[We interrupt our regular programming to add this important memorandum to Randy Kuhl's chief of staff.]
Dear Bob,
I have to say that I'm surprised by this junket blow-up. Up until now, I was pretty impressed with how things were going on planet Kuhl. Your new press secretary is doing a good job, and Randy's blog is a nice addition to his website. After a bumpy start, the town meetings went well. I was figuring that things would be quiet around here until after Christmas.
But, Bob, I'm afraid you missed the principal lesson of the last campaign, which was to keep Randy the hell off of military airplanes. The last time he went up on one of those damn things, he gave Massa quotes that the guy still repeats today. This time, he's in trouble before even opening his mouth. I'm guessing that Massa's already planning campaign ads about Randy's first-class vacation South of the Equator.
I've added a little table after the jump that you should study very carefully. It's a list of everyone who headed down to Rio for a little sun and distilled sugarcane (and I don't mean ethanol, if you get my drift.) You'll notice that one of these things is not like the other, and that one thing is your boss Randy. Unlike the rest of the motley crew that went down to shop and see waterfalls, Randy isn't in a safe seat. Everyone else kicked double-digit ass in 2006, so they've earned the right to screw the taxpayers any way they want. Randy doesn't have that luxury.
See, the way it works in the House is that you take these trips when you have what they call a "safe seat". That's the kind where you need to end up in bed with a live boy or a dead girl (or the other way around for the ladies) before you start worrying about losing your seat. Randy doesn't have it that good, not by a longshot. He needs to watch his p's and q's, especially since they're going to elect a new Decider next year, which always gets more Democrats off the couch come election day.
So, Bob, I think you need to tighten things up at Chez Kuhl if you don't want to be polishing your resume this time next year.
Sincerely,
Your Internet Pal, Rottenchester
table.votes {
border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;
border-spacing: 0px;
border-style: outset outset outset outset;
border-color: ;
border-collapse: collapse;
background-color: white;
width: 90%;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
}
table.votes th {
border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;
padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;
border-style: solid solid solid solid;
border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204);
background-color: #FFF5EE;
}
table.votes td {
border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;
padding: 1px 1px 1px 1px;
border-style: solid solid solid solid;
border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204);
background-color: white;
}P.S. Here's the table I was talking about:
Vacationer
Party
District
# of Terms
Re-Elect %
| Marsha Blackburn |
R |
TN-7 |
3 |
34% |
| Ben Chandler |
D |
KY-6 |
2 |
70% |
| Eliot Engel |
D |
NY-17 |
10 |
52% |
| Virginia Foxx |
R |
NC-5 |
2 |
14% |
| Bob Inglis |
R |
SC-4 |
3+2 |
32% |
| Sheila Jackson-Lee |
D |
TX-18 |
7 |
58% |
| Randy Kuhl |
R |
NY-29 |
2 |
4% |
| Gregory Meeks |
D |
NY-6 |
5 |
Unopposed |
| Randy Neugebauer |
R |
TX-19 |
3 |
38% |
| John Salazar |
D |
CO-3 |
2 |
24% |
| Cliff Stearns |
R |
FL-6 |
10 |
20% |
Update: The original table left out Bob Inglis. Why 3+2? Bob ran on a term limits platform, so he took a break in the late 90's. After term limits weren't an issue anymore, he got right back in.
Comments
Rotten - I am not sure that this junket will have legs. Too far away from the election and not important enough. I do agree it was a dumb thing to do.
Eric will try to use it, but it will change maybe a dozen votes?
I agree that, by itself, it's not that big a deal. It's just another piece of evidence that Massa will weave into his stump speech against Kuhl. Because it has rich possibilities for visuals (beaches, bikinis, waterfalls), it's a good candidate for an ad, perhaps from a third-party like the DCCC.
I have never been against "negative ads". I feel that they can point out the faults in other candidates or rebut something that the other candidates say that may not be the entire truth. However, the entire rest of society seems to dislike them.
Wouldn't Eric's using the junket against Randy be labeled negative advertising?
If Massa said something positive like "I pledge to not go on Junkets like Kuhl", that might be construed as a "defining a difference". But he probably won't need to bother making the ad. With all the third parties in this fight (DCCC, moveon, unions), I'd be surprised if one of them doesn't pick it up.
I agree with Elmer that because an ad presents negative information (assuming that it's true and not jazzed up with video/audio editing and cheap visuals) it's not distasteful but informative.
I think that what turns voters off about attack ads is that they often distort the facts, mock the opponent and cause a confusing chain of controversy in the media that just blurs the issue. Unless a potential voter is solidly behind their candidate -- that is, if they are undecided and open-minded -- they find those ads to be irritating and confusing.
If Massa drops the junket thing as an observation in a stump speech it would probably be effective, especially if the media picks up on it. Rottenchester's reference to the rum and other spirits would hit home in in Steuben, where Randy's taste for high living are an accepted fact.
I agree with your characterization of what's wrong with attack ads. It's the word-twisting, cherry-picking and hysterical delivery that's the issue, not the negativity.
As for the damage to Kuhl, consider it from this angle: The reason he did this was to get a positive story to tell about energy, which will be a big campaign issue. If Massa can make the trip about five-star hotels and shopping trips, Kuhl doesn't get what he wanted to get out of the trip. That's probably enough.
I agree with Elmer about negative ads. Who cares if they're negative or not if they present accurate information? I prefer them to the ones where they guy's mother talks about what a great guy he is (remember those Al D'Amato ones along these lines from back in the day).
I have no feel for whether this really hurts Kuhl or not. The trip to Iraq certainly did, but that was partly because it tied in with a very important issue and because Kuhl said a lot of things. There's no real serious issue behind this trip (unless you consider Congressional junketeering a big issue, which I don't), so I don't think it will have quite the impact. On the other hand, if Randy comes home and starts talking about lobster tail and how peaceful the country looked from 20,000 feet, the he may be in real trouble here.
Looks like I've finally found a bunch of sane people. Attack ads, if done properly and honestly, are an important part of our political discussion.