing worthwhile comes out of it.
On choice. In Clintonian fashion, Culver says that “Zero is the best number of abortions,” but that he respects a woman’s right to choose. Nussle cites his 100% pro-life voting record in Congress and says that he would further restrict abortions.
On tax policy. Nussle kept bringing up taxes all evening, saying that seniors are fleeing Iowa for “greener tax pastures.” I’m pretty sure seniors are leaving because Iowa is cold cold cold, and I think young people are more concerned that there are too many pastures and not enough, you know, city. Chet spoke about Vilsack’s successes, and pointed out that a higher cigarette tax could potentially save 13,000 lives.
On alternative fuels. It’s Iowa, everyone loves alternative fuels.
On affordable healthcare. Nussle completely skipped the question and talked about how “every mile is a minute” and rural citizens in emergencies are suffering. True perhaps, but who cares if they can’t afford the healthcare when they get to a hospital? (And wouldn’t it be nice if they could have preventative medicine and not have to almost die rushing to a hospital?) Chet explained his plan to expand Hawk-I and allow all Iowans to enjoy the same healthcare coverage as elected officials.
On education. We know, we know, Chet would be the only governor who had been in the classroom in the past 20 years. As Chet pointed out, Nussle voted 100 times against education while in Congress. Chet put it well, saying “It’s the record, not the rhetoric.” (He also looked very pleased with himself after this.)
On stem cell research. Nussle said adult stem cells are where the “exciting” research is happening. That’s probably because he voted to ban embryonic stem cell research, so no research is happening there. Culver pointed out that Nancy Reagan and Bill Frist both support overturning the stem cell ban, and that it could potentially save millions of lives.
In summary, Chet stuck to his talking points and elucidated his plans for Iowa, while Nussle, ok I’ll say it, hustled.
October 2nd, 2006
Those who went to the Harkin Steak Fry may have noticed that we had a crack team of bloggers there. In the following post, Ben and Alec reflect over the highs and lows of the event, which has made the news across the country.
Alec filed the following post:
The Harkin Steak fry gave me so much to sink my teeth into that I don’t know where to begin.
First, the basics—it didn’t rain and the steak was good. I hear the beans were a little cold. The lack of coleslaw was an enormous oversight. Someone said they liked the chicken but that it could have used a little salt. I didn’t try, nor hear anything about the bread. All things considered, it was a good day on the food front.
Oh, and there were speeches and stuff.
Ben, Freeda and I first stumbled by some of Evan Bayh’s people from the All America PAC. We asked one of them how long he had been with Bayh’s campaign, and he corrected us (with tongue firmly in cheek) that it was a political action committee. We were assured that Bayh would be around Iowa next year. Surprise surprise.
Soon after, we got a hold of Vilsack standing by the ice cream machine and taking pictures. Ben asked him whether the speech he gave for Grinnell commencement in the spring could be the basis of a possible stump speech (read: the 08′ question creatively reworded). The Governor said he had a lot on his mind and that he would continue to go around the country and tell people about the issues he thought were important. It was a snoozer for an answer, but I guess we couldn’t have expected the man to announce his candidacy to three college kids with press passes. Ah well. Then, Ben asked how congressional candidates should talk about Iraq before November. Vilsack said that, as he saw it, the mission in Iraq had changed from three years ago—with an elected government and a “standing army” the mission needed to shift to “building civil society.” He didn’t say it upfront, but he strongly hinted that he supported some sort of phased withdrawal. Could Vilsack be changing the position he offered in June to the DLC?
I caught a glimpse of the back of Obama’s head in the middle of a giggling crowd. I knew it was no use to try to get a word with him at that point. Mark that as the first failed chance to nab Obama.
Next, we found Mary and Chet Culver hanging out by the press. After shaking his hand and introducing ourselves (I’ve met Chet before, but I forgive him), we asked him what issues he planned to highlight before November in order to secure a majority of the undecided voters (the people who, if the latest DM poll is right, are going to decide this thing). He said that he would keep detailing his plan to “move Iowa forward” and said it was important for people to know that he was a coach and a teacher. In what seems to be a recurrent theme, he talked about these credentials as a private citizen far more than his time as Sec of State. Indeed, all day, the only person to dwell on Culver’s job as Secretary of State was Harkin, who said Chet had done more than anyone else in the country to make voting accessible to all. If Harkin can praise Culver’s time in elected office that profusely, why is it that Culver seems to stress the teacher/coach angle far more often?
I’d guess the emphasis on having been a teacher/coach is meant to contrast Chet’s private life with Nussle’s lack of non-government work (besides being a lawyer, which is a dirty word in the Republican party), but I’d like to see Chet talk more about his time as Sec of State.
In what goes down as the best moment of the day, Mary Culver told us she reads our blog and even recognized Hannah as a contributor. That is, of course, the quickest way to a blogger’s heart. Swoon. She said she was surprised Nussle had gone negative so early and speculated that low internal polling numbers motivated his turn to mudslinging.
As we made our way toward the stage we briefly got to speak with Jerome Armstrong and also shook hands with Mark Warner. Sadly, we didn’t get a chance to pose a question—the man seemed pretty intent on working the crowd. But something tells me we’ll be seeing a great deal more of him next year.
And then from Ben:
Shortly after, we watched Leonard Boswell take the stage. I know this isn’t news for many of you, but it was the first time I had seen the Boz since his successful surgery, and I just have to mention how good he looks. Slimmed down and full of energy, he looks at least 15 years younger. And he sounded confident.
He’s going to win this election and it won’t even be close.
After his speech, which I largely missed, Secretary of Ag. candidate Denise O’Brien spoke about the need for a “safe and healthy Iowa” to fairly large applause. Sec. of State candidate Mike Mauro spoke next and got the crowd riled up with an attack on Katherine Harris and the 2000 Florida Recount (The Dems are never going to forget that). Patty Judge, hopefully our next Lt. Governor, spoke afterwards. She’s not that polished but she gave the crowd some good lines. Biggest applause lines: education, abortion rights (”Choice matters in Iowa”), and perhaps surprisingly stem cell research. I’m not sure how potent that issue will actually be here in Iowa, but Claire McCaskill does seem to be using it with success in her Missouri senate race this year.
Something to think about…
Up next was Mark Warner, who seemed a bit out of place at this Iowa Dems event considering his presence wasn’t announced in advance, but was still greeted with fairly strong applause and a small standing O. He joked that some people still hadn’t recognized him at the event (maybe that’s why he was there — gotta get that name id up) and said, “It all starts in Iowa,” which I took to be a not-so-subtle reference to the 2008 Iowa caucuses. He ended with fists pumped and a “Let’s win” shout, which played well with the crowd.
Governor Vilsack spoke next, almost wistfully (”I’m ever so proud to be an Iowa Democrat. Ever so proud.”). He gave a sort of retrospective on the last eight years. He’s probably experiencing a bit of uncertainty right now, as he’ll soon be out of a job and though he’s eyeing the 2008 race, polls show him not even coming close to winning his own state’s caucuses… He spoke about the need for community and the positive role government can play in people’s lives. He talked about the fact that Americans were feeling anxious, especially after the Bush failures of Iraq and Katrina. It was actually one of the better speeches I’ve seen him give.
Culver spoke next and did a pretty good job of energizing the crowd.
Lots of Culver-Judge signs were waving. A choice quote: “I want to be the people’s governor. Jim Nussle wants to be the special interests ‘governor.” (Good, me likes the populist rhetoric.) He also said that “We’re ready to implement our plan when we get there.” I’m not sure how effective this “plan” rhetoric actually is. Most voters won’t read his plan, and it seems kind of vague, but maybe I’m wrong. He encouraged the crowd to take part in the three keys to victory: Volunteer (canvass, make calls), Visibility (put up signs, bumperstickers), and Vote (duh). This was good, I thought. Voters and activists want to feel engaged in the campaign. They want to feel part of something and the more they feel connected the more they will do. He promised the “Big Trifecta” would pull through in November.
Tom Harkin, the man of the hour, spoke next. Always gracious, he thanked the woman doing sign-language next to him on the stage. Seriously, this guy is full of heart. He said some nice words about Culver and then started ripping into the Republicans. He said the GOP was in “full fear-mongering mode” and they were trying to do anything to distract voters from “Bush’s war.” “There’s no virtue in staying the course if the course you’re on is headed over the cliff,” he said. “There’s no virtue in being strong and wrong.” He also threw some jabs at Nussle, saying that “Bush and Nussle are attached at the hip.”
Harkin’s smart: Bush is an anchor for every GOP candidate this year — from dog-catcher to senator.
Obamarama spoke next and boy did he get an applause. He complimented Iowa and said, “I’m going to have to come again.” Is he running in ‘08? More hints that he is. He gave a strong speech and the crowd obviously loved it. He recalled an anecdote where he met Marjorie Lewis, a 105-year-old black woman while he was running for the Senate. He then proceeded to tell America’s story through her life. It was an excellent rhetorical device and the speech really tugged at your Democratic and progressive heartstrings. He said that whenever he is cynical about politics he thinks of Marjorie Lewis and what she’s seen. It was a long speech, but his eloquent delivery seemed to keep the crowd captivated. I overheard one grandmotherly lady behind me remark that “Edwards-Obama would be a great ticket.” Interesting…
Needless to say he got a standing O at the end (actually he received several throughout the speech). Harkin thanked everyone for coming and that was it. We stayed around for a bit longer after the speeches, hoping to get a chance to interview Obama, Harkin, etc, which we were promised by the Harkin people but there was such a long line of well-wishers and star-struck fans that we figured it wasn’t worth it to wait around. So we packed up the car and headed home, scheming all the way home over who we’d like to run in 2008.
September 18th, 2006
The Washington Post reports that the National Republican Congressional Committee is planning to spend 90% of its advertising budget on “what officials describe as negative ads.” The article explains that Republicans’ only hope of shifting attention away from pesky little issues like Iraq is to wage personal attacks on Democrats. Or as Representative Tom Cole, Grinnell class of ‘71, puts it, “When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can.” Actually, Cole doesn’t even try to spin the Republicans’ nasty program:
In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research “package” to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they “define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly.”
You might also remember Cole from 2004, when he gave a speech including the gem: “I promise you this. If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election. It’s that simple. It will be interpreted that way by enemies of the United States around the world.” He went on to add, “What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would’ve lost the election in 1944? He would not have thought American resolve was strengthening. What would the confederacy have thought if Lincoln would have lost the election of 1860?”
No one’s going to fall for that kind of mumbo jumbo this year, Tom. In the words of an alum I much prefer to you, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
September 11th, 2006
As we draw closer to June 6th, primary day, Culver and Blouin continue to exchange accusations. Culver is now trying to paint Blouin with the same pro-Big Business, anti-farmer brush that Blouin, in his a TV ad spot, was able to color Culver with. It goes like this: first Blouin says that Culver worked as a paid lobbyist for a giant meat-packing firm. Then Culver does the classic I’m-rubber-and-you’re-glue counter by saying that actually it is Blouin who has promoted meat-packing interests in the state.
Earlier this week Culver, in his first attack ad, criticized Blouin for being against stem cell research. Then Blouin responded by saying that he would support a change in the stem cell law, a reversal on the position he held last year.
Fallon is getting marginalized even as he maintains the ‘higher ground.’ He has called for all of the candidates to run a positive campaign, but that is easy to do when no one is attacking him because he is not seen as a credible opponent. But I think Fallon is right. This is only the primary and we seem to be getting pretty heated here. Long about June 7th it seems like the Democrats might begin regretting these nasty campaign ads when Nussle drags out his war chest and begins buying up all of TV ad time he can get his hands on. After the primary it might be difficult if Culver or Blouin has to suck it up and endorse the other one, but that is what we are going to need to beat Nussle in November. Maybe it isn’t unprecedented to have negative primaries, but it seems like they are losing track of what really matters.
May 26th, 2006
Political Forecast has a post on Mike Blouin running negative TV ads against Culver. The buzz around the ads is that they are ineffective and make Blouin look desperate. I agree—this sure doesn’t seem like a frontrunner’s tactic. Then again, does Blouin look any worse than Culver’s petty jabs during the debates? Remember the “flip-flop” comment?
So let’s not pretend this is the first shot, or that Culver doesn’t have a mud trebuchet himself.
When Blouin visited Grinnell a few weeks ago, he went out of his way to stress that he would never run negative ads, but that he would “defend himself” if necessary. Sadly, he’s gone back on his pledge and stooped low. Too bad Culver was already there.
Of course, there’s still one spotless candidate—Fallon. Unfortunately, he’s wearing that stupid, stupid, hat.
May 18th, 2006
