Congressman Lee Terry has his first TV ad up of the 2010 campaign, and you can see it here now:
Terry has used the $13 Trillion theme for a while now -- differentiating his stance with that of of his Democrat opponent. It has allowed Terry to define himself, and define the opposition long before Election Day.
We note that Terry is going up with ads before Labor Day -- like he did by going up in the third week of August in 2008. Again, taking the upper hand and defining the race early.
So when will Terry's opponent will go up? Third parties have been emailing for dollars with a plea to give another ten grand to help him do so.
Two years ago you could ask most voters who the Democrat in the race was, and they'd tell you Jim Esch.
This year? Meh.
**Update**
The ad featured now on Congressional Quarterly.
***
While we're at it, here is Governor Dave Heineman on FOX Business:
Enjoy.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
Good spot.
The problem for White is he endorsed the stimulus bill very early. When the new job ###s come in for August, it is a pretty good bet unemployment goes up not down. There's no way around this for White--he's just on the wrong side of the economic and spending issue.
Pretty good spot, in a low production sort of way. If you're a Lee Terry fan, you have to question the closing of the ad--"We need Nebraska Common Sense in Washington." Are we not getting that now with, umm, you Lee Terry? Wording maybe could have been better.
Very good graphics--the $13 trillion really sticks out. Subtle message is it was $10 trillion when Obama took office...
JC-pretty obvious they're saying NE-type frugality would work pretty good right now in DC.
The other problem White has is this--no credibility.
No one knows who he is or what he stands for.
I bet he is negative right out of the box in his TV--dicey move since people don't know him. Opens White up to the 'who does he think he is' criticism...
If people are concerend about spending and the debt--why would they vote for White?
All White would do is make the problem worse w/his $2 trillion more in spending.
White's media guy said in his email that the ad was going to be 'negative'. Wrong on that, too...
to 9:57 Anonymous. Once you get to know White, you really won't like him. A lot of Dems dislike him as well.
Typical political ad - identifies a problem then offers absolutely no solution. Tell us what you're going to do about the $13 Trillion deficit. We know it's there! Tell us how you plan on reducing it!
OM--take a look at Terry's web page (issue section). He has several detailed proposals for bringing down the debt.
Step #1 is you don't make the problem worse by spending another $2 trillion that you don't have--like White has proposed.
White will pay for not making the Bellevue Parade. Voters are taking issue already with how he thought golfing was more important.
Anonymous 10:58, you're an idiot. Look at the photos on Tom White's Facebook page. It can be debated whether it's better to shake hands along the route or walk down the middle of the street, but it can't be disputed that he was there.
"We need Nebraska common sense in Washington."...Ben Nelson said the same thing just a few weeks ago. I was told once that common sense comes in varying degrees. I am beginning to think the person that told me that is correct.
Terry's ad didn't tell us anythhing we already didn't know. I want to know how Terry...Adrian Smith and the rest of the Republican Party are going to fix things...what's their recovery plan? Give us a plan...not a current events update.
Heinemen starts with such a nice "toothy" cheerleader smile then recites Republican talking points...Mr. Roboto.
I played the interview twice and am still trying to decide it's purpose. That Obama is a one-termer? That Obama doesn't care what the majority of American's want? Or that the Republicans have one helluva mess to clean up?
Whatever it was...Heineman "agreed with and understood" everything Cavuto was saying.
If Terry doesn't believe in spending money we don't have, why did he vote for the Bush Tax Cuts in a time of war, a Medicare prescription drug plan that was completely paid for with deficit spending, and Bush's TARP bill? Typical talking point hogwashed back up with a health dose of hypocrisy.
And Heineman is showing himself already running for Senate in 2012 and that he's the robot he always has been. Matter of fact, our entire Republican delegation are nothing but talking-point spouting robots, with maybe the exception of Forteberry, who's shown glimmers of an ability to speak like a normal person. But then, he's been falling in line pretty good with the other robots lately.
Ad review: Looks like Lee stepped away from the kiddy table and trimmed some pounds. Nice glasses less Harry Potterish. But as an ad goes? I've seen it a thousand...no wait...two thousand times before so I'm bored hearing the same old story. Didn't he vote to bail all those Wall Street fat cats back in 2007 in the first stimulus of sorts under Prez Bush?
Here's another problem for White--OMB itself projects the healthcare bill will actually increase the deficit $51 billion through 2012--"more than offsetting" the initial savings that were projected.
White made a bad mistake on this and the stimulus.
TW=Two Trillion Tom.
A couple of the (im)posters here are funny--
For years, the line of attack on Terry is that he's too conservative and votes to cut spending and programs too much. Go back and look at Thompson's and Esch's attacks.
But now Lee is a big spending liberal? lol You guys gotta figure our your line of attack better.
The NE Dems have someone running for Congress in the second district? From what I've seen/heard in the local media lately, some bozo named Ian Russel seems to be the guy. Did Tom White drop out of the race instead of facing sure defeat on Nov 2nd? Or is he too busy over in CB working on his airfleet?
This was a smart move by Terry. It's a good ad and I've heard the buy is large, very large.
So is the fish I caught this AM
Any of you out there able to explain how the Tom White for Legislature web site is now the tom white 2010 website?
Seeing as how White didn't file for Federal Office until June 7th of 09.... and it now is his congressional campaign website, wouldn't that be a mixing of State and Federal dollars. If you go right now to the Whois look up you find the site has a Creation Date: 27-dec-2008!
When one goes back and looks at the Project Vote Smart webpage for Tom White for legislature it points at his Federal Race page so what gives...... Looks like to me White just used an existing account with a new pointer.
So when did one site begin and the other take off?
Was Ian the developer of any of the content of either site?
Is there an issue here?
Let us know Ian.
(Oh Ian, already did a copy of the domain registration just in case you tried to take it down and back up again:)
3:34--maybe TW will explain this in his ad--just as soon as he scrapes up the $9k they need to place it. lol
I'm not Ian nor do I play him on TV, but 3:34PM you have way too much time on your hands and might try having a life.
3:34- need to check your facts first.
Not the original, but I'll play anyway. Tom White has been using a variety of sources to fund his Congressional Campaign.
He kept his campaign manager on the State Taxpayer's dime for an entire year (or more since no one will provide proof that Ian Russell is not still accepting wages or benefits from the Nebraska Taxpayers via his position as TW's Leg Staffer).
He paid said campaign manager a sweet little "bonus" from his Leg campaign coffers in April of '09 to update the website. I will just refer to it as "the Website" since we can't really figure out what happened to TW's legislative update website that he fought so hard to be able to have as a State Senator and then turned into vapor in July of '09. HMMM, that just seems too obvious, I wonder what the FEC thinks? Has anyone turned this question into the FEC?
Then, we have all the cash that TW has put in himself, yet, still can't pay back his Leg Staffer/Congressional Campaign Manager back for his plane ticket to D.C. (I wonder why he didn't just fly with TW in one of his private planes?
Not to mention the wages paid to his law office staff by his clients huge settlement fees. I wonder if his clients knew how much time his staff spent working on TW's politics instead of their cases? You gotta love a $1,000,000 settlement a year, don't ya'?!
1:10--if you are right then why is it you never win any of those races?
Talk is cheap...right?
...and boys and girls the moral of the story from 5:05PM today is that Tom White's opponent is as pure as the driven snow and no other attorney in the history of man ever used their law firm staff for campaign interest in any way just as a congressman's staff never ever lifts one little bitty finger to help another campaign or even their own.
Great press conference today Fahleson! Too bad not a single media outlet covered it.
If the state GOP holds a press conference and know one covers it does anyone care?
What was Fahleson's press conference about today, the opening of the wikipedia article he wrote about himself? Go check it out, I wouldn't make this stuff up.
Pretty much every state chair has an article, Professor Observant.
I thought the ad was pretty boring. I agree with Anon 1:28 who has seen it 2000 times.
A better ad would have been to cut out the "That's an outrage" (because if there's something that we've got plenty of it's outrage) with "we can't go on like this." And add "for more info on my ideas on how to cut the deficit, go to my website."
BTW, I absolutely hate the tag line "I'm Ben Dover, and I approved this message because I think my opponent needs to Ben Dover." Frickin' McCain-Feingold.
712, What individuals do on their day or days off and personal time is their own business. What a staffer in the Unicameral does during the middle of a SHORT balance the budget session is of concern to ALL Nebraska taxpayers, since they are the one's paying his salary. When you only have 2 employees and one of them is "occupied" with political work that has nothing to do with the Benson or Memorial Park neighborhoods in Omaha, it is blatant snubbing of all taxpayers.
For goodness sake, Ian only had to show up for work a few days out of the year. From what I hear from other staffers in Lincoln, that has been quite a chore for him from day one.
This is about TW and Lee Terry. One hides from everything, the other faces everything out front.
Oh, and to the person that posted that Congressman Terry only comes around at election time? Maybe if you paid attention to your politicians year round instead of waiting for them to be on t.v., then you would know that there is no "ramp up" for the election, it goes year round.
As a matter of fact, ethics and FEC rules force a slow down of constituent outreach during the campaign season.
How many times did TW hold TownHalls in Benson or did he have them all at his campaign office in his fancy house up the street from Memorial Park?
I am beginning to think that TW found this congressional race as an easy out of the Legislature and a way to just get more name ID for his "Civil Right's" practice that requires little work and has BIG Ass payouts for 2 trillion Tom.
715, assuming you "know" how to spell (which makes an "you know what out of me and you") then please take the time to read before you publish.
"No one" wants to read crap they are required to proofread for themselves.
Collapse in the housing market . . . unemployment probably heading north to 10% . . . $1.4 trillion budget deficits...
Voters who like the direction the country is going in can vote for White.
Simple question. Are you posters idiots, or do you just play idiots? Anyone who thinks the Obama administration is responsible for our economic problems is delusional or an ideological hack. It took years and several bubbles during the Bush admin to get us to where we are. One thing Bush did do correctly was to bail out GM and issue TARP funds. Otherwise the collateral damage would have been immense. The NON-PARTISAN Congressional Budget Office says that the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points during the quarter ending in June and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million. So just because things are bad doesn't mean they couldn't have been worse. My only complaint (and some Nobel winning economists) is that the stimulus wasn't big enough, so the economy remains in limbo. Sure, the debt we are incurring is a big problem. If Bush and the Republicans had paid for our wars and not issued irresponsible tax cuts, we wouldn't be in such bad shape. But our only way out now is govt stimulus. For those believing the solution is to cut taxes and govt expenditures, just look at Ireland and see how well that's working. Or look at 1937 when FDR got nervous about the govt debt being incurred and increased taxes resulting in an economic contraction. Wasn't until WW II, effectively a huge govt stimulus program, that we pulled out of Great Depression I.
Keynes is dead and so are his economic ideas. Obama crushed him with the car he was trying to get out of the ditch.
Cute, MacDaddy, but are you able to make a cognizant rebuttal?
I will concede that this entire unemployment economic mess is not entirely the President's fault. As we all know, Pelosi and Reid have been running the economy through the ringer since 2006, when the Democrats took control of Congress.
So, for arguments sake, let's just say that Bush did the only thing he could do in 2006 with Democrats in control of the majorities in Congress, bailout some of the single largest components of our economy?
Then I have to say, thank goodness for the Republicans and the handful of Democrats that refused to just hand the entire farm away in one envelope and held out for more control over the spending of the money AND another week's proof that the economy was headed for the cliff that was feared. At least the brakes were applied and only 1/3 of that bailout was made available until it could be shown to have worked.
Back to the unfortunate side of things, 2 years later the Democrats continued the spending spree like kids in a candy store because they feel they have a spending mandate from the American people based on the 2008 elections. Hell, they weren't even willing to pay for the unemployment extension with unspent TARP money-what the Hell is wrong with them.
We'll see where that mandate gets them in November. This country cannot afford to send one single new, or old, Democrat to Congress in January.
Sadly, Pelosi has indicated that she will spend as she pleases in November and December of this year, no matter what the voters tell her on November 2nd.
Not sure if TedK is really an idiot or if he is just playing an idiot.
Regardless, here is your choice: if you think that Obama's program is the right one or that it is working, then vote for White.
If you don't think it is taking the country in the right direction--and if you want to reduce spending and the debt--then vote for Terry.
The problem White has is he locked himself into supporting $2,000,000,000,000.00 more in spending and debt than Terry.
If you want more spending--vote for White.
Otherwise, go w/Terry.
The tactic the White campaign is using now--i.e. Terry is really a big-spending liberal!!!--reminds me of the 84 prez race.
Mondale's people had the 'brilliant' idea they would do a TV ad that accused Reagan of being 'soft' on the USSR--since RR had said he would share SDI technology with them--and that Mondale was stronger on nat'l defense.
The ad ran a few times before it was pulled--everyone laughed at it. That is going to be the reax to White's attacks on Terry.
All Two Trillion Tom would do is make the spending/debt problem worse. Goodbye.
Good move by NNN to post Terry's TV ad! Thanks, guys--
Not sure what the viewership will be though--over the last week Vile posted six articles--only 19 people actually commented on them.
Real enthusiasm over there.... lol
To 8:52AM today:
"This is about TW and Lee Terry. One hides from everything, the other faces everything out front"...and that's why boys and girls a House Republican leader named John told our little Lee he'd better not be hanging around or drinking with those cute girls lobbying him less he do a bad,bad thing, die and possibly go straight to hell from the mortal sin.
Anon 1:03: A net of 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs since Obama took office. Those 2.5 million Americans are not only out of jobs but each $6500 further in debt. Their share of the unpaid for trillion dollar porkulus. Claiming that the job loss would have been worse is a completely unverifiable claim and everyone knows that it is complete BS. Bush would have been raked over the coals and burned in effigy if he had suggested such a thing.
Keynesian economics, the model that Obama supposedly is following, does not work. That has been proven time and again. It has been proven so often that one suspects that Obama is only using it as a smokescreen while his real aim is to get as many people as possible dependent on the government. Any short-term gain in unemployment due to government spending leads to long-term unemployment because of the drag the government places on the economy, especially when all stimulus spending is deficit spending. Remember, the government produces nothing. It only redistributes wealth in the most inefficient manner possible. There is more pain coming because Obama likes seeing the car sitting in the ditch. After all, cars contribute to greenhouse gasses.
Was that answer more to your liking?
Anon 7:17: Boehner denied he said any such thing and the story is attributed to another Anonymous like yourself. In any event, what have you got against women? You don't think they can be lobbyists? You don't think they can be professional and do their jobs without putting out? Maybe you think they should stay at home knitting and baking cookies? And wear a burka, right?
A MacDaddy argument: Since that credible, non-partisan organization disagrees with me, it must be BS. This is why you have zero credibility, and why it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you. Do you understand the logical hole you are falling into? Do you ever question the assumptions you live by? I do and have changed my mind on occasion. With your mindset, you are locked into your worldview whether it coincides with reality or not. It also prevents you from realizing this. I believe it also makes you feel that you don't have to back up any of your statements (you rarely do); they are just fact. You seem to think that "Keynesian economics does not work..proven time and again". Well, I am no economist, but I read and study the world around me. Keynesian economic theory may not be perfect, and I don't necessarily agree with everything it promotes, but it does seem to explain the Great Depression and a way out of our current predicament. It does require we go further into debt (not something I like), but what is your answer. Cut taxes and govt spending? That's working well in Ireland. Give me something other than your tired bromides and empty Republican talking points.
I guess TedK has answered his own question earlier as to being an 'idiot'.
From Politico today--"Democrats privately fear House prospects worsening":
"'The problem is that alot of the message talks to the base, and we've got to talk to the middle,' a former Democratic party chairman said. 'You can only blame Bush for so long.'"
Listening, Dems?
So, no rebuttal to my post? Call me anything you want. I'd just like to see an intelligent argument refuting what I've said. Let's face it. An awful lot of voters don't pay attention, and this works both ways. The Dems will lose seats because they haven't figured out how to turn around the crappy economy handed to them by Bush. Since Obama's been around for 2 years, he and his party will catch all the blame, fair or not. In 1992, Clinton beat Bush I by harping on the terrible economy then. However things were improving before the election. Voters just weren't paying attention.
Hi TedK--seems like you and MacDaddy have a thing going back and forth here--I'll wait for his return volley.
But on content--you did state that one or more posters were 'idiots'. Then you apepar to react angrily when you are called the same. Something about ... you can dish it out but can't take it...?
At any rate, your thesis--and that of the other Dem trolls here--is to try and save your bacon this fall by blaming everything on Bush. The problem is, the public isn't buying that.
You have Dem operatives saying as much. Remember--the Dems control everything right now and they rammed through their entire program early on. News flash--it ain't working.
11:09, where did I appear angry? I said "call me anything you want". You're sure reading into my post. Stick to what I actually write and respond to it, not something you're imagining. My thesis, based on fact, is that the economy tanked under Bush's watch. Deregulation of the financial markets, little oversight, and low interest rates that created market and housing bubbles, all occurred under Bush and were the genesis of our problems. TARP and the GM bailout were his solutions to prevent Great Depression II. Obama's stimulus was another attempt to prevent GD II, but according to many leading and Nobel prize winning economists, it was too little. The CBO did credit it with creating 1 - 3 million jobs. Now with the Dems in power, they will be blamed for not fixing things. Fine, that's politics. But don't forget where the problem came from. What are some of the realistic solutions you armchair "experts" can provide? Things will get a lot worse before they'll get better.
Hi TedK--suggest you re-read your earlier post where you indicated some other posters were idiots. An apology is in order.
12:07, you have a chronology problem. But on content--you did state that one or more posters were 'idiots'. Then you apepar to react angrily when you are called the same. Something about ... you can dish it out but can't take it...? I was mad at the idiocy of many posters on this site. When people later implied or stated I was the idiot, I never got mad. Could care less what people call me.
Regarding the prior posts, we need some consistency in reporting the unemployment information. Suggest it is 18.4%--that covers those out of work or working only part-time because they can't get more hours or have given up altogether.
That's a more full picture on the economy.
It could hit 20% by late October--more bad news for Democratic candidates like White.
TedK, the CBO report is a bunch of BS that was designed to get positive results. The report was based partly on reports of jobs created by the agencies themselves. There are major problems with those reports as was covered extensively when recovery.gov came out. In addition, they assumed that every dollar the government spent had some positive effect on the economy. This was not actually measured, it was assumed. This is also known as gaming the system. It also defies logic. The former head of the CBO has already lambasted the report because it was based on fraudulent assumptions. In addition, it didn't actually measure the effects on the economy, it modeled them. Why? Because they said that it was impossible to measure.
But rather than you questioning the assumptions that went into the CBO report, you swallowed the democrat spin hook-line-and-sinker. Read the actual report. There are more maybe's, might have's, could possibly's, and other hedge words that they could have built the entire maze in The Shining with it.
MacDaddy, you're proving my previous point. You had to sift through the google until you could find a report (from Faux news) that backed you up. And I'm betting that the "former head of the CBO" served in the Bush administration. Of course it's not an exact science, but it's apparent to open-minded folks that the stimulus did create jobs. But you'll never believe this because it violates your ideology. Too bad we can't simulate an alternate universe where no stimulus funds were injected into the economy, and see the results. Oh wait! We have an historical example we can learn from. It's called the Great Depression and the Hoover/Republican reaction to it.
I read the CBO report. I analyzed it myself. Did you? Every criticism I brought up was contained in the CBO report, to their credit. They listed those criticisms and then pretty much dismissed them by saying that they didn't agree. That's just some awesome reasoning there. Very confidence-building. The statement from the former head of the CBO was gravy.
Macdaddy, we must have read two different reports. I finally found time over the weekend to read the entire thing with an open mind. In case you didn't realize, economics is not an exact science. That is why the CBO used ranges in their computations and results. On page 2 the report indicates problems with just relying on recipient reports. That is why they had to use economic models, and they did a good job of explaining their use, and why they selected macroeconometric forecasting models (see the appendix). Sure, some assumptions were made, but that doesn't prove any bias. I've disliked some of their reports in the past, but even when Bush was president, I felt their product was non-partisan and unbiased. It's only when one has ideological blinders on that "flaws" can be found from minutia, and rational conclusions dismissed because they don't agree with one's world view.
Post a Comment