Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rezko story still alive and kicking *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day *** Updated x1 ***
Posted in:
The Daily Herald’s bloggy type thing Animal Farm takes a look at two new ads in the 6th Congressional District. The first ad is a Peter Roskam spot that also features his wife, Elizabeth.
With upbeat music playing, Roskam starts off by saying the charges in the race have gotten “pretty wild,†with ads saying he’s against stem cell research and hates Social Security. “The only thing we banned at home? Speedos,†chimes in his wife.
Roskam then gets negative in the ad and claims Duckworth wants to raise taxes and cut Social Security benefits.
Roskam does oppose embryonic stem cell research. He has given different responses to different groups on privatizing Social Security, but when pressed, ultimately supports a half-measure to move money into private accounts that couldn’t be invested in the risky stock market. Duckworth supports most of the Bush tax cuts, but only half of the capital gains and dividends tax cuts and only up to $2 million exempted for the inheritance tax.
Here’s the ad:
The second spot is being run by the DCCC. It slams Roskam for siding with the NRA.
It attacks Roskam for voting “present†on a 1993 measure that would have allowed school principals to ban students who brought a gun to school for up to one year without the school board’s permission.
And then the analysis.
Roskam did, in fact, vote present on House Bill 2073, on 4/23/1993. The bill passed the House 73-27, with Roskam among the 16 present votes. But the measure never saw the light of day in the Illinois Senate. The voting pattern in the House was an odd combination. Moderate Rep. Tom Cross, now the House GOP leader, voted present. Conservative Reps. Tom Johnson of West Chicago and Vince Persico of Glen Ellyn voted present, as did moderate Rep. Andrea Moore of Libertyville. But liberal Chicago Democrats Reps. Lou and Shirley Jones also voted present. Rep. Judy Biggert, now a Hinsdale congresswoman, voted no. But conservative Rep. Al Salvi of Wauconda voted yes. Seems like the Chicago Democrats would have had concerns about punishing too harshly a 7-year-old kid who brought Dad’s gun to school. Republicans who voted present might have had the same thought.
Here’s the ad. It’s not a good copy. Sorry.
*** UPDATE *** Raw video from Peter Roskam’s press conference this week. Speaking is David Beamer, whose son was killed on United Flight 93. Beamer was supposed to talk just about national security and Iraq as a 9/11 victime, but he drifted at least briefly into economics.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 8:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rezko story still alive and kicking *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day *** Updated x1 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What a strange ad. I haven’t seen the ad to which he’s responding … but why would you bring up the allegations (against stem cell, etc.) and then leave them unanswered? In essence he repeats the charge and leaves the viewer to wonder. In other instances he addresses them more directly, but why not just say “Some things have been said about me which just aren’t true. I won’t do this, I will do that.” Straight from the horse’s mouth.
And what’s up with that Speedo reference and that very strange photo? Weird. Not Congressional. And not funny. If you want to do a funny spot, ok, spoof yourself … but it’s very jarring, out of place and disjointed in this framework.
Comment by Little Egypt Native Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:08 am
I don’t think the DCCC should have used the NRA in the ad…I would have said, “Roskam refused to stand up for students, teachers and principals and instead sided with gun-toting thugs.”
You might even get a few NRA voters with that. As it is, it just comes off as another Democratic attack against the NRA.
Comment by Coloradem Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:11 am
DCCC spot is very solid. School violence being a hot topic these days and with gun control being a strongly supported issue in the 6th, its a strong ad.
Comment by HANKSTER Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:24 am
What I’ve noticed about all of these ads is usually when they use people who are not payed actors they don’t come across as likeable. The principle is a very ugly negative ad. This also happens when they use old people. Most times I’m thankful they are not my family or neighbors. That old lady Rod had in an ad for health care was terrible. That crabby old voice was irritating. Real people not actors don’t seem to work.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:32 am
Tammy Duckworth should have an ad that says “What kind of parents allow their children to wear speedos at the age of 13? Those aren’t Tammy’s values and they aren’t the values of this district either.”
All joking aside, I didn’t even notice that he didn’t say anything about social security. I think it’s a pretty good non-denial denial for him. As for the end though, “I’m Peter Roskam and I’m running because we need a change in Washington”, can even die-hard Roskam fans defend this one? What change would Roskam bring to D.C.? I thought the entire purpose of his campaign was to get a candidate that would represent just like Henry Hyde. Does Roskam differ on anything with the national party? I’m not aware of any issue where that’s the case.
As for the Roskam vote, I think the right vote would have been yes. Based on what you wrote Rich, it would just give the principal the option of banning the kid for a year, not an automatic ban. I would be in favor of putting that option in the hands of the principal. The principal is going to know the kid better than the majority of the school board 99% of the time. In addition, the principal is going to get better information from the teachers. Further, I trust our principals to make a distinction between a 7 year old who brought his dad’s gun to school and a 16 year old with a troubled past. As for the ad, I think the NRA mention won’t hurt Tammy, I could be wrong but it seems like there are more parents worried about their kids’ safety in suburban schools than people who have the 2nd amendment as their top issue.
Comment by Tweed Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:43 am
===eems like the Chicago Democrats would have had concerns about punishing too harshly a 7-year-old kid who brought Dad’s gun to school. Republicans who voted present might have had the same thought.
I don’t quite get the analysis–it doesn’t mandate a years suspension. It gives the principal the power.
There might be a legit argument about due process in the school system so circumventing local rules might be worth a present vote, but I’m unclear how a bill that doesn’t mandate a punishment necessarily means harsh consequences.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:45 am
“The only thing we banned at home? Speedos,†chimes in his wife.
I have this image of him in a speedo. Not a good thing. The ad brings up the question of why would you need to ban something like speedos unless Peter actually practiced wearing one around the house.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:58 am
Amusing that Roskam closes his spot by saying “We need a change in Washington.” Since he supports President Bush, Dennis Hastert and the other congressional leaders and their positions 100% , why the hell would voters who want change send HIM to Washington?
Comment by NW Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 10:03 am
I cant fault Roskam for the present vote on the gun bill, especially when you see that Vince Persico voted that way too. At the time he was a junior high teacher. Seems that if Roskam agreed with a teacher on an issue in regards to school safety it should not be considered an extreme position.
Comment by Bakersfield Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 10:34 am
Rich - Can a political ad be shot in a public school? Is that taxpayer funded?
Comment by Buttercup Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 11:28 am
trying to provide cover by saying that Lou and Shirley Jones voted present doesn’t get you anywhere. They voted present on a lot of things, even if they were not there. Roskam looks bad with the Speedos thing. What on earth is he thinking???
Comment by Mike Williams Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 1:34 pm
I do not know if anybody caught Roskam and Duckworth debate on Chicago Tonight back on Monday, but it was quite a mismatch in favor of Roskam.
As for his new ad featuring the teenage Roskam in speedos, I think Mark Foley might be wearing out YouTube at the moment.
Comment by Establishment Republican Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 4:17 pm
Roskam seems defensive,responding to Duckworth rather than playing to his base, if he has a base anymore.
Doesn’t the Roskam campign have a hired gun from DC? Did this guy come up with this ad? If he did, they are paying him too much money. The speedo thing is too weird. Does Duckworth have her husband in her ads or are the Roskams a two-for-one deal like the Clintons?
Comment by Uninspired Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 9:18 pm
Is he saying he’s for stem cell research??? Talk about being misleading. I agree with one of the bloggers…An image of him in a Speedo..so much for advertising appealing to the senses.
Comment by tistophone Wednesday, Oct 25, 06 @ 11:56 pm