Free Republic

I was curious about your comment regarding the value of the "push" questions. I went back and found the original posting of the survey memo, which can be found on RedState: New Polling on the Irey-Murtha Race.

And here are two other blogs reporting it: Hot Air and Right Angle.

I used to work in politics, a long time ago. It's been years since I worked a campaign, but if I remember correctly, the "push" question value threshold is 30 or 35 percent (just can't remember which it is). Any "push" question that registers better than 30 or 35 percent movement away from one candidate and toward the other is deemed a good attack.

So as I read these "push" questions, it seems the Irey campaign's biggest problem here is focus. They've got 11 different lines of attack that work. But they don't have the time or the money to land blows on all eleven. Which will they choose?

You're clearly right when you say the proper attacks are found in the corruption area. I would have thought otherwise, that the good, culturally conservative voters of Western Pennsylvania would have been more offended by his recent statements on the war. After all, Murtha's ethical shortcomings have been a matter of record for a number of years. (Except for that question about hosting the party for the convicted felon, and trying to force taxpayers to pay the legal bills of a Congressman who's guilty of taking a bribe. Anyone have any background info on that?)

If you can't vote for her, you can still help her. Go to her web site at Diana Irey for Congress and give her a donation and sign up to help as a volunteer!

First it was laying into Marines at Haditha before the evidence was in. Now it's calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon, which is another way of saying Hezbollah gets away with it again.

Is there no depth to which Jack Murtha will not stoop in his clear about-face on the very Marines whom he says he loves?

Until 9/11, Hezbollah held the title as the reigning world champ of Terrorists Who Kill Americans. It is still the case that they hold the title as reigning world champs of Terrorists Who Kill U.S. Marines.

And Murtha wants Israel to lay down their arms against these guys?!?!

I've got to agree with you, Coop. I've given money to Irey and a few others before I knew she was running, but now the rest of my money is going right into PA-12, directly to Irey's campaign.

I, too, appreciate that there are others out there who are running their own little operations against Murtha. But the acid test is simple -- is what they're doing going to generate votes for Diana Irey? Supporting her first and foremost is the best way to register your opposition to Murtha and his outrageous statements.

So I offer this suggestion (challenge?) to everyone reading an anti-Murtha thread: until you've donated money to Diana Irey's campaign, you're all hat and no cattle, as they say in my native Texas.

I've heard from a friend inside the Irey camp that they're about to go online with some kind of new communications gear that's going to allow people outside the district to do grass-roots organizing inside the district. I don't know if that's going to work or not. Until I hear that it's working to their satisfaction, I'll register my opposition to Murtha by writing checks until I've maxed out.

And I'm already working on getting some friends to do the same.

Being one of the older generation, I remember well the words of one Tom Lehrer:

Plagiarize
Let no one else's work evade your eyes
Remember why the Good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes, but
Plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!
Only, please be sure to call it ... "research"

LOL

You're absolutely right -- this is an astonishing press release. I've read the book from cover to cover already, and I can tell you, the author does a remarkable job of putting together the indictment against the Bush Administration and its handling of the run-up to the war and the execution of the war itself, and its aftermatch. Nowhere in the book itself does he come anywhere close to ripping Murtha; in fact, the author's arguments about how we got into the war and what the Bush Administration did wrong in its execution of a war plan track exactly with what Murtha has been saying.

Nevertheless, it is true that he said on MTP what Irey says he said. After walking him through everything the Bush Administration did wrong from start to finish, Russert then closed the interview by giving Ricks the chance to discuss future options. And Ricks just slammed the door shut on immediate withdrawal, calling it "irresponsible" and "shameful."

You say "adroit." I say "clever." :)

If you take a look at the release her campaign put out earlier today, you'd see her campaign obviously already has it. And I'd wager they have a lot more to come ...

Mitch McConnell won his 1984 race for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky by doing almost exactly that against his Democratic opponent, incumbent U.S. Senator Dee Huddleston. The only ads anyone remembers from that race were McConnell ads that featured a guy being dragged all over the place by a pack of bloodhounds, while the narrator intoned on and on "Where's Dee? He's not here in Kentucky. Maybe we'll find him in his office in the Senate. (Cut to shot of bloodhounds dragging guy down the street in front of the Capitol.) Nope. Not here. Maybe here in Florida, where he attended a lobbyists' conference where they gave him umpty-ump thousands of dollars for a 20-minute speech? (Cut to shot of bloodhounds dragging guy all over a beach.) Nope. Maybe here in Aspen, where he went to another resort as a guest of a special interest lobbyist? (Cut to shot of bloodhounds dragging guy across a snow-covered landscape.)" etc. etc. etc.

I think we all like Jack. Bauer, not Murtha. Hmm. Not a bad URL for a fun web site. JackBauerNotMurtha.com, anyone? Get to it, you creative geniuses!

I think she already is!

Again with the whacking! Any way this guy turns, she's there, right up in his face. Aggressive. Unafraid. All over him. This is good stuff from Diana Irey.

I heard from a source in the campaign that the two of them did a debate on the radio this morning. It didn't make any sense to me, though; Murtha wouldn't be idiotic enough to debate her at all, let alone now. Would he?

Ah, now this is what I came to Free Republic for -- a good, old-fashioned argument! Re: your points:

• "By ruling out earmarks Ms Irey is not only completely and totally unrealistic, but marks her off a short list from national Republicans" ... If she's unrealistic to rule out earmarks, then so are an awful lot of other conservative Members of Congress, notably those who now make up the bulk of the Republican Study Committee. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Jeb Hensarling of Texas have been leading the charge on earmark reform, and perhaps you'll remember this was an issue that was pushed hard back in the January/February timeframe, when John Shadegg was running for Majority Leader?
• "She should have gone after another of Murtha's major weaknesses, like he's too old and senile" ... First off, I happen to like the way she's going right at what is perceived to be Murtha's biggest strength. It's ... well, it's positively Rovian! She's apparently made the decision not to concede the point, and to at least make Murtha defend his largesses over the years. Second, I actually think your suggestion here, that she go after him for being "too old and senile," is dangerous -- according to the Almanac of American Politics, this district is populated by a large group of seniors. They could (and probably would) take offense at an attack on Murtha just because he's old. And don't ever forget how Ronald Reagan disarmed Walter Mondale's attacks on Reagan's age -- one good one-liner, and that attack is toast.
• "[E]armarks for unfunded defense requirements are no more wasteful than any other defense program" ... I find it hard to believe that earmarks in any area of government are not more wasteful than that spending which has been vetted properly and fully by the Administration and two committees of the Congress -- how could it not be? The whole point of having authorizing committees and appropriations committees is to make sure that the programs that get authorized and funded are those which a significant number of Members of Congress have investigated, discussed, and vetted; earmarks by definition totally bypass that process, and allow a single Member to insert into legislation a mandate that certain funds be spent on programs that have not been vetted appropriately. There's just no way earmarks aren't any more wasteful than other defense spending programs. And just to be clear -- you're not suggesting that there's no waste in the Defense Department, are you? There's been wasteful spending in the Defense Deparment ever since the Revolutionary War! Why would the Defense Department be immune to the wasteful spending practices found in every other department of government?

Terribly sorry, Sailor, didn't realize that once I posted an item of interest that it was ever after my responsibility to post new items of interest!

I thought this was a self-actuating community, you know, the kind where we build and feed off each other. Like piranhas tearing into a poor fish dumb enough to get too close. :)

AuH2O, that's an excellent pickup -- thanks for updating the update!

I watched C-SPAN to see how they were going to handle the amendments, and after each one was voted on, the sponsor moved to have a recorded vote, and the Chairman declared some parliamentary mumbo-jumbo and then moved on -- without a recorded vote. I guess the parliamentary mumbo-jumbo meant something along the lines of "We'll give you your recorded vote, but it will be done by electronic device instead of taking the time to call out the names one at a time," or something like that.

What virtually guarantees Murtha's reelection? His long practice of earmarking defense pork for his district and the districts of his cronies? Or Mrs. Irey's attack on earmarks?

If your premise is that his practice of earmarking pork for his district makes him unbeatable, then she has lost nothing with her attack on earmarks -- she was going to lose anyway.

If your premise is that he was beatable until she attacked on earmarks, and that it is this new attack that "guarantees" Murtha's re-election, I don't agree.

Those who depend on earmarks will vote for Murtha -- unless they can be made to understand that despite his ability to bring home the bacon, he deserves to be retired for other reasons.

Those who do not depend on earmarks, and who may not even have ever heard of earmarks, will now learn about them and how insidious they are.

The ability of a Congressman (in this case, a very influential Congressman) to designate certain funds in a bill to go for special interest spending (as directed by the contractor's lobbyists) makes every Congressman subject to being tempted. I think her use of the Duke Cunningham case is an excellent example: without earmarks, he never would have been able to deliver for Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes, and if he had never been in a position to deliver for them, they never would have offered him the money, and if they had never offered him the money, he never would have taken it, and he would still today be a Member of Congress.

"Incidentally, most earmarks for DOD -- my industry -- usually align well with unfunded needs from the service branches. That's one of the criteria. The service branch will publish an unfunded requirements list, and industry plus their lobbyists plus their congresscritter will insert the project into the bill. No waste here."

That was meant to be sarcastic, I presume? "No waste here," in reference to defense earmarks?

Now we're talkin'. Diana Irey's continuing ability to play off current news events and fit them into an overall campaign strategy is awesome. Here she takes Nancy Pelosi's comments in this morning's newspaper and turns them (again!) against Pelosi's chief lieutenant, Jack Murtha.

And she found a way to get that terrific Los Angeles Times article from last summer into circulation again!

UPDATE: The U.S. House just voted down the King Amendment by voice vote. Congressman King immediately moved to have the vote be recorded by roll call, but the Rule on the bill didn't allow for roll call votes -- so we'll never know how Murtha voted.

Now she's gotten to the point where she's anticipating votes on the House floor and laying out ahead of time where she stands, even as she challenges Murtha to join her. Good stuff!

Au contraire. I think Mrs. Irey's use of the line demonstrates a very good knowledge of history -- and an even better sense of irony. She's using one of the left's most famous counter-attacks against their latest icon.

That's great news! The even better news is that with modern technology, you don't HAVE to live there to help -- you can help right from home, by making phone calls into the district. I don't know the details yet, but I understand the Irey campaign has some kind of new software that allows volunteers from around the country to make phone calls just as if they were sitting in an Irey phone bank operation right inside their headquarters.

Check it out with the Irey campaign. Murtha's going to have money galore, but if Irey can really mobilize the tens of thousands of activists around the country who are upset with Murtha, she just might be the surprise of the year.