House Campaign heating up.
Jul 30th, 2010 by David Anderson
A some supporters of Mrs. Rollins have made negative comments regarding a voter ID and marketing survey by Mr. Urquhart’s campaign. The people’s response has been positive overall. If anyone is bothered, I encourage them to take the number provided during the survey and be removed from the call list. Delaware Tomorrow called the survey a push poll. A push poll is in the eye of the beholder. In political speak, it usually refers to a poll where untrue statements are given when a person says they will vote for the opponent and they are badgered to change their vote. Uncommonly, it also can be refered to as any survey where people are probed deeper to find their knowledge and attitude. Knowing the former, political operatives like to toss around the term push poll for political purposes.
All of this was unworthy of bringing to your attention because it was routine political jousting. That has changed. Mr. Jud Bennett sent out a piece accusing Mr. Urquhart of spreading lies (Liar, Liar Pants on fire), being unChristian, and a hypocrite to thousands of people. It was all based upon a mistaken recollection of what he heard. We all have emotional connections to candidates and if a lot is going on around us, we can hear things emotionally not factually. Due to the fact Mr. Bennett’s accusation has also appeared elsewhere, I want the objective truth to be published. I also respectfully request Mr. Bennett publish the response sent to him yesterday and again today which follows.
My friend, I thank you for your commitment to ensuring accurate political dialog. In that spirit, I have to say that you were mistaken in your quoting of the Urquhart survey questions. Please allow me to correct the record. You accidentally misquoted the questions then claimed the campaign lied. The accuracy of the questions has been recognized even by critics who try to dispute the characterization. I am concerned that the mischaracterization and summary dismissal of the issues broached by the survey do a disservice to the public discourse.
My friend but strong Rollins supporter, Dave Burris of the blog Delaware Tomorrow either recorded or took notes so amazing he could be a court reporter. Anyone who wants to read the questions can go to his site. http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/urquhart-push-poll-details/ The campaign is not authorized to officially release scripts because they are proprietary to the companies involved.
You said that we claimed that she gave thousands to Wish List. We did not claim any amount just that she financially supported it. If you doubt, Wish List is an advocate of abortion rights go to the website, thewishlist.org. One of their models is pro-choice extremist Christie Todd Whitman who vetoed a ban on partial birth abortion. They refer to pro-lifers in the party universally as “extreme”. Here is just one quote about their efforts,” With your support, we also will continue our efforts to stop the passage of fundamental, anti-choice resolutions and the further swing to the extreme at the Republican National Committee.” Whose support did they get to attack pro-lifers in the GOP? Ms. Michelle Rollins is one of those people who gave support to that effort. Some agree and some disagree, but we think people should have the information to make an informed choice.
The other area in error was, “Michele Rollins has personally profited by being on the Board of the Wilmington Trust Company by voting for this institution to receive TARP money. Knowing this would you still vote for her?” The actual question was: Heiress Michele Rollins personally profited when Wilmington Trust Bank took 330 million dollars in bailout money and Rollins did NOT sign the pledge NOT to raise taxes as a member of Congress. Do these facts make you more or less likely to trust Glen Urquhart over Michelle Rollins to cut taxes and spending in Washington?” It did not say TARP (the money came from another fund) nor did it say she voted for it. She has never distanced herself from that fact in several national media interviews, but we did not have a smoking gun. We are dealing only with the facts. The money came in and all of a sudden, money became available from other accounts, I am sure, to give bonuses to totaling 31 million to bank executives and around 4 times the pervious year’s compensation to her as a director was allowed to become effective. (Wilmington News Journal, May 29, 2010) The bank has been losing money 5 quarters in a row. I doubt the money for the bonuses and raises would have been prudent without the cushion provided by the tax money. http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100723012
That point is in dispute. The Rollins camp claims that the fact her pay had a 4 fold increase reflected only the fact that she put more work in that year. It was unrelated, she claims. I guess it also was unrelated that the bonuses her board approved was paid to executives who were on a path to losing money for the shareholders. I am not blaming them for the economy, just questioning taking the money instead of reinvesting it when they were taking our money. Without tax money, would they have continued with their plans? If you have perfect faith in their explanation as both prudent and acceptable, that is your choice. It is not a smear nor unreasonable to offer the people facts.
The central fact is that real, trustable leaders, lead in sacrifice. They take less, not more. They anticipate crises and take pay cuts, not bonuses. Leaders recognize storms before they hit, and then cut spending to protect their employees jobs, their shareholders from loss and their business customers and state from loan cancelations that destroy jobs.
Glen Urquhart recognizes the DEBT STORM about to hit America’s Jobs and Families. He’s actually cut his own salary many times to keep employees. He saw first hand, in serving Reagan for seven years, how cutting tax rates and regulations increased revenue almost two fold and created millions of new jobs.
The value of the first part of the poll is to see where one stands today. The value of the second part is to test, which items concern voters. It is called market research. Shouldn’t a campaign find out what the voters care about?
If they are concerned about taxpayer bailouts, do they have a right to know which candidate supports them and which do not? There are good people on both sides of whether the bailouts are good policy. The issue is one worthy of public debate so let’s have it. Your side wants to suppress that public discussion.
Far from yelling “Liar Liar Pants on Fire” at Glen Urquhart, you should wonder about the cover up coming from the Rollins campaign. Republicans had better deal with these issues now than in the general election. It is not a lie but the truth which is causing discomfort among Rollins supporters.
Respectfully submitted,
David Anderson
Urquhart for Congress Communications Director
It seems that Mr. Urquhart is going to satisfy most of the electorate’s perception that conservatives are a bunch of nasty ideologues that spend more time tearing down their opponents than defining who they are. He started this right out of the chute at the Hartly debate. He’s hammering Rollins in this case. He’s on the radio hammering Obama, Biden, and Carney. Other than us political junkies, the people who hear that commercial are asking, “Who the hell is Glen Urquhart”? His time and money would be better spent on name recognition as opposed to attacks. Of course, as a conservative, I feel that he is free to piss away as much of his own time and money as he would like.
Jud Bennett is a disgrace. The guy who has the temper of a five year old is somehow Solomon? His entire network is a fraud.
Rollins is pro abortion and also got the goodies from Wilmington Trust while the rest of us got hammered. Just as she lied about the Brandywine Towne Center, she is lying now.
That is why Glen will be Congressman and you will keep Monday morning quarterbacking. In case you don’t know, that is exactly how Mr. Obama became President Obama. He hammered Bush and the Republicans while talking about hope for the future. Who is Obama people asked? Now everyone knows.
Bush should have been hammered. Equating the Urquhart campaign with Obama’s is comparing an apple and an orange. Let’s look at some local campaigns. The Ferris Wharton campaign came out hammering Biden instead of promoting Wharton and it cost them that election. Of course, Ferris was a lousy campaigner. The John Clatworthy campaign hammered Katz and it cost them that election in what should have been a safe GOP senatorial district. All the supposed campaign superstars tout the effectiveness of negative campaigning, but I feel to embrace it. I think that is especially true in Delaware.
Why does anybody care what Bennett says? He is a Democrat posing as a Republican; a man who supported Joan Deaver…Joan Deaver! Let him whine.
Clatworthy was hammered by Katz with the help of a sham group of Republicans that turned out to be mostly Democratic in membership.
Wharton refused the pleas of many of us to trump the child molesting issue by pushing a Jessica’s law to put them away for 25 years instead of better monitoring of them like Biden proposed. He did not recognize the power of the issue. He told me straight up that he thought Biden’s issue was a gimmick and he didn’t need to have his own proposal. I knew then we would lose in a year like 2006.
Campaigns are like batteries. You need the positive and the negative. In a year where people are concerned, hurting, and down right angry don’t underestimate the power of contrast.
Exit polling from the Clatworthy/Katz race clearly identified the negative tenor as a major problem. The predominant thing I remember from Wharton’s campaign is “Beau don’t know”. In my beady little brain, the jury is still out between Urquhart and Rollins from an electability standpoint. We can’t endure Carney in the House after his record during the Minner/Carney reign of error.
Maybe, but the winner was the one who ran the negative campaign. Clatworthy actually had a great positive message. Negative campaigns work if done correctly. I am not agreeing with you that Urquhart is running a negative campaign. Most of the feedback doesn’t seem to agree with you that the I don’t trust them to spend my money right is viewed that way. It is a pure issue ad. You are actually the first person to call it that. I may post it in the comments so the readers can decide and share it if they like it. I do not want a second post. The campaign has its own website. This does not need to become a second one.
If something interests me and is worthy of news and discussion, I post it.
Dave,
Now that you’re actually signing and acknowledging things as Urquhart’s communications director, isn’t it time to change the name of this blog to: “bloggers for Urquhart” or something to that effect?
As to why Clatworthy lost, in the end he won the primary but was too conservative for the district in the general election. The “negative” campaigning, as I recall, was a little over the top, but was basically pointing out John’s positions and the electorate found them too conservative. Kinda like Glen Urquhart. His conservativism may play well with many readers of this blog and perhaps even a majority of Sussex primary voters, but New Castle County is so much larger than Sussex, and the person who wins the general election has to carry the vote in all three counties in an electorate with D’s and I’s and not just R’s.
David, congratulations. Are you really on the Urquhart payroll?
I almost got interested in this candidate until I heard the “ask your liberal friends why they are Nazis.”
I don’t buy the weasel out that it was all a misunderstanding. I figured that was just the tip of the iceberg revealing a cold intolerant soul. Delaware is not looking to send a Sean Hannity clone to represent us in Congress. Have fun though.
Jud Bennett and Delaware Tomorrow are defending DeDe Rollins? You don’t say!
Come on people, Burris, Bennett and Stafford are nothing more than moderate GOP operate THUGS.
With that said, they’re fairly good at what they do. That isn’t meant to construe respect for them because I have none for them but rather to illustrate that the way politics worked in Delaware over the years has encouraged this kind of dispicable nonsense.
They lie, cheat and steal and cover up for the people who provide them with their jobs. The problem for them this time is that the people are wise to their crap.
Michele Rollins has a checkered history from taking TARP money as a bonus payment, to donating to Wish List and even consulting with the Jamaican government to possibly take financial industry corporations away from Delaware.
Meanwhile, Michael Newbold Castle is authoring 1st Amendment killing bills, passing the Financial Regulatory Act as well as Cap and Trade. He’s telling us that the Constitution doesn’t matter and then he sits down with Broder from the Washington Post and tells him that he’s NOT going to join the Republican opposition to the liberals in the Senate. He’s going to “express his independence” that so far he has had to keep in check down in the House.
HOLY CRAP PEOPLE…if what he’s done so far (keep in mind that he voted with the liberals 65% of the time in 2008) is him keeping his independence supressed…I smell an Arlen Specter coming. I think the people of Delaware can see these facts and THAT is why they will continue to support and come to vote for Glen Urquhart and Christine O’Donnell.
“They lie, cheat and steal and cover up for the people who provide them with their jobs.”
Bennett’s retired, Burris owns his own company and Stafford’s a top-notch lawyer. Once again, Evan leaves no doubt that he’s a complete idiot.
Come on people, Burris, Bennett and Stafford are nothing more than moderate GOP operate THUGS..
More like moderate GOP Pu$$!es.
The answer to anon is no. I have not accepted pay. I signed on as a true believer to help a friend in need and promote the movement. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with money. I just wanted the freedom of not being tied down. I still say what I feel here and elsewhere.