Party of ideas watch

October 11, 2006

The New York Times noted yesterday that the Republican Party and its campaign committees, despite all of the scandals and polls, has one thing going for them: with four weeks until the election, they still have all kinds of money.

The question, of course, is what the GOP plans to do with these vast resources. A couple of weeks ago, party officials hinted that a barrage of attack ads were on the way. Yesterday, National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Ed Patru was more specific — the NRCC would spend 90% of its ad budget on negative advertising between now and Election Day.

The spokesman divulged the figure in an interview with Fox News. “Contrast” ads, of course, are negative ads. Patru boasted to Fox News that the NRCC’s opposition researchers have been digging up dirt on Dem candidates for “over a year and a half.” Just last week, the NRCC sank $7.8 million into 30 House races across the country — almost all of it earmarked for negative campaigning.

It speaks volumes about our “party of ideas,” doesn’t it? After six years of nearly uninterrupted Republican rule of the entire federal government, the GOP isn’t in a position to tout its accomplishments; it’s in a position where it has to sling millions of dollars worth of mud just to try and survive the election cycle. Indeed, with 90% of its ad budget devoted to attacks, the Republicans seem to have precious little to say, other than, “As bad as we are, the other guys are worse.”

Admittedly, we knew this was coming.

[M]udslinging is crucial to the Republican plan for this year’s midterm elections, because the party’s hold on power will probably hinge on shifting attention from the unpopular war in Iraq and other national issues that cut against them.

“When people are looking at national issues that are not breaking our way, what you want to do is focus on your opponent,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a former Republican National Committee chief of staff. “You’ve got to play the field’s conditions. They demand very tough tactics.”

The “tough tactics” started earlier this year, when the NRCC deployed 10 staffers to dig up dirt on Dems. And now the NRCC is putting the dirt to good use, spending nine out of every 10 dollars on attack ads.

An internal GOP strategy memo from Cole’s office to candidates was quite direct: “Define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly…. Don’t make the mistake of pulling your ads in favor of a positive rotation the last weekend.”

To be sure, I know political campaigns aren’t just a game of beanbags. I also know that the NRCC wouldn’t devote all of these resources to attack ads if voters didn’t respond to them.

I am curious about one thing, though: what percentage of the Dems’ budget is devoted to oppo and negative advertising? And what do you want to bet it’s less than the GOP?

Update: Speaking of GOP attacks, I neglected to mention that disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is getting in on the game as well.

“Patru boasted to Fox News that the NRCC’s opposition researchers have been digging up dirt on Dem candidates for ‘over a year and a half.'”

Pity they couldn’t spend just a moment of that time looking into the Foley allegations 😉

  • I keep being reminded of Murray Chotiner’s late ’50s advice: “You don’t enter a campaign to win. You enter a campaign to so destroy your opponent that he will never raise his political head again. Winning is a by-product.”

    Chotiner’s was Nixon’s campaign director except when Tricky Dick became “the new Nixon” and lost.

    Seems this need for trash campaigning has dominated the GOP ever since Lincoln was forced to leave the scene. What else has the party of unrelenting greed (but only for the already obscenely rich) got to offer in a true democracy? The GOP’s message is, and has always been, rape and plunder for me, fear and loathing for all the little people.

  • Late attack ads by the right might actually work. Although the public may have woken up lately to politicians spewing false and misleading statements, slick ads are tougher for most people to debunk. Attacking late has the advantage of getting repub lies out there and in the media while getting dems off message and on defense, without time to refute false claims. The only thing I can think of for dems to do in anticipation of attacks would be to prepare a set of ads in advance, hoping that the attacks come, and basically saying “don’t believe the attacks, look at the record.” Without knowing what attacks are coming, you can’t prepare a pointed defense, but generic changing of subject might work. Glad I’m not in that business.

  • WAIT A MINUTE! Are you suggesting that the GOP would wait until October to release selacious and “shiney” dirt on their political opponents to gain votes? How dare they orchestrate a series of mini October Surprises as a political stunt!

    I wonder what would happen if the Dem response to these ads was “My opponent is obviously trying to distract voters from the important issues, Iraq, NK, Immigration etc. These partisan attacks are nothing more than politics as usual for the GOP.”

  • I am curious about one thing, though: what percentage of the Dems’ budget is devoted to oppo and negative advertising? And what do you want to bet it’s less than the GOP?

    It probably is less than the GOP. But I don’t think that’s admirable. It’s suicidal.

    We know Republicans get ugly every single election season, so why should Democrats adopt the moral high ground, pull their punches, and place themselves at a disadvantage? Their side has Mark Foley, the hypocritical, philandering Henry Hyde, the mistress-abusing Don Sherwood, and the alleged wife-abusing Alan Fine. All people whose personal lives should disqualify them from being elected dogcatcher. There’s absolutely no reason to ignore these issues if the other side is going to insist on playing dirty.

    Campaigning on ideas is great, and it should be the first choice for any candidate. But if the other side’s going to get nasty, Democrats need to hit back hard and then kick them when they’re down repeatedly.

  • Here in MN, that idiot Mark Kennedy has been negative from Day One. Even the evil Michelle Bachman tries to pretend to have a stand on some of the issues (all lies, of course, and the attack ads still outnumber the “issue” ads 4-1). Negative isn’t working for Kennedy and is not moving the polls much for Bachman so how helpful is this strategy going to be?

  • The truth is, the Republicans *do* have ideas. They’re just not politically salable: most Americans, even nominal Republicans, don’t want to privatize Social Security; they don’t agree with the preznit that we have “too much” health insurance; they don’t want to amend the Constitution to limit freedoms and encode bigotry into law; they don’t want to close the borders to immigrants who have the same dreams and aspirations as their grandparents.

    To a considerable extent, Rove et al know this. So what they’re left with is slime and distortion. And they’ve done a much, much better job at adapting to the modern political landscape than have our guys. Thus, you see polls in every cycle that show the public agrees with Democrats on substance, often by huge margins. But we still lose.

  • Well, now you know why Republicans call themselves “God’s Only Problem.”

    What—you thought “GOP” stood for something else?

    It’s also common knowledge that the vast majority of “Christian” voters are not in alignment with the wingnutty brigade, so this perrenial attack mentality can be countered with a simple WWJD approach—and here’s the way around the IRS trap: Play the game by a person-to-person communications effort, off church property, and not employing church resources. The Reich has been doing it for years now; why not the Left, as well? Just start asking why “Candidate X” (R-whatever) keeps pointing at the speck in his opponent’s eye, when he’s got a log in his own eye? Ask why “Candidate X” voted for torture? Or why “Candidate X” did any one of the myriad other things that Republicans have been doing, in direct contrast to what Jesus tells them to do.

    It’s time to give religious Americans a reason to vote against the modern-day Pharisees, Sadjucees, Scribes, and Money-Changersand vote for the Democratic candidate….

  • Cole’s assertion that elections “demand very tough tactics,” reminds me of Bush’s characterization of torture as “tough interogation measure.” Tough, obviously, must be a Republican synonym for torture. Folks in Guantanamo get their tough tactics, voters in the states are dealt their share of torture as well — in the form of obnoxious attack ads.

    • Comments are closed.