Posted on 04/04/2007 8:54:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Defeating John Murtha: Part 1 Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:20 PM
Last summer and fall, I worked with many others in the campaign -- the crusade -- waged by Diana Lynn Irey to defeat Congrerssman John Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District. As anyone who's read my columns knows, I have great admiration for Diana and her campaign staff. Murtha is a corrupt politician, known as "The Prince of Pork," who's more concerned with ensuring he has a life-time job in Congress than with protecting American security. He's a symbol of everything that's wrong with American politics, and it's critical that he be removed from office.
Harsh words? They're no more acerbic than the those made by liberals Ruth Marcus and Melanie Sloan. When Murtha ran for the post of majority leader (a race he lost badly to Steni Hoyer of Maryland), Marcus of the Washington Post played the role of Paul Revere in warning people about how ethically challenged he was. Ms. Sloan's group ranked Murtha as one of the 25 most corrupt elected officials in DC.
In a section of the House of Representatives called "Murtha's Corner," he regularly trades defense appropriations -- public money -- for votes. He's a major proponent of "earmarks," targeted funds that give us things like "the bridge to nowhere."
He's said that politics is no more than "deal-making." With no evidence, he's charged American soldiers of carrying out "cold-blooded killings." He's referred to ethics reform, supposedly a center-piece of the new Democratic Congress, as "total crap." He's used his political clout to enrich family members, especially his brother Kit Murtha, and political associates, such as Paul Magliocchetti, who has reciprocated by helping Murtha raise huge sums from corporations and lobbyists. .
Huge sums? In his 2006 campaign against Diana Irey, a Washington County Commissioner, Murtha spent on a comparative basis much more per vote than Hillary Clinton, supposedly the Princess of Fund Raising, did in her New York Senate race. He received much more in campaign finances from DC, Maryland, and Virginia -- the bastions of defense company lobbyists -- than he did from his home state of Pennsylvania.
Such behavior should have outraged the good people of Pennsylvania's 12th district (including towns like Washington, PA, Johnstown, and Monogahela), right? Don't kid yourself. In most elections, Murtha has run unopposed, ususally winning approximately 99% of the vote, about the percentage gained by Saddam Hussein in his "elections."
In 2006, John Murtha got about 61% of the vote, and Diana Irey got 39%, nearly 78,000 votes -- a big improvement over the zero votes in uncontested races. As I describe it, she needed five votes out of ten, plus one, to win. She got about four-out-of-ten.
Money was a major factor in Murtha's victory. He wasted a lot of money, apprently using much of it to pay off long-time supporters. However, he could pay cold cash for many services on which Diana needed to rely on the kindness of volunteers.
His $3.5 million in spending, an incredible sum for a district containing mostly people of modest means. Diana Irey raised about $885,000, itself an amazing amount for someone running against an entrenched candidate. Where Murtha had many big contributors, including the PACs that benefit from his legislative favors, most of Irey's 7,000 financial backers made small contributions ($100 or less).
What would a Diana Lynn Irey need to run a winning campaign against Murtha? (Note: I have no idea if she will run again, but I certainly hope she will.) She would need $1.5 million-plus, about 70% more than she raised in 2006. Granted, Murtha probably would outspend her by more than two-to-one, usually a formula for success, but not necessarily in his case.
Diana would have to raise her money from true believers, like people who regularly read outlets like Townhall.com, The Weekly Standard, and The National Review. She would need even more intense support in 2008 than she got in 2006 -- and she got a lot -- from people like Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.
In 2006, she got tens of thousands of dollars from out-of-state, including places like Florida and Texas. If she runs in 2008, she will have to travel to New York, Florida, Texas, and Southern California to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. She's a woman of great attractiveness and conviction, as well as a charismatic speaker, and she can bring out supporters in those states. In short, she needs to build on her role as a national candidate, not just someone from rural and small-town Pennsylvania.
She also needs to target non-competitive districts in Pennsylvania, such as Democrat Mike Doyle's in Pittsburgh, where there are a good many Republicans -- but almost no candidates for them to support. Can she get 300-plus contributors from that district -- and 100-plus volunteers? It should be doable.
She'll also need an especially strong Internet fund-raising campaign, one even better than the good one she had in the last election. Her effort on the Net should feature "Diana-in-action," with videos of her speaking to constituents (especially women), soldiers, wounded veterans, and others. She should portray herself exactly as she is, a devoted Christian, a committed wife, and a dedicated mother of three children.
For Diana to raise the kind of money she will need, faithful Christians and Jews will have to step up to the plate. In all candor, $10 contributions will be welcome, and they will add up over time. However, she will need a message that convinces people that it's time to give as if their lives depended on it. She will need to turn many traditional $10 contributors into $50 or $100 contributors. Instead of 7,000 individual contributors, she will need roughly 15,000. Again, I believe it's doable.
She will need to advertise on television, an expensive form of campaigning. This time around, however, she should accentuate the positive, her own character, personality, and governmental achievements, as well her position as a wife and mother. Any ads on radio or TV should be extremely simple and clear, something that wasn't always the case in 2006. (Murtha doesn't use many TV ads, mostly because he comes across as old, grumpy, and generally off-putting.)
She hasn't asked me, but I think her slogans should stress things like: "It's time for fresh faces . . . and a new ideas." In 2006, she experimented with "send a mom to Congress," and I think that will work again. In 2006, she absolutely had to "go negative," to get people's attention and drive them away from the inertial process of always voting for Murtha. In 2008, a postive, conservative, family-oriented approach should work.
Important as TV is in establishing someone as a "real" candidate, grassroots efforts are the ultimate key to success. It's critical to solicit volunteers, people dedicated to electing someone like Diana. Some of those volunteers will be political veterans of campaigns past. Others will be evangelical, or Roman Catholic Christians, or Jews concerned about the security of America and Israel.
The veterans whose allegiance she won in 2006 will stick with her. There should be an emphasis on asking veterans to contribute and to convince vets in her district to vote for her.
What about the national and state Republican Parties? In 2006, they gave Diana, one of their most attractive candidates, a grand total of nothing. That's shameful and unacceptable. Rather than pouring money into the campaigns of people who turn voters off, the national Republicans must start supporting their best candidates. If they don't, they risk spending a generation or more as a minority.
Finally, there will be people like me. If Diana runs again, my wife and I will contribute as much as we can to her campaign-- and do so in the early phases when money counts most. I will also urge approximately 500friends and acquaintances to contribute to her campaign and to provide other support (for example, calling and e-mailing friends). I'm also willing to help in training volunteers to call and visit voters.
On election day, November, 2006, I worked with two of Diana's volunteers, Amanda and her brother (Josh?), at Campaign Headquarters. Those young people, members of Diana's church, each made 400 phone calls on her behalf! People like them are a secret weapon.
The way a candidate wins elections is to ask people -- directly or indirectly (through others) -- for their votes. Doing so face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) is frankly more effective than over-reliance on expensive TV ads.
Is John Murtha -- and the Murtha-types in Congress generally -- beatable. Yes.
Note: This is part of a series. As I've suggested, the emphasis will be on actions people can take to ensure the defeat of John Murtha and others like him.
.
Beasts
You did yeoman work for Diana. She was the best candidate.
It sometimes take more than one cycle for people to “get” it. I hope Diana keeps up the attack starting now for 2008. By then she will have a solid record of her views and more name recognition than in 06.
I hope that she will run again. She has drive, spunk, brains, and the truth on her side. Getting rid of a thirty year plus Congressman is hard work, but she can do it.
With the help of great folks like you and the missus.
The people of your district deserve better than Murtha—way better.
Diana BUMP!!
I hope she runs again.
We did it together.
Yeah, but you were the stellar trooper.
B U M P
Modesty becomes you. Diana will win next time!
We will be here for her next time too!
if she runs, you can tell her I’m in for the max by law as I was last time.
Big Time!!! 
LOL! Yes, I remember the pink wig. I wonder if anyone kept that shot filed.
Me and Jaz want to see the gal in the PINK WIG!!!!
Hah! I think you’re wasting your breath, Smooth. We’re going to have to wait till tomorrow, I believe he goes to bed with the chickens. :-)
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.