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.
I voted for Gibbs yesterday. She has good advertisements out in my area, so it wasn't too difficult to know what to do. But if she wins, be prepared to hear the Dems complain that the new voting machines were too hard for them to figure out. The new system definitely favors folks who are smarter than John Kerry.
It's hard to win as a write-in and it's never happened in Texas. But this is an unorthodox year.
Repulbican former Rep. Bob Barr actually endorsed the Libertarian, the only other candidate besides Lamposn who is actually on the ballot:
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=778
I don't believe that any official agency of the Republican Party is supporting him. To the extent that they have done anything, it's been on behalf of Schlesinger. There is no Republican Senatorial Committee flowing into Lieberman's coffers.
And if they did send out campaign literature, they would be required to disclose that they sent it. This is written and sent out by the DSCC without any disclosure that it is the DemocRATS sending it. In fact they are trying to make it look as if a Republican organization is sending it.
"And if they did send out campaign literature, they would be required to disclose that they sent it. This is written and sent out by the DSCC without any disclosure that it is the DemocRATS sending it. In fact they are trying to make it look as if a Republican organization is sending it."
Is this 'legal'?? That's what I want to know!!
the flu shot deal really pisses me off... heard about it on the radio for the first time last night....
I don't think it's legal if the organization sending it does not disclose itself.
I have a friend of mine who has sent in a complaint against a campaign for a Texas House race in which the wife of the DemocRAT candidate sent out a letter to voters in that district without disclosing that it was her husband's campaign that paid for and sent out the letter. You might think that's just an oversight, but the candidate is being funded by trial lawyers upwards of $400,000 so far. Everything sent out by the DemocRAT candidate's campaign is probably screened by several trial lawyers.
You mean the former Republican? Doesn't he still work for the ACLU?
I'm not saying Shelley is going to win, but if she loses, I doubt it will be over mailers like that one. At least the democrats are having to funnel a lot of $ into a race that should have been an easy win.
I must make a correction, I'd heard that "The electronic ballot supposedly has a limit on name length and Kinky Friedman appears as 'Richard Kinky F'" but just did early voting at lunch and saw all candidate names in full.
I clicked on "straight party" voting and made changes. The system did alert me that I was deviating from "straight party" vote when I deselected Lt. Gov (no vote) but the FIRST change I made was to vote for Kinky instead of Good Hair (who should still comfortably beat Chris Bell(D-S)) and generated no such warning.
Also while Vietnamese ballots were still paper in the previous election, they were electronic this go around (at least in early voting).
Dems would do anything to win that seat. They know they would get clobbered in a straight fight and hence they are attempting all sorts of dirty tricks to try to win it. I think Texas voters are way more smart than Dems give credit for, and Delays seat would stay under Republican control.
Wouldn't be the first time in Harris County that Democrats have solicited candidates with similar names just to cost Republicans votes.
So what group does the mailing say paid for the mailing?
Shouldn't it have to say "this message paid for by the DNC"? Or are they allowed to have front groups and shadow organizations?
From Lonestartimes.com: "Monday I got very torqued over a plan to induce low income minorities to come down to the polling place to get a free flu shot with the intent to induce people to vote. I am still quite torqued over it. It is wrong, it is discriminatory, and it is electioneering at the taxpayer expense. BUT apparently it IS NOT TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL. Since there is no direct quid pro quo exchange, only an implied one, it is not specifically black letter law illegal, just unethical as hell. I firmly believe that a case could be made in court that an implied inducement exists and a reasonable person would understand that there is an implied inducement to vote. But the law is a bit vague when it comes to the definition of “inducement”."
Lots of links to law and details on the story at the above article link.
I'm still undecided between Kinky and Gov Good Hair. I don't like the TTC and think that all of his "I'm so protecting the border" ads is just cover for his failures. However, Kinky is likely incompetent.
I defintely have a problem with the multi-lingual ballots. You need to show proficiency in English to become a citizen.
Giving money to Lieberman or Nader's campaign isn't the same as the national party buying ads saying "Vote for Nader, he's more socialist than the Democrats will ever be" and then masking it behind a front group.
I have a SERIOUS problem with multi-language ballots.
Our laws are written in ENGLISH (with borrowed latin legal terms).
When our laws are challenged in the courts (including what a ballot initiative "really meant") it comes down to the ENGLISH language of that intitiative.
The translations are inadequate in framing the ballot issues. Then again the government wants all current ballot initiatives passed without question (I voted NO on all of them, we just built an $81million park downtown, there is NO money shortage in Houston with that kind of expense, there is a problem with PRIORITIES for public spending). Not a dime more.
To the best of my recollection, again from memory only, I saw words printed on the mailout in a small font that identify the DCCC/DNC as the sponsor.
If you haven't already seen this discussion from the staff of LoneStarTimes.com on a recommendation for Texas Governor, I suggest you take a look.
LST: Kinky Friedman for Governor
For the record, contrary to the endorsement of LST, I've decided to vote straight-party Republican in 2006.
My fear is that the write in ballot will be thrown out if the spelling on Shelley Sekula-Gibbs isn't perfect.
It's not as though all the voters had to remember was something as simple as "Joan Smith"
Wow, what a sign of Democrat desperation!
I haven't cared for years what Barr says, does, thinks or who he endorses.....and I doubt if anyone else does either.
Leni
Democrats have always engaged in such "jamming"
They invested in the constitution party in Florida in 2004.
I expect Hitlary to push a third party divide the vote strategy.
It has gotten so bad for democrats that they have to outsource pretending to be conservatives.
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.