Ad Nags Nags Ads

3 comments September 16th, 2006at 11:11pm Posted by Eli

From the reliably hacktacular Adam Nagourney:

From Rhode Island to New Mexico, from Connecticut to Tennessee, President Bush is emerging as the marquee name in this fall’s Congressional elections – courtesy not of his Republican Party but of the Democrats.

A review of dozens of campaign commercials finds that Mr. Bush has become the star of the Democrats’ advertisement war this fall. He is pictured standing alone and next to Republican senators and members of Congress, his name intoned by ominous-sounding announcers. Republican candidates are damned in the advertisements by the number of times they have voted with Mr. Bush in Congress.


There is Mr. Bush on television screens in Colorado… leaning over to plant a big kiss on the forehead of Representative Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican.

There is Mr. Bush on the television screens in New Mexico, standing on a stage shoulder-to-shoulder with Representative Heather A. Wilson, a Republican struggling to keep her seat. “Heather Wilson supports George Bush on the war in Iraq with no questions asked,” the announcer says, in an advertisement for Patricia Madrid, the Democrat.


The strategy has risks. In part, the goal of the Democrats’ advertisements is to rile up their base. But Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, said that the constant attacks on Mr. Bush appeared to be accomplishing something Republicans had been unable to do: riling up Republican base voters.

“One thing we are seeing in our polling is that the Democratic campaign is helping to jazz up Republican voters,” Mr. Bolger said. “There are two concerns among Republicans: Is our base going to turn out, and how are we going to get out swing voters. The Democrats are taking care of our first concern.”

Many Republicans, and some Democrats [true to form, Ad Nags does not name any], say it will be hard for Democrats to win unless they go beyond attacking Republicans and offer a program of their own. And Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, said the Republicans’ own experience in politics suggested that running against someone who is not on the ballot is challenging. “The last time this kind of morph ad was tried was in ’98 when we tried to nationalize the races against Clinton and it didn’t work,” he said.


Mr. Bush’s image this fall is being invoked by Democrats as a proxy for Americans who want change in Washington; who oppose the war in Iraq; who think Mr. Bush has not done enough to protect the nation from future terrorist attacks; or who are angry with changes Mr. Bush has pressed in Medicare.

“It’s not just photos,” said John Lapp, who runs the Democratic campaign committee’s independent advertising program. “It’s statements and actions and votes that show a pattern of people being with Bush.”

Basically, everyone in the article who says this strategy will not work is a Republican. Hmm, I wonder why that might be…

Personally, I think this is exactly what the Democrats should be doing. It is not a reach to tie Republican incumbents to Bush – they have enabled him for the past six years. They have looked the other way, and even actively covered for him, and that makes them accessories to his crimes.

Keep it up, Democrats. More and more voters are realizing that George W. Bush is driving this country over a cliff, but you need to remind them who gave him the keys. Tie the Dubyatross around all their necks.

I’m actually starting to feel a little bit optimistic now…

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Favorites,Media,Politics,Puns,Republicans,Wankers


  • 1. flory  |  September 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    I am, and will always, remain puzzled as to what the purpose of articles like this is…other than filling up white space in the paper.

    Who’s the audience for this article and wtf is it supposed to be accomplishing?

    The only people who could affect anything because of this article are Democratic campaign consultants. Does he really think they’re gonna listen to him? A known wingnut? Especially when his tactics are so freakin’ obvious.

    Is it supposed to scare Democratic voters away from the polls, thinking their candidates are so clueless its not worth bothering to vote?

    There’s a strategy….

    Is it supposed to fire up the Republicans to go vote against those clueless Dems?

    ‘Nother good strategy…

    Or is it just supposed to show off the deep political insight and startling wisdom of Ad Nags?

    Best strategy of all!

  • 2. Eli  |  September 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    Or is it just supposed to show off the deep political insight and startling wisdom of Ad Nags?

    I think that’s a big part of it, really. He actually had a similar party-in-disarray piece about the Laffey-Chafee race, but he certainly prefers to write them about Dems.

  • 3. Multi Medium » More&hellip  |  January 24th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    […] A few posts ago, I talked about the Democrats using Bush as a club against congressional Republicans trying to get elected or re-elected. But I think they should do the reverse as well: Demand that their Republican opponents declare how they will vote on the various bills to legalize torture and warrantless wiretapping. If the Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from Bush, force them to back it up with their votes. If they pressure the Republicans to bring those bills to a vote before the election, they might even be able to stampede the Republicans towards sanity and the rule of law in much the same way the Republicans stampeded the Democrats away from it in 2002 and 2004. […]

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




September 2006
« Aug   Oct »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *