Isn’t it a little early for negative attacks?
Chris Dodd is nothing more than “a New England liberal, past his prime, on an unrealistic vanity run for the White House.”
And that was one of the nicer comments that came today from the Republican National Committee as it fired its first rocket of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Other accusations include the fact that Dodd is past his prime, isn’t well-known and will have trouble raising money. The last is particularly strange-Dodd’s connections to the financial world have thus far served him well in the fundraising department. The article has more details that, interestingly, rebut the RNC’s charges. Dodd wasn’t the only target, of course. Pretty much every Democrat running had something nasty said about them.
I guess it’s an attempt to define their opposition early on, but really. Going on the attack so early seems weirdly desperate, and the RNC’s attacks aren’t very substantive. After all this time, the best they can come up with is calling someone an “[insert adjective here] liberal”? This reminds me of the brainless, bare-knuckle tactics of Nancy Johnson, who also went out of her way to attack Chris Murphy early and often, usually with charges of little to no real substance (i.e., Murphy was a tax-raising, terrorist loving pothead).
Welcome to the endless negative campaign. Nineteen months to go.
Source
“RNC: Dodd Is ‘Past-His-Prime Liberal’.” Associated Press 21 February, 2007.
23 responses so far ↓
If Dodd is past is prime, what does that make 72-year-old John McCain?
A mummy?
I watched Dodd on C-Span this morning. He looked sharp as a tack to me. I might even vote for him.
GC: I’ve had to correct too many people on the Murphy/Johnson issue too many times. One cannot fairly talk about the negatively in that campaign without mentioning the fact that the Today Show audience ranked Murphy’s cleft pallet ad the nastiest IN THE COUNTRY. Full disclosure requires mention of that amazing stat.
Also, where is the Courant’s piece on the DNC’s hit jobs on the Republicans?
The cleft pallet ad was completely accurate and fair. Nasty? If holding a mirror up to your opponent can be called nasty, then fine, but if Murphy’s campaign didn’t do their best to inform voters, they would’ve been doing everyone an injustice.
Back to the point, though, if Dodd’s campaign is an unrealistic vanity run, what is the RNC worried about? Some of this stuff is as bad as Romney’s ad. Standard talking points that they can use on anyone with a D next to their name. Look out for High Tax Tom Vilsack!
What do you expect the RNC to do,Run on the postive things the past 7 yrs of total control by their party is responsible for?LMAO
These are the ONLY PEOLPLE on earth who could lose The war in Iraq given just how great the US military is.
JSRGNT: YOU may believe the cleft pallet ad was fair but that is irrelevant to the point I was making: a complete and fair discussion of the tone of the campaign ads must not end without mentioning the fact that the Today Show viewers found the MURPHY ad to be the nastiest IN THE COUNTRY. If a Johnson ad was votest nastiest IN THE COUNTRY you can bet the media and Democrats would mention that each and every time the “tone” of the campaign was discussed. (And it would be fine if they did.) That’s my point and it’s not undermined by what you believe to be fair.
The Today Show poll was likely freeped. That ad was nothing compared to much of what Johnson ran.
>>The Today Show poll was likely freeped. That ad was nothing compared to much of what Johnson ran.
No question that Nancy’s people should have used a 517 to attack as opposed to having that stuff come directly from her own funds.
Anything said regarding her opponent however was true; you just haven’t watched him long enough.
MUPRHY LOST THE TODAY SHOW POLL. His ad was NOT the nastiest!
The Playboy Harold Ford ad won! By TEN THOUSAND Votes!
And let’s not get feisty — maybe 30,000 people voted in the entire thing. Hardly all of the Today show audience.
Look at the reuslts yourself. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15518247/#anc_tdy_polAds_nastiest
Wait, this was even on ConnCon’s own blog:
http://conncon.blogspot.com/2006/11/today-show-poll-results-murphy-cleft.html
Check out his link…again, the Playboy ad won by 10,000 votes. What’s the deal here?
CONNCON: I just watched the Murphy ad over again, and I can’t understand how it could even touch the Top 100 nastiest ads of 2006. It’s fact based, important, and does more to highlight Murphy’s accomplishment than anything else. I’m sure the only reason it was voted #2 (out-nastied by Republican Bob Corker by almost 2-to-1), is that MSNBC used a still shot on the poll that would get the votes of anyone who didn’t watch the ads.
I can’t believe we’re going over 2006 ads again. I love it. To conclude, according to that poll, Bob Corker ran the nastiest ad IN THE COUNTRY. Chris Murphy did not run the nastiest ad IN THE COUNTRY. I do really wish they had included some of Nancy Johnson’s filth in that poll. She made most everything else look friendly.
So, the RNC simply spoke the truth. What’s wrong with that?
Sean, please start an official post on “David Geffen vs. The Clintons”! We need to have some fun with this one … I’m starting to like that Geffen guy! Now all we need is for Barbra Streisand to bash the Clintons … this early start to the November ‘08 election is just too much fun for political junkies! We don’t even need the Dean scream to keep entertained this time ’round …
jb2567 et al: There is a simple explanation. When I posted on 11/2/2006 the results were final and Murphy’s ad won as nastiest. The Today Show announced the results as such. However, the “poll” has never been closed online and people have obviously continued voting! (No doubt Democrats only wish that were true of the 2004 election….)
jsrgnt: Do you think Johnson was hurt by her ads? If so, I’d like to encourage you to convince your fellow Democrats here in the state to refrain from passing legislation aimed at regulating negative ads!
I think we have definitive evidence about whose ads the voters thought were better in that Murphy-Johnson race… he won by what, 14 points? I hear some sour grapes out there. Sorry guys, the Republicans nasty tactics backfired last time, and they will backfire again. Say hello to a Democratic Congress AND White House starting January 2009.
CONNCON: I remember voting in that poll prior to the election and the results were similar to the way they are now – Murphy’s ad was thousands of votes behind the one Corker ran. You made a mistake, not a big deal, but don’t keep repeating it.
The item in the Courant about Rep John Larson, a new powerhouse in the US Senate, Pesci, Larson is in the House…
Conncon,
We’re finally on the same page with something. I don’t want to get rid of negative ads. They serve an important purpose in campaigns. They backfired for Nancy Johnson, but they’ve worked for an awful lot of candidates too. Without comparative ads in campaigns, I think we’d see little motivation for turnout, sadly. I do think there is a difference between negative and nasty, though.
“Nasty” is kinda like implying that NJ was even remotely tied to Jack Abramoff when in fact there was NO connetion, right? Where do you stand on 527s, jsrgnt? Were the ads “acceptable” because Murphy didn’t have his name attached to it? He stood on the sidelines, painted himself lily-white, did NOT condemn these ads, stood to benefit from them…did we really give him a free pass on this?
As far as the claim that the cleft palate ad was “fact based,” are you saying that facts can’t be distorted? Factcheck.com FLAT-OUT called the ad misleading in the way it was presented. If you carefully examine the timeline of events as they ACTUALLY happened and not how they APPEARED to happen in the ad, you’ll see what I mean.
Sour grapes? Is that what it’s called? Hold on a sec, I gotta go check on my Democrat neighbor…he’s still kinda upset about Bush “stealing” that election in 2000.
And the NJ supporter(527)ad that said Murphy wanted the DOJ to wait to check out a call to alQaeda in Pakistan wasn’t bull either!!!!!
Children in adult bodies playing politics is al I gotta say.
Twasn’t a 527 ad. Geez, where is the attention to detail anymore?
RedRidden,
I think the loophole that allows 527s to run ads should be closed. One of the most important parts of McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan was that there was accountability in ads. I’d really like to shut up both MoveOn.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. When I put aside principle, I suppose I’m glad they ran the Abramoff ad, given the outcome, but the truth is that they aren’t good for the process.
Ah yes, the double-standard Democrats have used for eons. It’s nice knowing that people are willing to “put aside principle” (aka sell their soul to Satan) provided they ultimately attain their goal.
You must log in to post a comment.