Rochesterturning reports that a conservative group, headed by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, may be airing ads in the Rochester market. Freedomswatch.org is making a $15 million national buy, and according to Americablog, $187,235 will be spent on ads in the Rochester market. Four ads have been produced, and can be viewed on YouTube. Freedomswatch disputes the buy information.
Comments
What do you think the purpose is? To help Kuhl and Walsh politically if they vote for another FU or surging or to keep them from going off the reservation and voting with Democrats? Frankly if they think this is going to help them, they're nuts. These ads are way over-the-top: they make last season's MoveOn ads look like Geico commercials.
It seems to me that having Republicans run around talking about freedom and saying "they attacked us" must be Kuhl's and Walsh's worst nightmare.
I don't see what is wrong with the ad. Many people share a similar view. Of course it is trying to make a political point, just like the protesters are doing in Bath. It will certainly reinforce views held by many people.
If it's an attempt to influence possible waverers, I'd say Walsh is more the target than Kuhl.
As for the ads being over-the-top, perhaps, but I think they're playing with fire. It is possible to respect the sacrifice of the soldiers (and families) who appeared in those pieces while thinking that there's no reason for us to ask more soldiers to make the same sacrifice. In fact, if someone doesn't have a well thought-out position on Iraq, I could see them going either way on the ad. They could buy the notion that sacrifice requires more sacrifice, or they could think that there have been enough young men and women killed or wounded in the war.
Since it isn't clear (to me, at least) that using wounded soldiers and families in those ads will convince too many people who are on the fence, I have to conclude that the ads are an attempt to buck up the group who already believe that the soldiers' sacrifices mean we ought to stay in Iraq.
If the purpose of the ads is to reinforce the base rather than convince others, then they're damage control, and an indication of weakness rather than strength.
Another point: these ads only matter to Walsh and Kuhl if they have a challenger from the right. The center seems to be moving towards the view that getting out of Iraq is the way to go. So it's only from within their party (or from a 3rd party) that their war views will be challenged.
Since it isn't clear (to me, at least) that using wounded soldiers and families in those ads will convince too many people who are on the fence, I have to conclude that the ads are an attempt to buck up the group who already believe that the soldiers' sacrifices mean we ought to stay in Iraq.
That's certainly my opinion. The group you describe is overwhelmingly Republican and consists entirely of people who voted for Walsh/Kuhl in 2006. Which makes me think it's there to fire up the base to hassle Kuhl and Walsh if they waver on more surging.
Elmer: the ad shows planes crashing into WTC and says "they attacked us." There were no Iraqis on those plans as all of know.
That's what I consider over the top.
Which makes me think it's there to fire up the base to hassle Kuhl and Walsh if they waver on more surging.
I agree that this might be part of the motivation for the ads, but I'm pretty sure it won't work. Kuhl and Walsh, like most politicians, will risk a little anger from the base if moving to the center will salvage the election. The question is when (if ever) they make the calculation that opposing the war will save their hides.
I guess it seems to me that the Kuhl/Walsh handwringing "we all want to end the war, there are no easy answers, etc." is the right tact to take. I just don't think screaming about freedom and saying "they attacked us" works in this part of the country. I have literally never heard anyone in Western New York express this kind of sentiment, not even in the D&C blogs.
Tom, I agree that that more conciliatory message is a better one for a general audience, not to mention closer to the truth. I think these ads are divisive and don't acknowledge the legitimate issues that thoughtful people might have with the war.
I think that this is both an attempt to head off those Republicans and Democrats who might leave the fold, and also an attempt to gain more time to turn things around in Iraq, maybe in time for the '08 election. The extremely wealthy Republicans who have been cleaning up during this administration have only one shot at continuing their run and that is to use fear uncertainty and doubt at this critical time to keep the war going and hope for some real good news from Iraq in the next fourteen months. Combine the current WH media blitz, the Petraeus report, and tons of money spent on these ads and they may get another six month extension.
If the war is seen as an unequivocal failure next year at this time, fifty years of hard work by conservative Republicans will be lost for a generation or more. These public spirited contributors have nothing to loose by spending some of their vast and growing fortunes on a possible repeat of '04.
Another goal that those financing the ads might have is to put a stake in the ground in the "who lost Iraq" argument. The ads make the case that it was those who "deserted the troops".