Blouin plans more attack ads

[Debi]

When KCCI interviewed Matt Paul (Blouin's campaign manager) about the negative ad lying about Chet Culver he flat out stated that the Blouin campaign will be airing more negative (probably untrue) ads. And THAT's class?

http://www.kcci.com/news/9227489/detail.html

<snip>

"We're entering the final weeks of the primary campaign, when the race is starting to become conscious in people's minds. It's very natural for candidates to draw distinctions between themselves and their opponents," said KCCI Political Analyst Dennis Goldford.

"You certainly could see more and we'll present them in a way that is classy, based on record and based on fact," said Blouin's spokesman, Matt Paul.

<snip>

Tell Mike Blouin what you think about his false, negative ads:

http://www.mikeblouin.com/

[cyberswede]

1. the ads aren't playing too well around here

A group of us went for coffee after our county central committee meeting last night, and most people around the table felt that the ads were unfortunate and a mistake. And these were Blouin supporters.
thx - cs

[IA_Seth]

2. Thanks for the input...

Whereabouts in Iowa are ya from Cyberswede, if you don't mind me askin?

[cyberswede]

3. eastern IA

Thanks for asking - I pm'd you, too. :)
- cs

[Debi]

4. That's kind of what I'm hearing as well

That Blouin looks like an ass for doing the ad himself and for telling such an obvious lie.

But...Charolette Eby thinks Chet's a bad boy:

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/05/17/news/state/doc446aaac88b22f099931996.txt

I think she's spending too much time at the Statehouse w/the Blouin supporters! d.

[Rambis]

5. It is consistant with his character

as far as I am concerned.

[Debi]

6. Like I'm gonna argue with you there! d.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

7. Attack Ads - Blouin's Response

I sent the Blouin campaign an email about his negative ads, and this is the response.



------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Blouin for Governor" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Negative Ads
To: "Andrew Lindsey" <[email protected]>


Hi,

Thanks for the e-mail. The difficulty in a primary is to reveal the whole truth or not to reveal the truth. If we as Democrats do not fully vet our candidates, the Republicans will do it for us in the general election. As we have seen in this last election, they are not afraid to do that. While uncomfortable, it is important to have all of the information to make a decision.

As for the truth of Culver's working for IBP, we have been very hesitant to draw attention to this until we had hard facts. In the last few months we've seen more state documents, beyond the simple signing of a lobbyist card, that indicates clearly that Chet worked on a specific piece of legislation for IBP which took particular aim at family farmers. Good assistants, even bad assistants, do a lot of the work, talking to legislators and gathering documents, which is part of the lobbyist's persuasion. Culver claims in the same time frame to have experience working on the front lines of many a fight and in the AG's office to have won fights against big oil (which actually happened after he left.) The question is one of whether we can cherry pick our past or face up to all of it.

Is our past relevant? Not always. If a candidate is running on his past is it relevant? Yes. Culver runs on his past, but only wants us to pay attention to certain aspects. While a worker at a company is trying a make a living. A lobbyist for a company is representing their corporate interests. IBP is a company that was known to not always play fair, especially in regards to family farmers.

The information is not always comfortable, but hard truths aren't. We've been under a steady stream of attacks the last seven months from the Culver camp and related organizations, pushing false information about Mike's positions on choice, stem cells, and worker's rights through call scripts, polling, and other means. It has been more surreptitious, but we have been compelled to respond. Fallon has been public about attacking Mike, falsely claiming Blouin and Vilsack have been ingenuous about job numbers. All in spaces where we couldn't rebut.

Thanks again for the comments. I'll pass them along.

Best,
Cory
------------------------

Andrew Lindsey <[email protected]> wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing you in regards to your latest ad in which you imply that your opponent, Chet Culver, was a lobbyist for IBP.

Upon researching the issue, as I am sure your staff did before any ads were considered, it can easily be found that Chet Culver did in fact sign required disclosures registering himself as a lobbyist for IBP as job requirement while working for Ed Campbell in the early 90's, but did not in fact work as a lobbyist for IBP.

It may concern you that there are a number of supporters within Linn County are not only concerned that you are implying something that may be false, but are also coming out as the first to use negative "attack ads" in this primary race. Whoever wins the primary race will face enough obstacles in battling Nussle's propaganda machine, our party certainly doesn't need to start eating their own.

Of additional concern is this article: http://www.kcci.com/news/9227489/detail.html in which your spokesman states:

"We're entering the final weeks of the primary campaign, when the race is starting to become conscious in people's minds. It's very natural for candidates to draw distinctions between themselves and their opponents," said KCCI Political Analyst Dennis Goldford.

"You certainly could see more and we'll present them in a way that is classy, based on record and based on fact," said Blouin's spokesman, Matt Paul."

This concerns me, as well as many other Linn County Democrats, that you will not only stand by the misleading IBP ad, but will come out with additional ads that will only tarnish our party and add fuel to any Nussle war machine.

I would ask that you retract your IBP ad, apologize for being misled, and show Iowa Democrats that we are a party of unity, and not negativity.

Thank you,
Andrew Lindsey

[Debi]

8. Thank you for the post, Andrew, and welcome to DU

This just proves that it will be getting worse before it gets better and that Blouin may well be planning on going negative against Fallon too.

Although Blouin and his staff claim to share the whole truth, they have no problem 'shading' or 'muddying' Blouin's past record on women's rights or his past election record (he didn't go to work for President Carter voluntarily, he lost his last election (running as an incumbent) in the very district that Nussle now represents. Culver won reelection by a 20,000 vote margin over his last republican challenger in that district. Blouin hasn't shared that information.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

12. Fallon

Chances are he will leave Fallon alone. Blouin's people see Culver as the real threat and are proving that they will do everything possible (inlcuding misleading Democrats) to sully his name. It's a shame that there are those that would do this to their own party.

Thank you for the welcome

[Debi]

18. If Fallon starts to pull votes from Blouin

(people who don't want to hear that the Values Fund is just corporate welfare) Then Ed will get a swift kick from the Blouin campaign. Either by innuendo in a final mailing or radio ad or by whisper campaign from the Loyal Legislators. Blouin won't ignore Fallon if Fallon hurts Blouin. He's too mean spirited of a person. He doesn't want to win, he wants to destroy anyone who would deny him the throne.

[IA_Seth]

9. Welcome to DU!

Thanks for the post, and I hope you stay awhile.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

13. I'll stay

I probably will post rather irregularly, as my job requires extensive travel and keeps me fairly busy, but I will be around.

Thank you for the welcome.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

11. No Reply To This One

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew Lindsey" <[email protected]> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Negative Ads
To: "Blouin for Governor" <[email protected]>

Cory,

Based on this response I see that the Blouin campaign plans to continue politics-as-usual and risk pushing his supporters toward apathy for this primary. The bit about revealing the whole truth is a bit far fetched and borders on ingenuine. Having all of the information would include the fact that Blouin himself lost his last run at elective politcs, as an incumbent! Having all of the information would include coming forward with his exact votes on Women's Health rights, would it not?

These are just a few things that his supporters can overlook because they are in the past, and we believe in the message Blouin fights for now. However, why should we continue to accept Blouin's past, and move forward, when he is coming out with ads sullying another Democrat's choices they made at the age of 22?

It is time for unity in this party, not more negativity. We have a long road ahead of us in keeping a Dem in office, we don't need it to get any bumpier for fellow Dems, do we?

Oh, and as far as keeping Culver's lobbyist card under wraps, I've heard the under-the-table references to it for quite a while now. To say that your campaign has been hesitant to use this is pure deception.

And thank you for your words, you can be sure I will pass them along as well.

Good luck, and I hope that whoever wins the primary, Blouin's supporters can back them with the same amount of effort.

Thank you,
Andrew Lindsey

[Debi]

16. Very well put! n/t

[Debi]

10. Wow, somebody over at Political Forecast is PISSED!

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2006/05/16/ia-gov-bloiun-goes-negative/

It's the sixth and for now final response:


Tom
May 18th, 2006 at 10:16 am

I worked under Mike Blouin a number of years. I have never known Blouin to be logically consistent or intellectually honest. I am not suggesting that Blouin is lacking knowledge or a modicum of smarts, but I do contend that he is far from the man of intellectual prowess his supporters have protrayed him to be, particularly in comparison to Chet Culver. I know both men. Culver listens and learns, Blouin does not - mostly out of arrogance.

<snip>

But Blouin is far from dishonest. He’s a complete hypocrite.

The Culver campaign has rightly pointed out that Blouin has worked for organizations that have been at odds with the Democratic Party. By the way, I don’t mean as a 23 year old administrative employee, but as the top leader of Iowa’s two largest Chambers of Commerce. It is beyond me how any Iowa Union endorsed this man after his opposition and organizational attempts to stop a whole host of issues including a project labor agreement.

<snip>

While CEO of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, Blouin commented to the CEO of the Iowa Corn Growers Association that “I don’t want guys in overalls coming into my office” when he was asked to work with farm groups to cooperate on issues of mutual interest between rural and urban Iowa. His demeanor was not jovial in some sad way to be funny. He was serious, condescending and arrogant.

<snip>

On another front, Blouin led the charge against rural Iowa by demanding that Iowa’s road taxes be allocated with a simplistic formula. One that based everything on population. Thankfully, leaders in the legislature disagreed, including good Democrats like Mike Gronstol.

<snip>

Blouin is anti-small town and family farmer…not his opponent. I see no reason to sugar-coat the issue. I do not intend to support someone who fails to stand by his principals and press those same people he assumes to represent as Governor to think different. If he couldn’t tell big business and urban politicians in Iowa to reconsider their sentiment toward various issues of concern, such as project labor agreements, the minimum wage, Road Use Taxes, and healing Iowa’s rural-urban divide on all sorts of policy issues, what makes anyone think he will do so as Governor.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now THAT'S a rant - you have to read the whole thing - this guy is PISSED OFF. And I don't blame him :applause:

[Counciltucky]

14. WOW...

I read the whole thing. That dude definitely doesn't like Blouin.

It also confirms what I was thinking: Mike Blouin is unelectable.

[Debi]

19. I wonder who it was that wrote it!

Wouldn't want to meet him in a dark ally while wearing a Blouin t-shirt :scared:

[Cairycat]

15. Just had a Blouin worker at the door

so I complained about the negative ads. He said he'd heard that a lot today. He pointed to the contact email on his brochure and asked that I use it to tell Blouin how regular voters feel about these ads, since he felt that regular voters would be more listened to than his own campaign workers. (?!)

So, yeah, what Debi said: do email the Blouin campaign and let them know what you think. I can share any reply I get if it isn't the same line as others have posted.

[Debi]

17. I thought about going around town to see if I could find a door knocker

or two and then decided I had more to do in life :shrug:

Was the literature positive?

This is truly the history of negative campaigning. The ad or attack piece comes out, people complain, the campaign apologizes but does nothing to stop it, the election is held. If the campaign is a success then the negative worked, if the campaign is not a success - well, at least they were able to fight to the finish.

I'm certain the Blouin campaign anticipated some verbal backlash from the negative campaign. But, will it really keep people from voting for him? :shrug:

[Andrew_Lindsey]

20. Culver gone negative?

I do not have enough posts to start my own thread, but I heard this morning that Culver has a new 'attack ad' pointed at Blouin. Is this true?

Would anyone care to post a new thread on this?

[Debi]

21. Unfortunately I think you're right

I haven't seen the ad in it's entirety, but did see a new ad by Culver which again touts his belief in women being able to make their own private health care decisions and in stem cell research. I heard that it starts with Blouin's record on voting to amend the United States Constitution to make abortion illegal.

This is what negative campaigning does - as soon as it gets started there is no end. (That is until the primary is over)

d.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi Andrew_Lindsey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: