CD7 dirtier than a Christina Aguilera video: Is it August 9 yet?
Covering the CD7 Democratic primary without mentioning yesterday's grossness would be like covering Iraq without ever venturing into Baghdad.
Until yesterday, most of the sniping in the primary had been from the left. "Lamm supported Owens." "Rubenstein is a DC insider." "Perlmutter is in the pocket of big oil." Yawn. OK. Let's move on.
Yesterday, on the day early voting kicked off, Lamm launched an ad, which you can view below. The ad correctly claims that as a state legislator Ed Perlmutter voted against removing the statute of limitations on rape cases. This is a factoid that could actually hurt Perlmutter in the general election, should he win the primary a week from now.
My initial response to the ad was very close to the response I had the first time I was ever laid off. I wanted to climb into a martini so dry, it bore a suspicious resemblance to vodka. I have friends on the Lamm, Perlmutter and Rubenstein campaigns. And I even did cameos in ads for Lamm and Perlmutter. Things at the next Drinking Liberally could get a bit awkward.
The problem with the ad is that I simply don't believe that the man who has been endorsed by a dozen of my friends, a majority of activist groups, and practically every major Democratic politician in the state really, truly woke up one morning and said, "What can I do today to hurt sexual assault victims?" Perlmutter has claimed that he had doubts about the law's constitutionality. But HB-1344 passed the house 65-0 and the senate 32-3, so obviously he was in the extreme minority.
Some have claimed that Lamm did Perlmutter a favor by bringing the vote to light in the primary instead of ignoring it and allowing Republican nominee Rick O'Donnell to maybe find it and maybe exploit it. This strikes me as the dumbest train of thought ever. If the Lamm campaign wanted to have an honest discussion of the issue, it could have run the ad earlier in the primary, so Perlmutter had a chance to explain his thinking.
But politics ain't beanbag. And neither is my blog. So here's the ad. If you want to let me know what you think, please take that impulse out behind the barn and shoot it. But please do post who you're voting for in my early voting thread.
Until yesterday, most of the sniping in the primary had been from the left. "Lamm supported Owens." "Rubenstein is a DC insider." "Perlmutter is in the pocket of big oil." Yawn. OK. Let's move on.
Yesterday, on the day early voting kicked off, Lamm launched an ad, which you can view below. The ad correctly claims that as a state legislator Ed Perlmutter voted against removing the statute of limitations on rape cases. This is a factoid that could actually hurt Perlmutter in the general election, should he win the primary a week from now.
My initial response to the ad was very close to the response I had the first time I was ever laid off. I wanted to climb into a martini so dry, it bore a suspicious resemblance to vodka. I have friends on the Lamm, Perlmutter and Rubenstein campaigns. And I even did cameos in ads for Lamm and Perlmutter. Things at the next Drinking Liberally could get a bit awkward.
The problem with the ad is that I simply don't believe that the man who has been endorsed by a dozen of my friends, a majority of activist groups, and practically every major Democratic politician in the state really, truly woke up one morning and said, "What can I do today to hurt sexual assault victims?" Perlmutter has claimed that he had doubts about the law's constitutionality. But HB-1344 passed the house 65-0 and the senate 32-3, so obviously he was in the extreme minority.
Some have claimed that Lamm did Perlmutter a favor by bringing the vote to light in the primary instead of ignoring it and allowing Republican nominee Rick O'Donnell to maybe find it and maybe exploit it. This strikes me as the dumbest train of thought ever. If the Lamm campaign wanted to have an honest discussion of the issue, it could have run the ad earlier in the primary, so Perlmutter had a chance to explain his thinking.
But politics ain't beanbag. And neither is my blog. So here's the ad. If you want to let me know what you think, please take that impulse out behind the barn and shoot it. But please do post who you're voting for in my early voting thread.
9 Comments:
Come on. Christina's trying to clean up her act.
Hey, Steve! I voted for you this morning.
UPDATE: From a Perlmutter press release:
Today, Democratic Women and victim assistance advocates blasted Peggy Lamm for sinking to an all all-time new low by running a television commercial that attacks Ed Perlmutter’s record on women’s rights.
Denver City Councilwoman, Rosemary Rodriguez said, "People who know Ed Perlmutter, know that he has supported victims of crime every step of his career and Peggy Lamm should be ashamed to run this type of ad in the final week of the campaign."
Colorado State Senator Sue Windels commented on Lamm’s latest attack by saying, "There is no excuse for this type of mud-slinging. I have worked beside Ed Perlmutter and have seen him fight on behalf of women and children his entire career and he will do the same in the U.S. Congress."
Former State Senator, Pat Pascoe also criticized the Lamm ad saying, "I am disappointed that Peggy Lamm is misrepresenting Ed Perlmutter's record. We need Congresspersons who will honestly address real differences in order to find solutions. In the eight years that I served in the Senate with Ed Perlmutter he was always a strong supporter of the rights of victims, including victims of rape."
Ed Perlmutter commented on Lamm’s ad by stating, "I am the father of 3 daughters and have fought for women's rights my entire life and it is deplorable that Peggy Lamm would sink to this level of desperate politics. The other Democrats and I, who voted against this bill, did so because it was poorly drafted and unconstitutional and that was the only reason we voted against it - to imply otherwise is a sad political stunt."
Ed Perlmutter received 100 percent rating from the Colorado Women’s Agenda in both 2000 and 2001 for his strong record on women’s rights and has received numerous awards on behalf of his work for women and victims of crime, including being named Legislator of the Year by the Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado for his work on equal justice. Perlmutter also served on the Colorado Victims Compensation & Assistance Coordinating Committee, which is the State Board that oversees the funding of programs from the Violence Against Women Act and the Victims of Crime Act because of his leadership on these important issues.
Ed Perlmutter has received the support and endorsement of thousands of residents of the 7th Congressional District and hundreds of Democratic leaders including U.S. Representative Mark Udall, U.S. Senator John Kerry, Fmr. CO Governor, Roy Romer, Fmr. U.S. Sen. Gary Hart, Fmr. Clinton Cabinet Member & Denver Mayor, Federico Pena, State Senate President, Joan Fitz-Gerald and former 7th Congressional District candidates, Mike Feeley and Dave Thomas. In addition, Ed has received the endorsement of numerous organizations including the Colorado Education Association (CEA), the League of Conservation Voters and the AFL-CIO.
I disagree with you about the primary. Why? Because O'Donnell won't be caring about having an "honest" discussion on policy, positions, or what's right... he cares about winning.
I hate to say it, but legislators, even the best of them, routinely vote for unconstitutional or idiotic legislation, which is politically opportune, so large majorities mean nothing. There are serious constitutional dimensions to the sexual assault statute of limitations bill, but even the Catholic church lobby (which isn't quite Mother Teresa, but is about as close as you get to it in Colorado), which opposed the bill, can't make rapists an attractive political force.
Likewise, overwhelming majorities of Colorado legislators in the special session voted for a ballot issue directing the AG to bring a frivilous lawsuit against the U.S. A.G. over illegal immigration. Whose against more federal money for Colorado? So what if some lawyers and judges waste there time in the process?
All along the left has said they like Herb but he has no chance.
Well today on the Channel 7 News at 5:00 , 10:00 and on Nightline his provocative ads are airing.
Herb has put together a serious ad campaign. Take a look at the ads on Channel 7 tonight or go to www.hrebforcongress.com. If you like what he has to say than you should drop him a donation. Herb is running to win
Anon,
The only arguments I have had with Herb are because I am left. I don't like cameras in the classrooms or fire protection being considered a 'private not public' good. It was never about his chances for me. It was about his policies.
Matt,
1) Great headline.
2) From what I heard, the bill didn't start with crimes that were committed after it being enacted, but it changed the rules for the crimes that had been committed prior to it. Crimes that when they were committed that had ten year statutes that were about to run out suddenly would have endless ones. Now, in this particularly emotionally charged instance it would have been easy for me as a legislator to say, "So what. Screw 'em," especially when it meant getting to catch people who would have gotten away. But in principle, I can see why someone would have a problem with changing the rules in criminal cases midstream. At least one of the other people voting for it, Penifield Tate, was very much the liberal so I think Ed was not alone in his reasoning.
Pacified,
I don't understand your point. Yes, O'Donnell will fight dirty. That doesn't change anything.
The timing of this ad leaves Ed with little time to respond. If Peggy was concerned with discussing this issue, she could've launched the ad earlier. She launched it yesterday because she doesn't care about the issue. She cares about winning. Nothing wrong with that. Like I wrote, politics ain't beanbag. But don't tell me she is trying to do Ed a favor by hitting him with this before O'Donnell gets the chance.
Another release, this time from Emily's List, which supports Peggy:
Our survey—conducted just before early ballots were mailed to applicants, and before either former State Representative Peggy Lamm or former State Senator Ed Perlmutter went on television—confirmed the conventional wisdom that this is a highly competitive primary. However, our poll did show Lamm to be popular, better-known than Perlmutter, and to have a slight edge in the vote. Herb Rubenstein was nearly unknown, and was in single digits in the vote.
At the close of June, Lamm was as popular as Perlmutter, and clearly the better known of the two
Peggy Lamm was clearly popular with Democratic primary voters. Over half (55%) had a favorable impression of her (22% “very favorable,” 33% “somewhat favorable”), and only 18% had an unfavorable impression (13% “somewhat unfavorable,” 5% “very unfavorable”). The intensity of opinions favored Lamm, as more than four times as many had a “very favorable” as “very unfavorable” impression. Her hard ID, or the percentage that knew Lamm well enough to have any impression of her, was more than seven in ten (73%).
Ed Perlmutter was also popular, but with a hard ID of 59%, was clearly less well-known than Lamm. Among those who knew him, he, too, was popular with 47% favorable, 12% unfavorable.
Lamm had the edge in the vote
In the primary vote, Lamm had an edge in the vote over Perlmutter (39% Lamm, 35% Perlmutter). Herb Rubenstein was known by few (21% hard ID), and therefore garners a vote share within single digits (6%). With a fifth undecided in the vote (21%), and the narrow Lamm margin, the race was clearly competitive just a few weeks ago. As Lamm was both very well-known and popular, it likely continues to be competitive today.
Post a Comment
<< Home