Two mailers sent out this past week have attacked 4th District incumbents Marge Chadderdon and John Goedde.
The fliers were paid for by Restore Representative Government, a 527 group whose name that has a well-intended ring to it but to me implies that our election process is corrupt. We do have representative government and both Ms. Chadderdon and Mr. Goedde — not to mention George Sayler — are elected by the people.
According to campaignmoney.com, Restore Representative Government exists “to support Democratic candidates in the state of Idaho” and its e-mail contact is Wendy Jaquet, who is the minority leader in the Idaho House.
Ms. Poelstra’s sunshine report shows a $250 contribution from Restore Representative Government.
Here are the mailers:
I find it disappointing when candidates go negative. The issues facing Idaho are too important and our decisions too critical for this nonsense. Candidates are basically applying for a job. As their future employer, we need to look at their qualification and what they as an individual bring to the job. When anyone tries to get a job by saying that the other applicant is a “do-nothing legislator” or a pawn of special interests, it means to me that the challenger sadly has little to offer.
see king county go negative at http://www.thestranger.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=729360&view=comments#comments
Comment by TheWiz — November 1, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
It’s funny to see the Democrats accusing Goedde of too much fundraising! This is the political party of Barack “I signed my name to my promise to take public financing” Obama, who then broke that promise and has forever ruined the probability of any presidential candidate accepting the limits of public campaign financing in the future. McCain stuck to his own promise and has to follow the rules of public financing. He is outspent by Obama by is it 4:1 or 6:1?
Comment by mary — November 1, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Also, I heard yesterday that the Dems send out a mailer slamming US Congressman Bill Sali, in which they actually showed Bill and his wife’s social security numbers on a document. What a terrible thing to do.
Comment by mary — November 1, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
dan technically the candidate did not go negative, the 527 went negative on their behalf. I’m curious if you felt the same way when kathy sims and tom macy went negative on your behalf during the last city council election?
Comment by reagan — November 1, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
So, reagan, you are condoning the democrat’s use of private documents that show sensitive identity information?
Comment by mary — November 1, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Ooo! You got a good point, reagan. Of course, neither Poelstra (who took their money) or Howard has come out against the fliers.
Kathy’s flier was perceived by some as being negative, but every item on it was accurate and truthful, as confirmed by Mayor Bloem during her interview on the topic with Dave Oliveria.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/hbo/archive.asp?postID=18894
Of course, the Mayor confesses that some facts are incorrect, such as the flyer claimed that the City was $12M over budget and Bloem admits it was more like $18M. Also, she confesses that they have spent money on affordable housing because the city paid to fly a councilperson to Denver for a “very good” conference. But otherwise, she does not deny anything on the flyer. I thank Mr. Oliveria for clearing the facts up.
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
facts are not negative, facts simply are. pointing out that barrack hussein obama attended indonesian/muslim schools is a fact, for example. pointing out that minnick takes money from the genocidal and misnamed planned parenthood is another fact.
Comment by TheWiz — November 1, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
mary, that is not what I said, where did you get that idea?
dan, when you say that those candidates did not ‘come out against the fliers.’, what do you mean? did someone ask them? and did you come out against the sims/macy attack piece? did brannon? did snedaker? and you do realize the difference between accurate and truthful, don’t you? if we follow the argument that you use to defend the illegal attack piece sent by kathy sims and tom macy then what in the these fliers was not true? marge is a nice lady and goedde did get $50,000 in special interest money.
if you can defend the use of an attack piece when it supports your candidates -or you, as the case may be– then it is a little disingenuous to find it “disappointing” when the other guys do it. situational ethics, perhaps?
Comment by reagan — November 1, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Oh, reagan. You’re so desperate. The Sim’s flier did not endorse any specific candidate, unlike the flier from Restore Representative Government. And I would proffer that calling Ms. Chadderdon a “do-nothing” is a personal attack. There were no such attacks in the Sims flier, as all the information there was data on the city council and their documented decisions. The Sims flier did not endorse any candidate. Again, big difference between these two issues, my friend.
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I did not need to, as the information there could be verified. Saying that the city council was $18,000,000 over-budget was a documented fact, something I said often in my campaign. Why refute it? And it’s not an attack on their character, but rather their decisions. Believe it or not, that’s okay in this country. You can say the GOP in the state house is being sneaky because they hold closed caucuses. That’s a fact, not an attack. Calling a person a do-nothing or saying that they are deceptive would be a personal attack. Having a third party do so would also be an attack against someone’s character. Apparently Ms. Poelstra and Mr. Howard are okay with that.
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Yes, reagan, I think it is an important subject that you should address: What do you think about the democrat’s advertising use of private documents that show Bill Sali and his wife’s personal identity information?
Comment by mary — November 1, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
“Calling a person a do-nothing or saying that they are deceptive would be a personal attack”– to some, maybe, others might consider it a fact. it often depends on whose ox is being gored. despite your parsing of the issue, some folks may have thought the illegal kathy sims/tom macy mailing was an ‘attack’ on incumbent candidates and supportive of your candidacy. depends on one’s perspective, i guess.
Comment by reagan — November 1, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
mary, i have not seen the piece you are referring to, so i have no idea why you think it is a subject i should address.
Comment by reagan — November 1, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Reagan, if you recall, there were eleven people running for 3 city council seats. Two of them were incumbents. Arguably, the informative flyer Kathy Simms produced supported 9 of those running for office. (Call it “change.”) Unless you can point out my name on the flyer, you’re spewing nonsense. Both Poelstra and Howard’s name are on the mailers mentioned in this topic. Your failure to see that demonstrates your myopic apples-oranges comparison of the two issues.
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
A strawman argument. Produce the “others” who consider it a fact. If you consider it a fact, prove it.
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Those are not negative (well, not very)! They are powderfuffs. You want negative, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg or recall the campaigns of folks like Abe Lincoln.
Comment by Pariah — November 1, 2008 @ 9:19 pm