Sound Politics: Attack Ads On Their Way

September 25, 2006

Attack Ads On Their Way

We in the Seattle-media market are no doubt just days away from the first attack ads, largely from 3rd parties supporting both sides, beginning to fill the airwaves. Toward the end of this July post, I postulated on some of the hyperbolic themes that will characterize attacks against Mike McGavick:

The ads will be nasty, they'll hit below the belt, and there will be a lot of them. "Mike McGavick wants your grandmother to die in poverty, Mike McGavick spray paints old-growth forests, Mike McGavick hates your dog," etc., etc.

Of course such ads are not exclusive to Washington State. Michael Steele, running a Republican-in-a-blue-state campaign in Maryland similar to McGavick's has this ad out, preempting efforts to attack him for not liking puppies. Steele's ads are a bit folksy, but his campaign is doing something right to have the race in the "Toss Up" category.

And for the record, I suspect Mike McGavick likes puppies too.

UPDATE: SVC Alumnus Blogger offers a naive justification for voting against McGavick in the first comment below, complaining about the laughably frivolous and partisan lawsuit filed against McGavick. That lawsuit was examined here in a post that concludes with one of the greatest Internet videos of all-time, which is just about as serious as the lawsuit in question.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 25, 2006 07:44 AM | Email This

Comments

1. If it were not for this litigation against Mike McGavick by a world-class law firm, I'd vote for him as a Republican.

I wish Dino Rossi or Mary Lane had ran. Maria Cantwell would be just as done as if she was wearing red & white and a blue helmet in Qwest Field.

Posted by: SVC Alumnus Blogger on September 25, 2006 08:02 AM

2. SVC - that's a crock. Safeco has the right to do with it's own money what it chooses. The ONLY reason Emma Schwarzman is bringing this suit is to oppose Mike's campaign, and is a "go nowhere" suit. Face it, you're not voting for Mike, and are looking for a reason to justify your position.

Posted by: Paul on September 25, 2006 08:34 AM

3. SVC - the lawsuit you pointed is not against McGavick - it is against the SafeCo board.

Also anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. It doesn't mean anything until resolved. It takes a single shareholder with an agenda to file a suit to try and make their opponent bad. After the election it will all be dropped, thrown out, or whatever.

Posted by: Right said Fred on September 25, 2006 08:38 AM

4. SVC @#1 "If it were not for this litigation against Mike McGavick by a world-class law firm, I'd vote for him as a Republican."

Liberal troll.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2006 09:18 AM

5. Paul,

It's not Safeco's money (whatever that means). It's the shareholders money. The shareholders who are taking Safeco's board to court for wasting millions on a "gift" to McGavick, while the company trys to stay afloat with "cost cutting measures" like bulk layoffs for next year. Cutting costs while maximizing profits is how capitalism works; not by paying Mike? an extra 16 million dollars after he announced his retirement. Where is the ROI on that expenditure?

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on September 25, 2006 09:21 AM

6. SVC probably believes that settlements imply guilt too. typical lib--sue sue sue your boat gently through your life. we need a 'loser pays' legal system reform NOW!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 25, 2006 09:34 AM

7. we need a 'loser pays' legal system reform NOW!

Posted by jimmie-howya-doin at September 25, 2006 09:34 AM

========

This is one time that I deifinitely agree with you, jimmie. The Brits have had such a system for years, and it works pretty well. The losers, fortunately, are the trial lawyers!

Posted by: Libertarian on September 25, 2006 10:30 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that it
was a violation of campaign finace laws to
use advertising within 60 days of the election
to be critical of a candidate.So I don't see
how this could happen.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 25, 2006 10:36 AM

9. #1: Oh please! You are either a Horsesass troll, or Phil Spackman.

That lawsuit is a bunch of crap, drummed up by Dwight Pelz to distract McGavick, and you know it.

Posted by: Cliff Smith on September 25, 2006 11:18 AM

10. Bravo to Michael Steele---what a great ad! Btw, I have contributed to his campaign and encourage others to do same. He's a good man, and has endured ugly racist hits from democrats who don't like the fact that he thinks for himself.

Posted by: Michele on September 25, 2006 11:23 AM

11. Cliff,

That is another person not I. To date I have
said nothing about the lawsuit. In the future
make sure you know who your talking about.Unlike
some people I don't use fake names. I don't
need to hide from anyone.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 25, 2006 11:25 AM

12. However tempting a 'loser pays' law sounds, that is not the solution. That would prevent people with no money getting any justice, if the threat of someone wildly out spending to win (OJ...) and then bankrupting you.

What is needed is more judges dismissing ridiculous suits and fining lawyers for filing meritless suits. Our system is to allow everyone access to the legal system, not just people that can afford it. Unfortunately lawyers abuse this, and judges allow it to be abused.

Posted by: Right said Fred on September 25, 2006 11:35 AM

13. Phil Spackman (#8): I think the answer to your question is in this excerpt from Wickipedia: 'A ban on supposedly non-partisan "issue ads" funded by soft money from corporations and labor unions - those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat -- in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.'

If I read that right, it's okay for soft money ads specifically saying "defeat this bum" right up until the election.

Posted by: sr on September 25, 2006 11:42 AM

14. As a Democrat, I am disgusted with Maria Cantwell and her lobbyist buddy she is loaning money. What other "favors" is she giving to this fellow?

That is why I cannot vote for her.

Posted by: Sad_Dem on September 25, 2006 12:01 PM

15. So far this cycle I've watched dems slime McGavick with a frivilous lawsuit and load a ballot with other people with the same name as a judge in order to try to split the vote.

Boy, this group sure has a belief they can win on the merits of their arguments, huh?

Posted by: johnny on September 25, 2006 01:53 PM

16. Sorry Charlie,

I guess you didn't read the details of the Safeco layoffs scheduled for next year--they're targeting lawyers and managers to streamline their management structure. That, in most organizations, is a good thing.

Posted by: Marc on September 25, 2006 08:37 PM

17. Sorry Charlie Wrote:
"It's not Safeco's money (whatever that means). It's the shareholders money. The shareholders who are taking Safeco's board to court for wasting millions on a "gift" to McGavick, while the company trys to stay afloat with "cost cutting measures" like bulk layoffs for next year. Cutting costs while maximizing profits is how capitalism works; not by paying Mike? an extra 16 million dollars after he announced his retirement. Where is the ROI on that expenditure?"

To which I replied, "Your wrong, it's Safeco's money, but they ARE accountable to shareholders." Should the shareholders desire to replace sr. management, that is there perogative, however, the place for such an action is in the BOARDROOM, and NOT the COURTROOM. Mike McGavick is not, and should not be a party to the suit, nor should his name even be involved. Yes, I'm a McGavick fan, but if the candidate was a Dem, I'd hold the same feeling. The legal system has no business dealing with the actions of a company, either private or public, unless those actions impact the general public (Enron, etc, come to mind). In this case, only the shareholders were impacted.

Posted by: Paul on September 25, 2006 08:40 PM