Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Case Against Maffei

Jim Walsh is using 3 strategies against his opponent: (1) Dan is "an outsider", (2) Dan is a neophyte, and (3) Dan is a "radical liberal".

  • Tactics: "Dan is an Outsider"
  1. Dan did not vote in local elections over the years. TRUE, but Dan lived in Washington, and worked on behalf of New York State there on the staff of one of our most distinguished congressman.
  2. He gets most of his money from outside the district: So does Walsh.
  3. He uses "surrogates" who put up unfair adds: Both Walsh and Dan get help from groups who are Democrats and Republicans. The adds are pointing out Walsh's positions in strong terms, but they are indeed Walsh's positions. In contrast, Walsh's adds flat out lie- they suggest Dan will raise taxes, which is not his position.
  4. He himself is a surrogate of the Democratic party. The party is opportunistically attempting takeover in Upstate NY and Dan is their pawn. FALSE. Many people including myself can testify Dan is his own man.
  5. Dan left the district rather then "work his way up the ladder". He went to work for New York State (Moynaham, then Rangle) and worked up the ladder for the district there.
  6. He attended Ivy League universities. This is an asset.
  7. Dan worked for people not from the district. He worked for New Jersey and NYC congressmen. Dan is a Democrat and the representative of the district has always been a Republican. He first worked for Moynahan, and after the Senator passed spent most of the rest of his time with Rangel - both New Yorkers.
  • Tactics:"Dan is a neophyte"
  1. Dan only answers in generalities. FALSE. Dan has given many specifics both in the heat of debate and on his website. Walsh's campaign website doesn't even mention Iraq.
  2. He does not know the district or it's people. FALSE. Dan lives here and knows the players, that's why they endorsed him, and testify for him.
  3. His ideas shift, you cannot pin him down, he flip-flops. FALSE. See Dan's "you're not listening" retort in the debate.
  4. He has not ever cast a vote, never been elected. TRUE, but he has allot more experience in government then Walsh did when he was first elected, and no doubt his analysis and work in congress has influenced many votes there.
  5. He does not understand the complexities of the issues or bothered learning them. FALSE. Dan is an expert on many matters as is necessary for staffers of the House Ways and Means. He does not pretend to be an expert on every issue. For example, military tactics, which he rightly points out should be decided by the generals. He has strong views on the right direction and the need for change.
  • Tactics: "Dan is a radical liberal".
  1. Dan will raise your taxes. FALSE, his tax policy is on his website. This is simply scare mongering.
  2. Dan worked for Charlie Rangel - a liberal from New York City. TRUE, and this is a great asset.
  3. Dan said he wants to impeach President Bush. FALSE, Dan said he wants more congressional oversight. Walsh is the one who voted to impeach Bill Clinton over trivialities.
  4. He wants to cut and run from Iraq.FALSE: Dan supports continuing American involvement in Iraq, but not in its current form which is not working. Dan supports an international solution buttressed with American money.
  5. He wants to coddle terrorists. FALSE. Dan is against modifying our core constitutional principals to fight terrorism, its not necessary, and degrades our country.
  6. He has the support of George Soros. Walsh has the support of many rich financiers, to the tune of over a million dollars, far more then what Dan has raised.


At 1:26 AM, Anonymous kml said...

You could have spared my gag reflex and just said "the typical Republican talking points". LOL

Dan is a good debater. More importantly, he has been around politics and politicians. I'm sure he is preparing for an increase in Jim's hostilities and lies.

At 12:38 PM, Blogger Orangeman said...

I don't want to be a jerk, but I was real excited to come to the Walsh Watch and read on the headline all about the great news from the RT strategies poll and how it tracked the maffei poll from a month ago.

Instead, I was greeted by the lousy headline about everything that's wrong with maffei. THIS IS HURTING US --- ESPECIALLY TODAY.

I suspect people may, you know, get interested in the race because of the news. And this is what they see right up FRONT??

THIS IS STUPID. Why are we making/repeating Walsh's case on here? NOWHERE on the internet can you find a detailed indictment of Dan maffei EXCEPT ON A SITE PURPORTEDLY AGAINST Jim Walsh.

Nothing like a self-inflicted wound.

At 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tend to think (based on TLB's past posts) that he's putting this out as a better know your enemy message, but orangeman is right. I understand the rhetorical value of knowing your enemy, but you might want use that knowledge to more effectively serve up the "what's wrong with Walsh" message
that's made this site a success.

At 1:30 PM, Blogger TLB said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 3:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would probably just pull this post all together, or at least drastically edit it


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home