Posted on 11/01/2006 8:23:54 AM PST by weegee
The National Democratic Party has spent $50,000 promoting a nominal Republican write-in candidate to succeed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a move the more prominent GOP campaign called a "desperate" effort to split the write-in vote.
The mailout on behalf of write-in candidate Don Richardson describes positions potentially appealing to conservatives who, according to a recent Chronicle-11 News poll, make up at least 55 percent of the district's population.
"Don Richardson supports President Bush's Patriot Act," the mailer says. "Do you?"
It also says he would put troops on the border to stop illegal immigration, allow law enforcement officials to wiretap suspects, read their e-mail and conduct random searches, all without a warrant.
"I don't remember saying all that," said Richardson, a retired Air Force major, but he agrees with the statements. He has not seen a copy of the ads, but said he doesn't think they are going to help or hurt Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the party-backed write-in candidate.
"I don't see Shelley losing any votes," Richardson said.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent more on the direct mail than Richardson has spent on his own campaign. In Federal Election Commission filings, the DCCC classifies the $50,000 expenditure as "opposition" mail.
A spokeswoman for the DCCC declined to discuss its strategy.
'Dirty campaign trick' The DCCC spent another $25,000 on mail pieces attacking Sekula-Gibbs, who is mounting a well-funded write-in campaign against the two candidates on the ballot in the 22nd District — Democratic former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither.
"It's definitely a dirty campaign trick," said Sekula-Gibbs' campaign manager, Lisa Dimond. "The fact that the DCCC is sending out mail, but not for Lampson, is a desperate move. The only hope they have for him to win is to confuse voters into voting for someone other than Shelley."
The Chronicle-11 News poll shows the race between Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs is competitive, despite the challenges of convincing voters to choose a write-in candidate. Smither polls under 5 percent.
Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee has poured another $640,000 into the race within the last week in an effort to keep the seat in GOP hands. The money went to mail, television ads and phone banks on Sekula-Gibbs' behalf and television ads attacking Lampson.
The latest contributions bring the NRCC's campaign contributions in the race to $1.6 million.
Campaign war chests Apart from Democratic Party expenditures on his behalf, Lampson still had $1.1 million in his own campaign war chest as of Oct. 18, according to campaign finance reports.
Sekula-Gibbs had $163,000 remaining for the last three weeks of the election, not counting what the GOP is spending to support her.
On the campaign trail Tuesday, Lampson focused on children's protection, a pet issue during his 1997-2004 congressional career. Sekula-Gibbs appeared with a Bush Cabinet official the day after the president attended a Sugar Land rally on her behalf.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez visited for cookies and coffee with Sekula-Gibbs at an event hosted by the Bay Area Republican Women in Clear Lake.
Lampson attended a Clear Lake event for Project Safe Place, which provides emergency refuge for children in abusive situations. Lampson, who co-founded the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, worked with Project Safe Place in Galveston County while in Congress.
Wow, just when you think the dems can go no lower .....
Houston PING
So lets see, the Rats in Houston are buying votes with flu taxpayer funded shots (only available in 4 heavy Democrat districts), buying votes with coupons for Vietnamese speaking voters who vote (presumably for the Vietnamese Democrat) in early voting, and have (A)taken Tom DeLay to court on a bogus charge, (B)postponed any action on his case until after the election, (C)voted against him in the primaries, (D)thwarted efforts to get a replacement Republican on the ballot, and (D)provided the majority funding for a challenging Republican write-in candidate.
Does anyone DOUBT that the Rats will challenge the quality of the write-in spellings if Gibbs still wins?
'Dirty campaign trick'
Yup. You really have to wonder if it's legal. Sort of reminds me of Nixon trying to help McGovern.
How is this different from the Republicans' support of Leiberman? Aren't they trying to split the Democratic vote? Face it, it's a campaign strategy that works both ways. I'm not sure that the fact the Republicans would be thrilled to have Leiberman actually elected and, obviously, the Democrats would choke if Richardson were elected makes that much difference. You win a war by either defeating your opponent outright or by dividing and conquering him.
The guy should drop out of the race immediately and stop being a tool!!
Gimme a break, Karl Rove or the RNC would do the same in a heartbeat!
BUT...are Republicans claiming to speak for Lieberman? This makes it appear that the candidate is somehow responsible for this.
I also wondered that. I laugh at her instructional commercial because it's a multistep process said quickly and her name is long. Would "Shelly Sacula Gibs" count? I guess it is easier than having to write in Carole Keeton Rylander McClellan Strayhorn.
"How is this different from the Republicans' support of Leiberman? Aren't they trying to split the Democratic vote?"
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the RNC has given money to the Liberman campaign or sent out mass mailings!!
Republicans at least have found some shinging light in Lieberman's support for the war on terror.
The Democrats are spouting "look at THESE positions" that they oppose every step of the way.
You may be right about the paper trail of money but it has been clear for some time that Republicans as a group support Lieberman in order to defeat Lamont. I believe Pataki has funneled money to Lieberman as well as others and I'm not at that certain such funnelling would be happening without the blessing of the RNC, outright or tacit.
Lieberman was shut out by his party. Technically he is an "independent". The Dems are funding a Republican.
The Republican voters first and foremost want to see the annointed Rat candidate defeated as he is anti-American war. They have some hopes that they could seat a Republican but some may still vote for Lieberman, the independent candidate. Question remains if Lieberman and the Dems could kiss and make up if Lieberman wins (they would want the headcount for possible Congressional control).
Good point although that Independent label is probably, as you say, a technicality. I'm only saying that the tactic of trying to defeat your opponent by finding some way of weakening him is tried and true. While our state had open primaries, both parties sent their party faithful to vote for the weakest of the opposing party's hopefuls in order to give their own candidate the best chance in the general election. It's low-down and perhaps more extreme than has been done in the past, but there is little new about it.
But the Rats denied crossing over, saying they wanted to "beat Tom DeLay in November" and show he was politically dead.
The Rats also railed against the Republicans putting a candidate on the ballot on short notice saying that "this disenfranchises the voters and doesn't give them a say in the process".
The Left has been dishonest every step of the way and denied their open actions. Shine the light of truth on them and their tactics. Have to wonder how many Rats voted for former Democrat David Duke in Louisiana just to reseat the criminal Edwin Edwards (who now resides in Texas in a federal prison).
I wonder how many dem candidates would have liked to receive a $50,000 contribution from the DNC... and didn't?
I read yesterday that they had been trying to get another write-in candidate named "Gibbs" in there but apparently that hasn't worked out.
From what I've heard on interviews etc. on the radio, the above would be acceptable. "Intent of the voter" don'tcha know.
The major focus of the mailout is indeed a list of positions appealing to conservatives, and it definitely boosts name recognition for Richardson, but there is an ironic twist. On the back side of the mailout are the words, "Don Richardson is too conservative for Texas."
I'm going by memory because I quickly tear up anything from the DCCC, but I remember the "too conservative" line because it made me laugh. The DemocRAT lawyers probably added the line in an inconspicuos spot so they could later claim the mailout isn't misleading.
Having seen the mailout and how it is arranged, I agree the mailout is an underhanded, deceptive ploy to boost name recognition for a nearly unknown candidate in hopes of dividing the Republican write-in vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.