PUSH, PUSH IN THE BUSH-- DAVID DREIER AND CURT WELDON ON THE DOWN LOW ROAD
>
Curt Weldon and David Dreier have a few things in common and some significant differences too. Both are very weak rubber-stamp Republicans who wish their party wasn't so right-wing or so extremist. Each is in mortal danger of losing his seat because as the GOP has gotten more and more radical, his district has become more and more moderate. But neither of these weak little men is a leader and both have become very rich by going along and getting along.
Dreier is part of the House Republican leadership and Hastert had named him Majority Leader when DeLay was indicted and forced out. When Roy Blunt and others of the more viciously homophobic element in the GOP caucus started shrieking hysterically that they wouldn't be taking no orders from a girlie-man, Hastert was forced to back down. Dreier was once thought of as a bit of a dashing figure, even dating some high profile Republican starlets (i.e.- party fag hag Bo Derek) and winning the WASHINGTONIAN'S uncoveted "Best Dressed Congressman" award. Outed as a hypocritical closet queen who uses his office to enrich his male lover and then publicly humiliated by Blunt, the figure he cuts these days is... well, pretty pathetic. In 2004 he came closer to losing his seat than any other congressman of either party in California.
But if Dreier's figure can best be described as pathetic, Weldon's is nothing short of frightening. One of the most corrupt and self-serving men in the Republican Congress, Weldon is desperately trying to cling on to the power that is the source of his and his family's ill-gotten wealth.
But today there is something else that the two pathetic bozos have in common: both used highly unethical push polls against their Democratic challengers. The Dreier push poll has been making its way around the Internet since the June 6 primary when Russ Warner, the overwhelmingly favored Democratic candidate was beaten by Cynthia Matthews (who ran against Dreier in 2004 and was nearly elected because of a jihad by two local radio hosts who talked about Dreier's major complicity in the Bush Regime's disastrous immigration policies). Cynthia didn't have a campaign, or even a website, for the primary contest. What "she" did have was Dreier-- or his supporters-- working hard to make sure she would win the nomination, since Warner was seen as a far more formidable challenger. And on election night Warner, who had been campaigning with Wes Clark and had been endorsed by the State Democratic Party, only drew 38% of the votes (Matthews pulling 47% and 15% going to a third Democrat). It was the stunning upset of the night.
By the following day people in the suburban Los Angeles district (CA-26) were coming forward and talking about the telephone poll they had taken the day before. The two questions-- both blatant lies-- were "Would you vote for Russ Warner if you knew he supported the Iraq War" and "Would you vote for Russ Warner if you knew his son killed civilians in Iraq." That's what a push poll is-- very Karl Rove.
Yesterday evening I got an e-mail from a friend of mine is Joe Sestak's campaign. He thinks Weldon's campaign, seeing Admiral Sestak's popularity soaring while his own sinks to the bottom, are panicking. "A supporter called in and said that he was just surveyed about the election, and was asked VERY negative slanted questions about Joe." Now that Rove isn't dodging indictment and worrying about a trial, he's back in his element: pure slime.
2 Comments:
I am totally with you on hoping to see Curt Weldon defeated this time and I hate cheating in polls as much as the next person, but I'm tickled by the arrogance of the big natonal machines who were so sure that Russ Warner would be the candidate that they had him in the race for both the DFA and the Mark Warner popularity contests when the primary hadn't happened yet.
It may well be that Dreier's phone polls had some effect on the outcome of the primary, but it's intriguing that no one in the blogosphere wants to deal with the possibility that voters who actually live in the district pulled a lever for Cynthia Matthews because they liked her last time and wanted to see her on the ballot again.
Just a thought.
It's certainly possible, as you suggest, that voters in CA-26 really wanted to see Matthews on the ballot, but I think it's at least much more plausible that three other factors were more significant:
- Warner's campaign didn't put enough money into winning the primary, believing they could save it for the general
- As a result, Warner's name ID was still low, so Matthews had a residual advantage from the 2004 campaign
- Finally, the push poll, if it occurred, couldn't have helped, especially in such a low-turnout primary
Maybe the voters and the local organizations are way out of touch, but so far Matthews hasn't garnered any significant endorsements.
Finally, I'm not sure which big national machines you're referring to (I wish DfA and Mark Warner's PAC were machines!), but I don't think arrogance is a fair word; More likely just following the conventional wisdom, to wit: any candidate who had a significant fund-raising advantage, had opened a campaign headquarters early, and had Gen. Wesley Clark stumping for him was sure to win, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home