Posts Tagged ‘ads’

Today’s Battle ’10 Posts on NRO

By Elizabeth Crum | 5:16 pm August 2nd, 2010

Here are my most recent National Review Online blog items, Dear Readers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/state/Nevada

Headlines:

  • Hating Harry (bonus materials:  video of a money quote from Ralston)
  • Nevada’s “None of the Above” option could help Harry Reid (includes money quote from Ryan Erwin)
  • Sandoval “Hispanic” scandal (or is it?)
  • Sandoval leads Rory by…we’re not sure (battle of the polls)
  • Angle-Reid in dead heat
  • Rory emerges from polling abyss, says Rasmussen (bonus materials: funny ad)

Since you can’t drop comments over there, feel free to drop them here instead.

Rasmussen Has First Post-Primary Angle-Reid Poll

By Elizabeth Crum | 9:00 am June 10th, 2010

Here.

Angle by 11 points.  5% for “Other.” 6% Undecided.

Poll says “Voters not affiliated with either party prefer Angle by 10 points.”

As I said last night on KTNV, let’s give it about 30 days before we get too excited about numbers.

Team Reid is going to try to crush Angle early and hard so they can call it Done and start focusing resources on all the Dem down-ticket races.

If they hope to have her weather the Category 5 winds of Hurricane Harry (a Harrycane…?) Tea Party Express and/or Club for Growth and/or the RNC better hurry up with major infusions of ad cash into the Nevada airwaves on Angle’s behalf.

Martin Pounds Away on Marshall in State Treasurer’s Race

By Elizabeth Crum | 3:24 pm May 24th, 2010

A really good attack campaign will always nail the competition twice:  when he/she initially errs, and when he/she “finally” straightens out (but only under pressure, it is insinuated).

An example, from the Steve Martin for State Treasurer campaign, which today points out that Kate Marshall has ceased running unclaimed property auction notices starring herself:

Treasurer Changes Advertisements

Without Her Picture and Her Name, How Will We Know it’s Kate?

Treasurer changes ads, scaling back her practice of using tax dollars to promote herself

LAS VEGAS, NV – It seems an ethics complaint has put the brakes on Kate Marshall using official State Treasurer notices as campaign ads. In 2009 Marshall issued unclaimed property auction notices from the State Treasurer’s office with her picture and name prominently displayed in a fashion more closely resembling a campaign ad than an official notice. If the latest notice is any indication, maybe Marshall has finally gotten the picture – by taking her picture off the notice.

“I am glad to see that Kate Marshall has finally gotten the message that the taxpayers are not responsible for funding her campaign,” said State Treasurer candidate Steve Martin. “Nevadans deserve a State Treasurer that recognizes the responsibility to use state resources for the people and not for campaign efforts. We need principled, ethical leadership, and that is why I am in this race.”

The 2009 and 2010 auction notices are attached to Martin’s release which ends with these words:  “better late than never.”

Senate 9 Primary Race Gets Nasty, Halseth Goes After Nolan on Rape Case Testimony

By Elizabeth Crum | 1:39 pm May 18th, 2010

If you missed last night’s back-and-forth between GOP primary challenger Elizabeth Halseth and state senator Dennis Nolan on Face to Face, you can watch the show’s last two segments here. A few notes and comments on the first segment (hope to get to the rest later today):

First, for background, you should listen to Halseth’s latest radio ad –  Ehalseth_Ad_2 — roasting senator Nolan for his 2008 testimony in a rape case involving a minor.  The ad ends with this from the alleged victim’s father:

“What kind of a person defends a child rapist who sexually assaults our kids?”

“Tell [Dennis Nolan] that defending child rapists is not OK.”

Also check out Halseth’s recent mailer:

You are now filled in.

Ralston kicked off the first segment with this comment to Halseth:

“This has gotten unusually nasty, and I am really stunned, actually, by the radio ad that you’re running right now.  You’re criticizing Senator Nolan for testifying as a character witness for a friend who was charged with the sexual assault of a teenager.”

And then turned to Nolan for comment who said:

“I think this is typical, sleazy Washington-style politics.  I was asked to… I wasn’t asked, I was actually subpoenaed by the public defender’s office, to come and testify on behalf of a friend who I’ve known for years, who grew up with my kids. I was subpoenaed; I testified; I appeared in court; I told the truth; and that’s all I can do.  That’s all anybody can expect of a citizen in our judicial system.”

Ralston referred back to Nolan’s comments about pressure (at the time of the case) from the DA’s office re: his testimony and asked him if he had regrets.

Nolan said he did not regret giving the testimony.  He said he knew both the accused and the victim, and that he told the truth.

Nolan also said that although there was a conviction in the case, the state Supreme Court has found merit in the appeal (which has not yet been decided).

Ralston to Halseth:  “I have a simple question for you.  What’s the point of this ad?  Why should he not have done what he did?”

Halseth defended the ad saying it was factual. Ralston then asked her why the ad is relevant.

Halseth:  “You don’t use your position as a state senator to influence a jury, especially in a rape case against a minor.”

Ralston asked her how Nolan used his influence to sway the jury.

Halseth:  “Listen.  As a state senator… You know… It is bad, that is bad judgment…  And inappropriate for a state senator to take the stand to defend a rapist.”

Ralston:  “Did he not respond to a subpoena?  He can’t help the fact that he was a state senator, could he…?”

Halseth:  “Listen.  It is bad judgment to do what he did.”

Ralston:  “So he should have just said, “I’m not going to respond to a subpoena?”"

Halseth:  “Well, you know, show me the subpoena.”

Ralstont to Nolan:  “So she doesn’t believe you had a subpoena.”

Nolan:  “Well, she can check with the Public Defender’s office.  When you’re subpoenaed, regardless of why, good citizens respond to a subpoena.”

Ralston pressed Halseth once more as to why she would criticize Nolan on this matter vs. on the issues, especially as he was subpoenaed in a criminal case.

Halseth:  “Listen as a sexual assault victim myself, if one of my state senators got on to a witness stand and said, and testified on behalf of my attacker, and then said the attacker was a good guy, and that the attack was consensual, I do not know how I would feel.”

So in addition to putting out these very incendiary ads and mailers, Halseth is now also saying she doesn’t believe Nolan was really subpoenaed?

I am hoping to hear back in response to my call to the public defender’s office before I am ready to click “Publish” on this post, but I assume Nolan would not lie about something that could so easily be disproved.

And if Nolan was subpoenaed, as I believe he was, what else would he do but show up and testify?  Can’t imagine a situation where someone looks forward to testifying in a rape case, but citizens must answer the call.

However, that is all beside the major point and question, one which Ralston repeatedly asked and Halseth never answered:

Why is any of this relevant?

What does any of this have to do with Dennis Nolan’s ability to fulfill his duties as a state senator and/or his position on the issues?  And/or why should anyone find Elizabeth Halseth a preferable alternative and/or what are her positions on the issues?

I wish I could say Halseth answered any of those questions (which Ralston also asked) in segment two, but she didn’t.

More on that later.

Update (2:45 pm): Public defender, Philip Kohen, confirms that yes, there was subpoena for Nolan in the 2008 case.  And he had an interesting question about Halseth:

“Here is someone who says she wants to hold a constitutional office, but yet questions someone’s obligation to answer a subpoena?”

A Few Lowden Updates

By Elizabeth Crum | 11:24 am April 30th, 2010

Item #1, a funny comment and hot tip about the latest rage in chicken games from Sebelius:

Wait, what? Senate hopeful Sue Lowden is still talking about bartering for health care? You know, the Chinese have a saying, “When you’re in a hole, stop digging before you hit a huge pocket of hot liquid magma and incinerate any hope you ever had of becoming a U.S. senator!” That’s how that goes, right?

And, inevitably, the Harry Reid campaign has launched a chickens for checkups Facebook game.

Item #2, as Flashed by Ralston this morning:

Patriot Majority ad uses regular folks deriding Bartergate

Here’s the script:

“(Sue Lowden) In the olden days our grandparents they would bring a chicken to the doctor. (Man#1) I don’t know how the docs would feel about me bringing a chicken into the doctor’s office, right. (Woman #1) Can this doctor take this chicken to a gas station? To a grocery store? (Woman #2) I think it’s a little out of touch. (Man#2) Totally fantasy land. (Man #3) Sounds like a joke. (Woman #1) Can he pay his mortgage with it? (Man#2) She is divorced from the reality that most people live. [Chyron-‘Sue Lowden’s Chicken for Checkups?’] (Man#1) No I don’t think so.”

Here’s the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPorK5Bvi9E

And Lowden goes on the attack against Harry Reid w/op-ed in Politico defending Bartergate but using the majority leader as a foil:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4F662F9B-18FE-70B2-A8D8A3111F2E2F63

It’s a pretty good op-ed qua campaign missive.  If you are a Lowden fan, you will wish she had written it weeks ago.

Item #3, a WaPo op-ed.  About which I have a question, the same one Tweeted by Ralston yesterday. When did Team Lowden send out a statement suggesting she had meant to say “haggle” instead of “barter” and explaining that the idea was to offer to pay in cash if medical providers would agree to lower the price…?  The author of the WaPo piece says that happened — but if so, I guess I (and every journalist in Nevada) missed it.

Item #4, from TPM, a story about how Cornyn and the NRSC are confident of scooping up a number of Senate seats this fall.  I find the story notable because Lowden is one of five likely challengers pictured on a U.S. map graphic in the left side bar, but she is not included in the text.  Why does Cornyn fail to mention her?  Or the reporter fail to ask?

Item #5, from The Plumline, a post about Team Tark circulating an email including the first chicken-related slam from a primary opponent.  It comes in the form of a video (provided in the post if you haven’t yet seen it) and is wrapped in an email posing a question voters have every right to ask and have answered:  “…is Sue Lowden prepared to run against Harry Reid?” This question is the reason “Bartergate” is a lot more than a seemingly endless opportunity for clever headlines featuring chicken puns.  Those who are rabid to defeat Harry Reid are desperate to do so under any circumstances and most of them are going to pull the lever for the candidate they believe can run the most solid campaign and has the best chance to send him sailing back to Searchlight.  Lowden’s messaging problem is also a voter confidence problem, and that’s why it matters.


Harry Reid TV Ads

By Elizabeth Crum | 11:24 am April 29th, 2010

Ralston has (all 3 of) them posted for your viewing pleasure.   Come back and drop Comments about them if you wish…

Angle Ads, In Case You Missed ‘Em

By Elizabeth Crum | 9:14 pm April 28th, 2010

Forgot to post this link to the page where you can check out the two TV and one radio ad(s) for Sharron Angle, to be paid for by the Tea Party Express (TPE) political arm/PAC.

TPE has been doing an Independent Expenditure fundraising drive for Angle’s campaign all week.  Been getting updates re: their effort to find 100 supporters to contribute $500.  At last count, I think they had 33 “great patriots” who had responded(!)

Average Joes and Janes to Explain How Harry Reid and Health Care Reform Have Helped Even Though Few Benefits Have Actually Kicked In Yet

By Elizabeth Crum | 7:30 pm April 28th, 2010

That’s the gist of Harry Reid’s new ad campaign, from what RalstonFlashed a couple of hours ago:

Reid to go up with huge ad buy defending health care reform law

Best defense is a good offense campaign begins Friday with a series of spots featuring individuals talking about how various aspects of the new law have helped them, sources confirm. I understand the buy will be larger than any of those currently purchased by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s GOP foes.

Game on.

Yep. Here comes the money!

Reid’s health care narrative between now and November:

“I’m Harry Reid, and I single-handedly saved all of Nevada’s sick and dying. And quite possibly some of their household pets as well. A vote for me is a vote for your poor, ailing auntie AND her cute little dog.”

Etc.

The Sequel: Another State-paid Ad Starring Another State Official Running for Office (This Time on Radio)

By Elizabeth Crum | 11:10 am April 22nd, 2010

A little bird just told me that State Treasurer Kate Marshall was all over the radio Sunday with an ad for a college savings contest for elementary school kids.  I have obtained the audio:

01 KATE MARSHALL- NevadaTreasurerOffice-1

Ran on stations below on Sunday April 18, 2010:

KOAS-FM

KLUC-FM

KVGS-FM

KXPT-FM

KBAD-AM

KCYE-AM

KKLZ-FM

KMXB-FM

KOMP-FM

KPLV-FM

Start the timer until an ethics complaint like the one against Ross Miller for his UFC census TV ads is filed.  Which will make two ethics complaints each for Miller and Marshall (see here for more on that) so far this campaign season.

More Goose/Gander Talk re: Our Public Officials

By Elizabeth Crum | 9:59 am April 22nd, 2010

I recently wrote a What’s-Good-for-the-Goose post re: Sec of State Ross Miller’s decision to let Dem Assemblywoman Kathy McClain off the hook for misuse of campaign funds in return for a public slap on the wrist and generous donation to a local charity.

Steve Sebelius of LV CityLife now also invokes Ma and Pa geeses — and in the process pens a pretty good one re: another ethics matter involving Ross Miller.  Steve’s take, followed by my agreement, plus an interim suggestion:

A word about celebrity pols

The state Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against Secretary of State Ross Miller, who appears in a television ad urging Nevada residents to participate in the 2010 census. It won’t likely go anywhere; Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki’s appearance in ads for the state’s college savings program when Krolicki served as treasurer was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Commission.

But Ryan Erwin, a campaign consultant to Krolicki, says there’s a double-standard, inasmuch as Democrat Miller has received much less criticism for his star-turn in the census ad than Republican Krolicki got for his appearances in the college savings ads. What’s good for the Republican goose should be good for the Democratic gander, he says.

And he’s right.

As the No. 1 critic of Krolicki’s appearance in the college-savings ads, I should note there are some facts that differ between the two situations. Krolicki took personal charge of advertising dollars, outside the state’s regular accounting system, and overspent the budget in the process, an audit later showed. (He was indicted for mishandling those funds, but the case was dismissed late last year.)

But the basic nature of what Krolicki did is exactly the same in Miller’s case: A state official appearing in state-paid TV ads, which tends to constitute free publicity for a person who needs publicity in order to get re-elected someday. And, in both cases, it’s unseemly.

There’s no doubt that incumbency has its perks. Krolicki can hold a news conference and get a gaggle of reporters pretty much any time he wants; his opponents, not so much. Miller can schedule a briefing on election procedures, and he’ll get himself on TV and in the newspapers. His challengers have no such ability. That’s just the way it is.

But these ads are something else entirely. They’re only tangentially related to holding office, and there is absolutely no need whatsoever for an elected official to appear therein, especially when those officials are running for re-election.

In Las Vegas and Clark County governments, there’s a policy that says an elected official cannot appear on city- or county-run television channels or in government-published newsletters while they are running for office (defined as that period of time from when a person files for re-election until Election Day). The policy was enacted after criticism — some from me — that such appearances were essentially a taxpayer-financed promotion of a political candidacy.

Perhaps a similar policy could be enacted at the state level.

Such a policy would not only reduce the disadvantage for challengers, but would also protect elected officials from ethics complaints and the appearance they are using their office (and state funds) in order to buy free publicity that cannot but help their re-election. This would, of course, apply to all elected officials, regardless of party. Because what’s wrong for a Republican is also wrong for a Democrat.

Yep.  What he said.

And furthermore, all elected officials who are also candidates ought to voluntarily cease the practice of starring in state-funded TV ads until such time as new policy can be crafted and passed.

Any elected officials willing to be first out with That pledge to the taxpayers?

TPE Max’s Out PAC Contribution to Angle, Says More A-Comin’ Via IE Campaign

By Elizabeth Crum | 6:25 am April 21st, 2010

From the Inbox this morning:

Tea Party Express Sends Maximum Contribution to Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate

The political action arm of the Tea Party Express (Our Country Deserves Better PAC-TeaPartyExpress.org) has today made the maximum contribution allowed by law to Sharron Angle’s campaign for U.S. Senate.

The Tea Party Express (website: www.TeaPartyExpress.org) made a contribution of $5,000 and is now preparing an Independent Expenditure campaign in support of Angle’s bid for U.S. Senate that will reach well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“The response from our membership at the Tea Party Express in support of Sharron Angle’s campaign has been tremendous,” said Bryan Shroyer, Political Director of the Tea Party Express.

Jut how tremendous we will soon see.

“While the Tea Party Express is just one group within the greater tea party movement, we have a significant following, with a membership in excess of 350,000 people, thousands of them Nevadans.

If everyone on their list gives just $5, that’d be $1,750,000.  And that’s a lot of TV time at Nevada rates.

“These individuals are excited about the opportunity of being able to vote for an outstanding conservative to replace Harry Reid, and they are putting their money where there mouth is in support of Sharron Angle,” Shroyer concluded.

Hit Ad + Website = Sandoval on Defensive

By Elizabeth Crum | 7:44 am April 14th, 2010

Forgot to post the website funded by the same folks (Dan Hart Inc.) who are up with that anti-Sandoval ad.

The New Help-Rory-by-Way-of-Helping-Gibbons-by-Way-of-Criticizing-Sandoval Ad Campaign

By Elizabeth Crum | 11:50 am April 6th, 2010

As Flashed by Ralston earlier, we will soon see the launch of a “campaign that could fundamentally change the dynamic of the GOP governor’s race.”

According to Democratic uber-strategist Dan Hart, with whom I spoke a few moments ago, “The Committee to Protect Nevada Jobs” is slated to launch an independent expenditure TV campaign that will “keep Nevada’s voters well informed” about their gubernatorial candidates.

Ralston reported that the campaign will be critical of GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval in order to help Jim Gibbons win the primary so Rory Reid will (presumably) have a better chance to win the general.

But Hart said the campaign “may also include information sharing about other gubernatorial candidates” and that “it should not be assumed this is an anti-Sandoval campaign, per se.”  Hart confirmed that TV ads will begin running next week and said the committee’s website will also launch at that time. And that we can expect various press releases as well.

My three cents:

Sandoval is still not well known by many voters so there is definitely an opportunity for the opposition to define him.  Team Sandoval probably should have seen this coming and gotten out in front by launching some warm and fuzzy get-to-know-Brian ads about 30 days back.

Too late for that now, but Sandoval is finally going up with his first TV ad this week.

As for whether this new committee will really “share information” about non-Sandoval gubernatorial candidates — we’ll see.  With Dan Hart, one of Nevada’s sharpest Democratic strategists, behind the effort, I’d guess we can count on the campaign to target whoever the ongoing surveys are saying is most likely to beat Rory Reid in the general election.

Re-stated:  A weak GOP nominee is Rory’s only hope.

John Chachas TV Ads to Start This Week

By Elizabeth Crum | 9:23 pm March 28th, 2010

U.S. Senate candidate John Chachas will be up with two TV ads this week (per Ralston a few minutes ago).  One stresses that he’s Nevada born and bred, and one focuses on Nevada’s financial troubles and his ability to fix them due to his business (not political) experience.

Team Tark Out With TV Ads

By Elizabeth Crum | 8:27 pm March 24th, 2010

You can see them here.