October 14, 2006
Reichert-Burner Ad Update

Interesting news in the last couple days about the pending escalation of TV ad wars in the race between Dave Reichert and Darcy Burner. David Postman covers the news the NRCC is shifting resources to support Reichert, while Andrew Villeneuve kindly provides us with the details. In summary, the NRCC isn't playing a game of patty-cake.

The details of Villeneuve's coverage give clear indication of what the NRCC is doing. $25,000 plus buys a nice mail piece district-wide, while $425,000 buys a lot of TV time. Burner has already been hit pretty hard on taxes, and while I won't specifically predict what the next NRCC ad will contain, I would be mildly surprised if an NRCC ad before the election does not include the "I'm ashamed" line as part of Burner's position on Congressional action dealing with terrorist detainees and related military tribunals. My bet: a narrator poses questions about the terrorist detainee issue, followed by repetitive "I'm ashamed" answer from Burner. The closing line of such an ad will not imply Burner is a wise choice on national security.

Meanwhile, the shift reported by Postman is pretty standard fare for the electoral season. As campaign dynamics unfold, party committees shift resources to more profitable races worthy of investment. It's no secret the national mood dictates that marginal Republican races are now off the radar screen, and that NRCC energy is best spent on securing defendable races - and if protecting a freshman incumbent in a Democratic year, in a district that leans Democrat in state and federal elections isn't worth the effort then I don't know what is.

On a related point to the national mood, this interview with RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is worth a read. Mehlman obviously has an agenda, but the data he cites is worth digesting nonetheless. Specifically, note the peculiar partisan composition of recent generic Congressional ballot polls, composition completely incongruent with the last couple decades worth of elections. Also, the discussion of how unhelpful national polls can be in assessing the specific dynamics of the battleground districts is relevant as well. Sure, the piper is likely calling NRCC chair Tom Reynolds thanks to the Foley scandal, but the actual impact of the saga is not nationwide, and may be limited to only six seats based on the Democrats' own internal polling.

Footnote: Andrew Villeneuve continues to play the resident naif of the local blogosphere in his post cited above, claiming:

You can already see it an unSoundPolitics, where the volume of attacks on Darcy have increased dramatically as Stefan Sharkansky and his fellow hacks respond to direction from the Washington State GOP, which is incredibly nervous and worried about losing the 8th District.

Responding to the direction of the state GOP, eh? Where have I heard that meme before? Oh, yeah, from Michael Hood. Regrettably, Andrew is the liberal version of Doug Parris. Not quite as vitriolic and malicious, but equally incapable of understanding that good people can disagree about an issue...just because they disagree about an issue.

Contrary to the conspiracy theorists on the extremes of the ideological spectrum, sometimes people just have their own opinions and express them. It's not because they're deranged and/or part of some conspiracy against all that is good in this world. Isn't that expression of thought why Andrew supposedly started the Northwest Progressive Institute? I would presume Andrew is no more a mouthpiece or on the payroll of some Democratic organization than any writer at Sound Politics is on the Republican side (and if he is, shame on him).

Maybe if Darcy Burner would be honest about not voting, or take more serious positions on issues I deeply care about such as Social Security and dealing with terrorists I wouldn't post about her. But she does, so I will. And Andrew can stew about it with visions of the grassy knoll dancing in his head.

Posted by Eric Earling at October 14, 2006 02:30 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Eric, do you or Stefan intend to issue a retraction regarding the blatant lie DonWard posted after this week's 8th District Congressional debate?

Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 02:38 PM
2. Ugh, another brainwashed Liberal troll. Liberals blatantly lie so often, they don't know what the truth is anymore. Remember "Fake but Accurate" from CBS?

Posted by: Mark on October 14, 2006 02:59 PM
3. Oh, I just love the smell of moronic brownshirt fucks crapping in their pants.

You pricks are toast. Fuck off and die.

Posted by: dave™© on October 14, 2006 02:59 PM
4. Oh, I just love the smell of moronic brownshirt f*cks crapping in their pants.
- by the soon to be (if not already) banned and deleted, Dave

You love the smell of crap? No wonder you guys keep losing elections.

Posted by: jimg on October 14, 2006 03:05 PM
5. And #1's pathetic attempt at finding a Big! Lie! is addressed in the comments at the originating thread .... if it's even worth anybody's time. Which, it really isn't.

Posted by: jimg on October 14, 2006 03:09 PM
6. I'll leave dave's comment up since it serves as a reminder of what passes for serious discourse in some liberal online circles. If he comes back, that's another matter.

Lies - I'm not inclined to ever issue a retraction about anything from another writer, that's up to each individual, if it's even warranted. But since you didn't state what "blatant lie" occurred in that long post it makes it somewhat impossible for others to see your point.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2006 03:15 PM
7. The best thing that Dave can do is Point to goldys postings in support of Darcy. ANY reasonable individual could see in a matter of moments that if Darcy supports the tasteless, vile and disgusting rantings of Goldstien and indeed links to it on her campaign website she must be defective as a candidate and a person.

Posted by: Huh? on October 14, 2006 03:23 PM
8. I'm always amazed at the Liberals use of the Nazi meme. But they fail to realize that the Nazi's were "National Socialists." The liberal ideology is identical to them; i.e. take power from the states and centralize it in the federal government through regulation, and institute an economic system that punishes people that start and own businesses.

Posted by: Mark on October 14, 2006 03:26 PM
9. Dave @ #3, One of the biggest reason I like SP is the fact that comments aren't laced with the F word or any other trash words. I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination but at least we don't lower ourselves to HA level. I hope Stephen will permently ban people who do this. By the way this is the second time in the last couple of days this has happened. I don't like it when I see it on other blogs and I hope to keep our heads above that garbage.

Posted by: Dave G on October 14, 2006 04:32 PM
10. Sorry Eric, I don't know if you control the content or not but I just had to voice my opinion. I just want to be above that junk.

Posted by: Dave G on October 14, 2006 04:37 PM
11. Dave G -

Points well-taken. I do monitor content, and have his IP address now. He'll be deleted if he comments again like that, though I'm leaving this one up for the reasons I noted. As other readers can attest, I already have one individual on my "banned" list and am not shy about adding more as needed. We do prefer the discourse to stay relatively clean here, no matter how heated it may get.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2006 04:49 PM
12. Mark,

I have some property in the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo to sell you if you think the Nazis were liberals.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on October 14, 2006 04:58 PM
13. All any sane person needs to know to convince them to vote for Dave Reichert is the NW Progressive Institute supports Ms. Burner. The SPs (secular progressives) need to be defeated at every opportunity. They, like the ACLU are a cancer on traditional society.

Posted by: Tucker on October 14, 2006 05:03 PM
14. I think that the ACLU is a little extreme (as in, their support of groups like NAMBLA) but how is it an organization that defends the constitution and the bill of rights a cancer on traditional society, which was built on the constitution? (this isnt a rhetorical question meant to defend the ACLU, i'm seriously curious)

Posted by: michaelUW on October 14, 2006 05:47 PM
15. I have some property in the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo to sell you if you think the Nazis were liberals.

They were the National Socialist Party. Last I checked socialism was a leftist ideology. Whether they fall under "liberal" by today's political standards can be debated, but they sure weren't right wingers.

Posted by: Mike H on October 14, 2006 05:52 PM
16. re2: Would you guys be PO'd if I called the tone of #2's comment, "blithe"?

Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 06:01 PM
17. re 8: And the Russians called themselves a Republic. Does that make you a Stalinist?

What's your point? Only a halfwit would think that the Nazis were socialists.

Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 06:04 PM
18. The largest growing segment of the population is those who are not aligned with ANY religion. So, if you are feeling rejected ---- you are.

Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 06:08 PM
19. For michaelUW @ #14,

"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Roger Baldwin, 1935. Founding member of the ACLU.

Posted by: Shaun on October 14, 2006 09:06 PM
20. re 19: Shocking!

Was he in favor of indebting our country to the Red Chinese like George W. Bush is?

Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 09:28 PM
21. Yep, that's right Safe Seat Dave is in trouble and it's going to take millions to bail him out. It's also going to take millions to bail out Conrad burns and so on and so forth. The Republican party has been morally bankrupt for 20 years, now it's going to be financially bankrupt too.

Posted by: me on October 14, 2006 11:03 PM
22. Monkey: USSR stands for Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics. Facists and Nazi's were socialists, also as in Mussolini, Hitler's ally, who headed up the Socialist party in Italy for so long. Maybe monkeys can't read history?

Posted by: katomar on October 15, 2006 08:52 AM
23. Ah the invincible ignorance of liberals! Katomar, I think this is the dimmest bunch we've had so far. There's a demonstration of the value of public education for ya...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 15, 2006 09:16 AM
24. Soup: Scary, isn't it?

Posted by: katomar on October 15, 2006 09:34 AM
25. No, but it is a bit disappointing. I expected better.

When the rubber meets the road these cowards are going to roll up into the fetal position and cry for their mommas. For all their strident leftist (loony) rhetoric, they prove that they wouldn't think or negotiate their way out of a wet paper sack.

And it promises to get worse before it gets better. Why? Because American society tolerates and encourages them. The leftist fascination with multiculturalism encourages the individual to (mis)behave in whatever goofy anti-social way they can dream (or hallucinate).

It has been noted many times that we enjoy (and take for granted) the freedoms that in many countries in this world would precede a parting of one's head from the rest of him. I take those freedoms for granted on occasion, but they act totally oblivious.

Most of them are in denial about the WOT. Those who aren't only do so because they believe we caused it! The fulfillment of stated leftist policies promises catastrophes that make 9/11 pale in comparison. Islamo-fascists paid attention to the blind denial, appeasement, and "kicking the can down the road" policies of the last administration. They were encouraged by the lack of commitment to defending ourselves. They responded to America's distraction with multiculturalism by attacking us in earnest. 9/11 wasn't meant to be the coup de grace - it was meant to be a signal - a precursor of much, much more.

Thank God we had a change in leadership!

Under George Bush we've taken the fight to our enemies. We've removed a ruthless dictator and sewn the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. It's been messy and expensive, but who can sincerely say that the objectives were wrong? The next President, regardless of party, will have a great responsibility to assume. The responsibility to protect and defend this country. Reichert will be but a bit player in this drama, but a player nonetheless. durner would be a no-show...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 15, 2006 10:37 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?