Progressive group plans pro-Markey ads on cap and trade

Good for Markey

But I really hope it's on Denver network, not cable. And I hope they take the Obama line out of their version of the spot for Markey. Contrary to what some Politico reporters think, his coattails had little to do with the Democratic victory in the 4th.

---

by: Jeff Bridges @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 13:23:51 PM CDT

You don't think Obama helped Markey?

It wouldn't surprise me that the Politico got something wrong (in fact it would surprise me if they got something right), but what reason do you have to believe Markey would have won in 2004 or 2006?

"You need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics!" --The Transformers

---

by: sxp151 @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 13:34:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Coattails

The Politico story said that Markey won on Obama's coattails. Markey got 56 percent of the vote in CO4, Obama 48. That's not coattails by any definition, at least as far as Obama goes. Obama also ran behind Udall in CO4.

The excitement generated by Obama likely added to Markey's margin of victory, but to say she won thanks to someone who ran 8 percentage points behind her, as Politico did, is a stretch. It was an offhand statement thrown out by a couple of reporters who knew nothing about the 2008 race in CO4.

---

by: BobMoore @ Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 16:47:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm...

"If Markey finds herself on the defensive, she's in trouble," Straayer said.  "If she proudly owns her votes and casts them as pushing to solve serious problems for which the R's have no solution, she may well be just fine.  And she can't let her opponent define Betsy Markey."

That's a quote from someone you used in your previous post talking about how feeble and ineffective the NRCC ads were.

If they're so lame, why is she responding?  Isn't she doing exactly what she was warned about in the quote?

Cap and Trade is toast in the Senate, and hopefully Markey's toast in the 4th.  We'll see.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 11:54:42 AM CDT

If they're so lame, why is she responding?

Straayer's remarks aren't contradictory. The ads might be feeble (especially in Markey's case, because there really aren't any ads, just a robocall and a generic Web ad), but Markey still has to avoid going on the defensive about the subject of the attacks. All Straayer is saying is Markey needs to frame the debate and not let the NRCC attacks, feeble as they are, establish a meme that goes unanswered.  

---

by: RedGreen @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 12:29:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Markey's not responding

The ads are coming from a 501(c)4 that by law can't coordinate with Markey's campaign.

According to Americans United for Change, they weren't aware of NRCC activity when they decided to produce the ads. Place whatever credibility you find appropriate in that statement.  

---

by: BobMoore @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 18:33:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not coordination

If it doesn't expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate and it occurs outside the coordination window (something like 90 days before an election) then it's not coordination according to the FEC.

Members of Congress regularly talk to 501(c)(4) organizations that do issue advocacy. If they didn't, Tom Tancredo could never have done anything with the Minutemen and Marilyn Musgrave wouldn't ever have been able to do anything with James Dobson.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

"Some of the people that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the 'Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?'." --Rep. Barney Frank

---

by: ThillyWabbit @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 20:23:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry

My brain's in permanent campaign-coverage mode.

---

by: BobMoore @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 08:58:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]