The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an ad attacking Charles Djou with…his own record.
Talking Points Memo has more on the DCCC action.
But beyond the content, it’s clear that the DCCC must focus itself for now on going after the Republican, rather than promoting a Democratic candidate — because there is no single Dem in the race, and a split vote could theoretically help Djou win the race.
An anti-Djou web site has also been set up, www.djoufacts.com.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I saw the tail end of this add this morning. Prior to hearing the boilerplate language that stated that the add was paid for by the DCCC, I thought it was an add for the Case campaign. Why?
The closing phrase of the commercial is an interesting one, “WE NEED A CONGRESSMAN ON OUR SIDE.”
I know that ‘congressman’ can be utilized a generic term to describe a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but if I, an individual who has a mild understanding of Hawai’i’s political landscape, can momentarily believe that this was an ad endorsing Ed Case, what will the casual voter think?
I know it’s manini, but in a tight race, the manini can pile up.
Mountain out of a molehill.
You just said it, Pono, its a generic term. Otherwise, they would have had to say ‘We need a Congressperson’ or even ‘ We need a Congressman or Congresswoman’ and both those options, to me, sound awkward. Congressman, albeit, slightly un-pc, is the common term.
Im more than sure no subliminal messages were intended using that term. But maybe lets spin the video backwards, just to be sure?
As Charles says, can we please focus on the issues now?
I’ve actually played the commercial backwards. It clearly says Chris Van Hollen loves Ed Case.
Who cares about the issues when I can analyze the in-party struggles that will help lead Djou to Washington?
I think the ad was made at a time the DCCC had decided to support Case and it reflects that choice. There is no way anyone who was supportive of Hanabusa could have watched that ad and NOT have objected to the term “Congressman.”
Once Inouye and the unions objected to the policy of supporting Case, the DCCC ran the ad anyways. They are hiding behind the “general meaning” of “Congressman.”
I’m sorry, but nobody at the national level of the DNC is oblivious to the sexist use of that term. I had to have been a conscious choice.
My read is that the DCCC is continuing with its pro-Case policy, but are being forced to be more discrete. Watch the money. Case has had great difficulty rasing money. If it starts coming in from mainland sources, that’s the DCCC at work.
When Rahm Emanuel was running the DCCC directly (as opposed to now, when he is certainly helping influence their involvement, he supported corporate-friendly Democrats, secured contributions from the K Street lobbyists and once elected, put the new congressmembers on strategic committees designed to serve the paymasters AND to ensure continued campaign contributions. Rahm thought this was “shrewd.”
Oh, and the propoer, gender-neutral term for a US Representative is “congresscritter.”
The other thing is that Case has been a “congressman,” so, yeah, it might be a pro-Case slant. Still, I think it’s a better strategy for the DCC than to take obvious sides between the Dems.
Who cares what the DCCC says?
Really, if you are going to a political party propaganda machine for information on how you are going to vote, you are suffering from some serious intellectual dysfunction.
The parties can take their opposition research and paid media attack ads and shove them were the sun doesn’t shine.
I might suggest that we are moving past this paradigm quickly.
Uh, I am the walrus. And McCartney is dead?
Let’s not read too much into the tea leaves.
DCCC had to make a stretch…a BIG stretch, to connect Djou’s taxcut values into a supporter for evil corporations.
If this is the best they can do, tax-and-spend Hanabusa & Case are in for trouble.
Ian, I’m disappointed that you didn’t link to a fact-check site that supported Djou’s positions and debunked the DCCCs ridiculous claim.
http://bit.ly/c7tslR
Actually, I think the DCCC point is legitimate. What does it mean to say “no new taxes”? This is one implication. Djou has repeated has “no taxes” mantra at the council over and over again without seriously addressing solutions to issues crying out for funding.
You nailed it. Not only that, but he’s voted against every city budget since he’s been on the council, which means he’s effectively voted against all the projects and services received by his district and everyone else–even projects he earlier inserted into the budget.
What kind of representation is that?
By being against everything, essentially so he could keep tooting his own horn about being against “wasteful spending” and taxation, he became a known quantity, politically isolated, unable to accomplish anything, and therefore transferred more power to all other council members, especially those who could break stalemates.
Why engage and negotiate with someone who’s just going to vote against anything that has to do with spending money, even when it includes fixing sewers, paying firefighters, paving roads etc.?
He stayed free to denounce just about everything at every opportunity, and provided lost of TV soundbite quips, but who did that really serve?
Exactly. It’s high time the right’s anti-tax mantra be exposed for what it is, an anti-regulatory, corporations-first, people-last stance.
Djou responds:
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1962/Djou-False-ad-shows-mainland-Dems-ldquoafraid-of-how-the-people-of-Hawaii-will-voterdquo.aspx
DJOU: STATEMENT ON FALSE ADS BY NATIONAL DEMOCRATS
Today, Honolulu City Councilmember Charles K. Djou, Republican candidate for Hawaii’s 1st Congressional district, responded to the national Democrats recent television ads that completely misrepresent his record:
“This outside intrusion into a Hawaii political campaign is unprecedented and unnecessary. There should be no need for a mainland Democrat group to be involved unless they are afraid of how the people of Hawaii will vote. My position on issues is there for all to see, and the votes that I have taken are clear, honorable and correct. For the DCCC to attempt to sway public opinion in this manner by defaming my character is clearly wrong.”
“My opponents and I should be judged on our record and our accomplishments. I am confident the people of Hawaii will do just that and will not welcome this outside interference in our electoral process by D.C operatives. I certainly hope my opponents do not endorse this kind of unethical behavior.”
The DCCC ad is based on an Americans for Tax Reform pledge that Djou signed that simply stated that he would not vote to raise taxes, a position that is consistent with Djou’s record. Djou has consistently voted against all tax increases in the 10 years that he has been a state legislator and city councilmember. ATF today released a statement calling the DCCC’s attack ad on Djou ‘blatantly false’ and pointed out that numerous Democrats in Congress have taken the ATR pledge.
Djou statement is “blatantly false.” The Norquist group pressures politicians to take an absolute pledge to never raise taxes. The logical conclusion is that Djou is opposed to ANY tax increase, including one which would reduce tax benefits for companies moving overseas.
It is dishonest to claim the DCCC’s argument is “false” unless Djou is willing to concede he is in favor of eliminating the tax incentive in question.
If the DCCC claim is an absurd “stretch,” it is only because they are exposing the absurd “stretch” of the absolute anti-tax position Djou has staked out.
Those who claim this is “gotcha” politics, are refusing to admit that the “no tax increase” pledge is deliberately designed to be a “gotcha” gimmick of its own. Rightwing candidates can take the pledge, then denounce others, usually Democrats, who refuse to play along. If that’s the game Djou is going to play, it is only appropriate the logical absurdity of his vow be exposed.
Any such exposure is inevitably less absurd than the original pledge.
while this is the way the game is played, it certainly doesn’t raise the level of intellectual thought
in fact, television attack ads are insulting to people who actually want to study the issues and a voting record
are they effective— many times yes? otherwise the billions in special interest money wouldn’t be pouring into Washington to fund them
how do we change things? — put this garbage on ignore and actually study the voting record and listen to the candidates
as Obama says — “gotcha” politics is suppose to be a thing of the past
All those people clamoring for higher taxes will be enraged by Djou’s pledge. Case and Hanabusa can then outbid each other to see who will vote to raise taxes the most, in an effort to appeal to that voting bloc.
I was somewhat reluctant to approve this comment, because it’s obvious that no one is “clamoring for higher taxes”. That’s a ridiculous straw man, and so this comment really adds nothing to the discussion. But I’m sure that will be obvious to other readers.
Ian, maybe you could look up “sarcasm” on the internet. In my own clumsy way, I was questioning the strategic wisdom for the DCCC of highlighting the fact that Djou will not vote to raise taxes (with the obvious implication that the Democrat will).
I apologize. It sounded so “real”, I immediately bounced in the other direction.
Your sarcasm, once recognized, is much appreciated.
This Reuters article substantiates the DCCC’s claim against Djou:
“Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
we might need to look at the whole picture before we bang corporations for not paying enough taxes — remember we still got corporations that employ thousands of people, pay for medical care, and fund retirements
we need to be careful that we don’t broad brush the part of the private sector that actual is productive and provides for our well being as being the bad guys
From the Reuters article:
“The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.”
I have no idea what your definition of “broad brush” is, but it seems to me that a “broad brush” of corporations doing business in the U.S. aren’t paying any taxes. I think that the prudent thing to do is to examine the glaring loopholes in our current tax system to correct them instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-false-tax-attack/
WARNING! Possible bad pun alert:…… “What Djou don’t know can hurt you.”… ta dum. I am sure there are others.