GOP Plans to Get Personal

[Neil D]

In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal

Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, September 10, 2006; Page A01

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.

Gop getting personal

[Joy]

Interesting, especially in context of this last week. I wonder if we're seeing a bit of the prophetic warning that who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

[Dr. Shane]

This is nothing new and isn't newsworthy. These reporters know that if they are worthy of working for the Washinton Post.

Digging up dirt is what everyone does. I have worked as a campaign consultant before and even when we only had $50K for a congressional candidate we were spending hours digging up dirt on our opponent.

This year, due to redistricting, I am not working on anyone's campaign because it is such a mess. We have two nominated Democrats and two nominated Republicans all running for the same seat. So I won't get involved until the run-off election.

Notice this article doesn't mention that the Democrats are doing the same thing. And they are. Everyone does - especially now that we have the internet. This is one of those yawning stories when after reading it you know it must have been a slow news day.

[Neil D]

Quote:

plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

Quote:

even when we only had $50K for a congressional candidate we were spending hours digging up dirt on our opponent.

Which only goes to show, that the american people are the losers...All that advertising, and NEGETIVE advertising at that. Not a debate on issues, but negetive advertising on the character of the opponent. Sick Sick Sick....

And the social problems continues....and nothing gets done....

And according to you, Shane...It's all in a day's work...That is a sick attitude...At least, that's my opinion

[Dr. Shane]

I see it quite differently. I see that it as a safeguard that should help discourage those with questionable charachter from running for office. However even with this safeguard we still see a number of questionable charachters getting elected.

A canidate's position on the issues doesn't matter if the canidate is a scoundral. It is like what Ross Perot said about an adulterous man. If his own wife can't trust him, how can I?

[Joy]

I see it quite differently. I see that it as a safeguard that should help discourage those with questionable charachter from running for office. However even with this safeguard we still see a number of questionable charachters getting elected.

And I see it quite differently than you do. With a dedication to winning at all costs (spin to the point of untruth about a voting record, maligning the opponents character and position, and out right untruths with the expectation that if your opponent can't correct it in the campaign it is justified) it is having a chilling effect on reasonable and intelligent men and women and discouraging them from entering a race. They know it doesn't matter how intelligent their perspectives are or how decent their characters may be they and their families will be dragged through the mud.

That, I believe, is why we still see people with questionable characters still getting elected. The ones still running are those that don't mind the personal cost of the process because they don't care so much about the dishonesty and malignity because that is the pond they came from in the first place. What is really amazing is that there are any decent politicians left. I have a personal opinion (unrealistic I recognize) that anyone who wants to be president should be automatically disqualified. They should be drafted by a large body and basically brought kicking and screaming and guilted into running. Then I'd have faith in the intelligence of the person because I'd see they understood what they were being brought to.

What is happening in politics is not honest, reasoned dialogue it is sick and destructive, very deeply destructive not seeking truth only power and I fear and tremble for all of us because of it.

My 2 cents.

[Neil D]

I see it quite differently. I see that it as a safeguard that should help discourage those with questionable charachter from running for office. However even with this safeguard we still see a number of questionable charachters getting elected.

A canidate's position on the issues doesn't matter if the canidate is a scoundral. It is like what Ross Perot said about an adulterous man. If his own wife can't trust him, how can I?

So, here is a political canadate meligning the character of another thru the use of inuendo, psuedo-truths, psuedo lies, spin ect....Are you saying that you want a politcal cannadate that will use any method to get into office? If the cannadate is doing al this innuendo stuff, what's to prevent him from lying to you when he screws up?

I am sorry, Shane, but your philosophy/attitude continues to promote dishonnesty in politics...I want ideas to be the main thrust in politics, That's why someone like Edwards is more agreeable to me than someone like McCain. McCain appears too ambitious for the job of president and is willling to comprimise his principles to the point that you are not sure what he stands for...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

With a dedication to winning at all costs (spin to the point of untruth about a voting record, maligning the opponents character and position, and out right untruths with the expectation that if your opponent can't correct it in the campaign it is justified)

Digging up dirt and telling lies are two different subjects. I don't know anyone that would suggest telling lies is acceptable in a political campaign. I also don't see, in the article at the beginning of this post, that is that stated objective of the GOP.

An example of digging up dirt is finding a 25-year-old DWI conviction that George Bush had. It is estimated that cost Bush 3 - 5 points on election day, even though Bush had some 15 years of sobriety at the time of the election. In that case, shame on Bush. He could have made reference to the DWI earlier in his campaign as something that happened during his wild and wooly days and it would have prevented the end-of-the-election-campaign surprise his opponent had in store.

[Joy]

Hi Shane,

It seems you missed my point in the verbosity of my prior post. Simply stated the current viciousness of political life I believe is keeping good people from entering into it.

Beyond that simple point. What I was thinking of when I wrote about outright untruths was the swift boat group that I believe has been shown to have spread outright falsehoods about the situation with John Kerry.

But my prior post did not name a party and I'm not naive enought to believe that democrats are not participating in this nastiness.

Joy

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I believe is keeping good people from entering into it.

That has been said a million times if it has been said once. I use to buy into it too but the more active I have become in politics, the less I believe it.

Quote:

What I was thinking of when I wrote about outright untruths was the swift boat group

If one searches the archives here they will discover I never bought into the swift boat group tales. My first response was even if it was true, it was so long ago it hardly means much today. However John Kerry put himself in a position where he should have expected that. AND although he says he is ready for them next time, they have raised a lot more money and are ready to go at it again if he runs in 2008.

One big point that needs to be made there is that the swift boat ads were not funded or managed by the GOP or the Bush campaign. The article that started this thread is addressing tactics used by canidates and the GOP. Extreame left-wing groups also ran ads saying that if Republicans are elected to office more black churches will burn. But such ads were not run by canidates or the DNC. So there is a difference between what goof-ball Americans do and what those actually involved in the political process are doing. Normally, from what I have seen, the lies come from the goof-ball groups and not from canidates or political parties.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Digging up dirt and telling lies are two different subjects. I don't know anyone that would suggest telling lies is acceptable in a political campaign. I also don't see, in the article at the beginning of this post, that is that stated objective of the GOP.

Oh bother, Shane....All "digging up dirt" is saying is you may not be able to debate issues, but you can 'spin' character. Or IOWs, you can lie and win at any cost. The american people are tired of that sort of thing....Spining is s form of lying, and people know it. They are tired of the same type of communication...being lied to.

As for the Bush DUI record, it didn't have much of an impact for very long. People realized that it was 15 years ago when that happened, and Karl Rove spin a story about him not being drunk ever sine or something along the lines of being 'on the wagon'. It may have cost him 3-5 points but it didn't keep him out of the WH.

Anyways, what you are saying,Shane is that spining, that form of communication known as the 'white lie' is ok to do. I don't know about you, but I find it rather a telling piece of the character of the individual who spins that sort of thing....And I take a dim view of it...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

.All "digging up dirt" is saying is you may not be able to debate issues, but you can 'spin' character. Or IOWs, you can lie and win at any cost.

This is a major mischarachterization but may well be a common misconception among those that have not been involved in the political process. I have personally worked for political canidates and have myself spent time digging up dirt on our opponent.

Certainly charachter defects and misjudgments can be spun. Yet the voters deserve to know. Take for example the district I live in. We have a Democrat Congressman that claimes the answer to improving our infrastructure is raising minimum wage. Yet he owns a meat-packing plant that pays minimum wage. That is a charachter issue worthy of an "attack ad". There are other such issues that are worthy of such ads that are not lies but legitamate charachter issues.

Not only do the voters deserve to know, they want to know. That is why these types of ads are successfull and done every election cycle. If the voters didn't want to know, such tactics would backfire and canidates would stop using them.

[Neil D]

Definition of Spin-11. Slang. to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction: His assignment was to spin the reporters after the president's speech.

Definition of lie- 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Shane, all spin is an "intent to deceive", an altering or an emphasis of facts to convey a different impression. IOWS, spin is lying to the public without being accused of lying. The public is tired of this type of lying...They want issues not mis-characterizations.

What you have relayed is some facts that need to be weighted in the public eyes. It is facts that are favorable toward the republican but they are facts nevertheless. However, I do not know all the facts regarding the issues in your area nor the candates. I would assume that there are some other circumstances that also relate to the debate that you have not conveyed, but I don't know. Nor do I care.

While I think you may have a point, that this could be spin, I don't think it is, as it is facts...HOwever, any comments relating to and in additions to these facts would be concidered spin. That's my opinion...

[Dr. Shane]

I will add a little bit of trivia to the discussion.

It was FOXNews, fair and balanced, that broke the story of Bush's DWI just days before the 2000 election.