We all remember the failed campaign of Priscilla Lord Faris. She ran a dirty and unimpressive campaign against US Senator Al Franken.
Her story and her campaign was the focus and a highlight of a conservative blogger.
Now in 2009, the names and the races have changed, but the tactics haven't.
Note to Dr Maureen Reed or Team Reed...
Getting your talking points displayed front and center at MDE does nothing for you. In fact, it ticks off a significant portion of the DFL base, the group you will need to win in the 6th.
“I know what independents think. I know what’s important to them. We know where they live, and we can speak directly to them,” said Reed. “In the 6th district, our DFL cannot win if it only gets DFL votes.”Ok Dr Reed, in 2006 on the back end of Peter Hutchinson's ticket, you garnered a whooping 6.4%. In the 6th, you received 5.9% of the vote. Let me guess, Peter Hutchinson drug the ticket down right? With nearly 30% of the State and the 6th identifying themselves as independent, it seems you fell significantly short.
We've heard the argument before. A strong liberal cannot win in the 6th, that a more independent voice would shine through in the 6th.
In 2002, a moderate socially conservative DFLer ran against Mark Kennedy and lost...big time.
In 2004, liberal Patty Wetterling closed to within 8 points of Mark Kennedy, garnering 46% of the vote.
In 2006, Wetterling lost to Michele Bachmann, with the majority of the blame falling on a poor campaign.
2008, moderate Elwyn Tinklenberg lost to Bachmann by about 3 points.
My point is this, no one other than a Republican has won in the 6th since Bill Luther, which had only a portion of the district as it's encompassed now. Liberal, moderate, etc...all campaigns have failed. Reeds assertion that she can win as a moderate is unfounded.
Reed running as a moderate, lobbing verbal bombs at State Senator Tarryl Clark will do nothing to help her in the 6th.
If either candidate cannot run an effective campaign, the race in the 6th will be over.
Which is why many of us support Senator Clark. She's been through some rather tough races in the past, she's persevered. We know where Clark stands, we cannot say that for Reed, much like the failed Lord Faris campaign. No one knew where Lord Faris stood on the issues and the same holds true for Dr Reed.
Will Reed come out and denounce the MDE post?
We'll be watching closely...
5 comments:
There’s a reason why Sarah Janecek is posting so many stories propping up Reeds campaign. It’s because Janecek’s a republican.
Of all the IP campaigns that underperformed, the last Reed campaign tops the list. Just by the numbers they had 5 times the money Barkley had and were facing 1/10 the money Barkley did, yet got less than 1/3 the votes.
As far as being a Democrat goes, I don’t see the wealthy DR. Reeds name on Frankens, Elwyns, Obama’s or any other Democratic FEC report.
Reeds campaign message of “vote for me because I don’t have a stance on anything and never have, therefore they can’t call me a liberal” is pure folly.
Here’s a message to the Reed team. Find an issue to campaign on or STFU.
And here’s a message to all those candidates who are afraid of being called a “liberal”. Get over it because that’s what we are! Just define what that means and quit letting Bachmann do it for you.
The Lord Ferris campaign probably was a big factor in Franken having to weather an election day apparent narrow loss, and to have the protracted recount process, which Franken won.
But Lord Ferris' campaign was not a "dirty" one. She had the right to do what she did. I think it was "counterproductive" to removal of Norm Coleman from the Wellstone seat, but I would use that word, certainly not dirty.
It was like the anonymous "Draft Ciresi" thing - counterproductive to the goal of ousting Coleman.
But Hal.
The point is there's a big lie floating around that you are not debunking at the core.
Put Janet Robert aside as a joke with lots of personal cash to spend on chasing a lie - that only a real right-winger GOP-lite sort could take the district.
Tink tried the Blud-Dog being all things to everyone on the right to choose issue. Not a moderate, no way.
Clark is a moderate.
Wetterling is a moderate.
The one moderate endorsed the other. Neither is by any measure a Wellstone.
I will concede Wellstone had liberal leanings, but he was not as much so as Kucinich, for example.
Reed is a Blue Dog.
Blue Dogs are GOP-lite, and the GOP folks will not cross over for GOP-lite.
And a lot of people call themselves independent while, given the reality of the two party system, voting consistently for the Tweedle-Dee, or consistently for the Tweedle-Dum, but there really are two twins looking a lot alike.
Clark is the moderate.
Reed is a right leaning person wanting to move the DFL that way.
Wetterling was a moderate.
Floyd Olson might have been the last liberal in the State, from all I see. Wellstone approached that, he did not match it.
One last thing.
Clark worked in DFL putting together legislation that got signed by Tim Pawlenty, for Christsakes, and that's moderate and able to make sensible though unpleasant compromise to appease that jackass.
What's with this big-lie liberal stuff? Legislation that passed and was signed by Pawlenty. By an extreme right-wing idealogue.
Clark can get the job done in adverse circumstances and the situation she will face in DC will be easier because a smarter, better executive sits there these days. Not a perfect one, a moderate, just like Tarryl Clark.
Debunk the big lie.
Eric:
You are a liberal!
The negative picturing of Clark is not an official Reed position, rather something some supporters are saying.
Whether this "Mn Blue" person is a staff person or not - I know you and TPL have flagged that. But when Reed campaign official press/web items are concerned, it is only touting Reed as one of two exceptional choices, which is the campaign clearly taking the high road, and that's important:
http://www.progressiveelectorate.com/diary/1719/we-need-to-defeat-bachmann-maureen-reed-for-congress
Post a Comment