One of the clearest criticisms levied against the netroots is their influence on the discourse of campaigns. Yes, they can help raise money and enhance campaign activism, but their left-of-center beliefs and shrill rhetoric tend to pull candidates in the wrong direction, in terms of policy and campaign tactics.
Locally, we've seen Darcy Burner pulled too far to the left to get the endorsement of the Seattle Times, who all but admits it was ready to pull the trigger in favor of change in DC. In Connecticut, the initial fervor surrounding Ned Lamont has declined, with Joe Lieberman holding a seemingly consistent double-digit lead in the general election race. Now we see Peter Goldmark's campaign probably crossing the line in his race against Cathy McMorris.
David Postman covers a number of recent turns in that race, including the obvious fact that the race is closer than expected a few months ago thanks to the national mood (and thanks to the enthusiasm of out-of-district liberals).
Goldmark has skillfully found a way to appeal to the liberal base outside of the district while still holding the image of a typical rancher in his ads. Candidly, his ads don't appear very effective, especially the hokey "vote for our dad" ads. Moreover, McMorris' ads seem more powerful, talking about accomplishments, not just platitudinal ideas.
In addition, Goldmark as a candidate seems to be running into some brick walls. He was swept in the newspaper endorsements, including the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, the Seattle Times, the Tri-City Herald (which endorsed McMorris' opponent in 2004), and most importantly, the Spokane Spokesman Review. In terms of in-district readership, the Union Bulletin and Spokesman Review are most important, especially the later given the concentration of votes in its readership area, and its critique of Goldmark as a weaker candidate.
Where Goldmark may have gone too far, and risks doing so for the remainder of the campaign if he follows similar tactics, was a recorded robo-call from the Goldmark campaign noted in Postman's coverage. The text of the call implies there is a comparison between scum (McMorris) and toughness (Goldmark). It's only an implication, but it's a dangerous one to make, and here's why:
Male candidates should always be careful about being disrespectful or too aggressive with their female opponents, especially when there is a notable age difference between the two. Fairly or not, voters do not view such behavior well. Hit the female candidate on the issues all you want, that's fine. But using words like "scum" is a foolish gambit.
As for the McMorris ad that supposedly prompted the robo-call, it's certainly tough, but defendable. There doesn't seem a large distinction between the ad stating, "Goldmark thinks 'George Bush and the Republicans caused 9/11' and 'believes 9/11 was America's fault,'" versus what Goldmark is quoted as saying, "''9/11 was directly attributable to George Bush and the Republican administration.'" The ad isn't saying Goldmark joins conspiracy theorists in claiming the government is directly responsible for 9/11, but the language in his statement does appear to align himself with the "blame America first" crowd, which is not exactly a majority in the 5th Congressional District. Thus, it becomes fair game for an ad.
The Goldmark campaign may not agree, but it doesn't change the fact their robo-call response has a great chance of turning off more voters to his campaign, rather than defending him against a statement he made while wooing Seattle donors.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 22, 2006 05:53 PM | Email ThisIn 1996, The Seattle Times endorsed Rep. Linda Smith (after she'd been rated as the most right-wing Member of the entire Congress) so Times' editors existence, extremely far to the right of their readership, comes as exeedingly old news.
Still, it's great news to see you guys slagging us netroots. It shows how you fear our influence.
Speaking of shrill campagin tactics, you're pretty eager to excuse them when your side does it:
"...but the language in his statement does appear to align himself with the "blame America first" crowd, which is not exactly a majority in the 5th Congressional District. Thus, it becomes fair game for an ad."
Nice try. We now know just how completely the Bush administration ignored the clear warnings that they repeatedly received. They were on watch when the towers fell, and had been crowing for eight months about how "the adults were back in charge." Contrary to your tortured twisting of his words, Mr. Goldmark's statement does not imply that he's blaming "America", just our slovenly failure of an administration. Criticizing President Bush (and the Republican Congress) for their many massive policy failures is very patriotic, not the opposite, and even your own quote of Goldmark shows this. This ad, and your pathetic attempt to defend it, makes your side sound very shrill indeed.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 22, 2006 07:14 PMOh, yeah. We're quaking in our boots watching your candidates crash and burn.
You guys can't even win elections when you win major party primaries in one-party states. Do you realy think anyone fears your influence?
Kid, you *have* no influence.
Posted by: ScottM on October 22, 2006 07:17 PMI hope he is paying Anderson a lot of money, so he can get off welfare.
The token democrat running for Whitman County Commissioner a few years ago bombarded me with robo calls the last two weeks of the campaign. I found her phone number in the phone book and called her. Her husband answered and I told him to get a hold of that list they were using and remove my name. He then called me back to tell me I could go to Radio Shack and buy a phone number blocker. Sheesh, where do they get these people?
Posted by: cc on October 22, 2006 07:23 PMHow are the candidates polling right now, two weeks before the election? Rep. Reichert has a lot of name recognition and the power of incumbency; his challenger was unknown at the start of this year. Let's wait until we have some election results before we brag, shall we?
"Do you realy think anyone fears your influence?"
This blog does, or it wouldn't bother to manufacture such propaganda against us. Again, we netroots appreciate the compliment.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 22, 2006 07:32 PMThat's a very good idea. You should certainly do that. Because you have none so far.
Posted by: ScottM on October 22, 2006 07:33 PMYou're welcome to post to my email address: rich.kiker.is.a.phony@hotmail.com
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 22, 2006 08:11 PMWho was "on watch" in the 8 years preceding 9/11, when the Khobar towers were bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, and two of our African embassies destroyed? Who ignored the warnings then?
Thought so.
Posted by: Shaun on October 22, 2006 08:39 PMNext a guy from Tacoma asks her why she doesn't denounce the DCCC for it's abuse of the TVW footage. Darcy says she can't control them by law (which is true). Then the guy says well why don't you just make a public announcement that you don't approve of it. Darcy simply accuses Reichert of telling lies about her stand on taxes and DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, again. Finally a fumbling supporter for Darcy asked a question about public service and that isn't it true that "Reichert was paid for all of his public service?" Darcy agrees and says yes and my record of public service streches back years, beginning when I was a teenager. Of course the rest of the story is that it ended then too. I wonder how many Sports teams she really coached at the YMCA? Was Dave paid for all of the coaching he did? How about all of the volunteer work? Truth appear to elude MRS. Burner on a very regular basis. I hope the Reichert supporters had the tape rolling tonight, she really sounded BAD. I guess she wasn't expecting real people to call into Goldsteins show.
Posted by: Huh? on October 22, 2006 09:12 PMBut, I sure don't hope that the Paddy Macs and Goldsteins of the world go away. We'd have a hard time trying to manufacture the self defeat they hand us on a platter. Keep talking Nutroots! Tell us more about your Socialism, Mass Transit Utopias, Global Warming, etc.
Thanks much!
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 22, 2006 09:26 PMWho is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut? (Hint: not the Senator who sided with our failed administation time and again.)
"Who was 'on watch' in the 8 years preceding 9/11, when the Khobar towers were bombed, the USS Cole was attacked, and two of our African embassies destroyed? Who ignored the warnings then?"
Did you even read the 9/11 Commission's report? It recounts how much energy President Clinton put into killing Osama bin Laden, and into destroying al-Qa'eda. The shameful refusal of the Republican Congress to rally around our President, even after al-Qa'eda killed Americans, hampered Clinton's efforts, but at least he tried. The Bush administration bears responsibility for 9/11, and for our utter (and humiliating) failure to capture or to kill bin Laden afterwards. I hope that Mr. Goldmark makes much of those failures over the next two weeks.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 22, 2006 10:01 PM
Who is leading in the race for Senate in Connecticut? Hint: not the nutroots endorsed candidate.
Oh, you mean the dipstick that is the Dem. Senate candidate in Conn., the one that is down by double digits? Will that be another "victory" for your netroots?
If using law enforcement and a couple of Tomahawk missiles constitute a grand effort on Clinton's part for getting UBL, then of course you'd be satisfied that he just fine.
9-11 is a testament to the Clintonistas' efforts, and your blaming-Bush-blather is proof of the partisan rancor that constitutes the Democratic party's refusal to "rally around our president" in time of WAR.
Posted by: Shaun on October 23, 2006 09:12 AMTruth be told, Nutroots support is the kiss of death. They are extreme, dishonest and generate money only for extreme candidates. Moderate voters, who both parties seek (as their bases were sewn-up years ago) stream away from these crazies, just as they are doing with Ned "Lament".
Problem: A weak and belief challenged Democrat party wrongly sees the Nutroots as influential but only because of the money they generate and they must at least appear to be as extreme as them to get the cash/endorsements. Extremists scare the middle of the road voters.
The Nutroots is the best thing that ever happened to the GOP. Just ask Rove about 2004.
Oh, you mean the guy who's going to lose by double digits? Loony, Lamebrain, Loser, Lambtotheslaughter; I'm sure it starts with "L."
On second thought, maybe you do have influence. It's just not in the direction you'd prefer.
Posted by: ScottM on October 23, 2006 12:50 PMThat's 100% more than the self-declared "grownups" in the Bush administration did in their first eight months in office, despite everyone who was not a political appointee trying desperately to get them to act.
And, if you'd please read the 9/11 Commission's Report, you'd see just how damaging the Republican Congress' efforts to nail Clinton harmed our counter-terrorism efforts back then.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on October 23, 2006 07:55 PMOr, because Bush did not do enough in his first 8 MONTHS in office regarding this, you will oppose everything he does TODAY in the War.
I think I understand where you are coming from now. Thank you.
Posted by: Shaun on October 24, 2006 01:20 PM