IL-06: Obama Slams Roskam In Duckworth Immigration Ad
Right now the GOP and House candidate Peter Roskam are betting that attacking Dem Tammy Duckworth on immigration is their last-ditch route to victory. Both the NRCC and the Roskam campaign are running ads claiming Duckworth -- who maintains a slim lead in polls -- supports "amnesty" and Social Security for illegals.
Today, however, the Duckworth camp went on the air with a new counterattack: An ad starring Barack Obama. He says: "Tammy and I both support John McCain's plan, which does not include amnesty or benefits for illegal immigrants." By associating Duckworth with two Senators with a "leadership" aura, the Duckworth camp hopes to quell any doubts about whether she has the heft to be effective in Congress. View it here. Update: This is the Web version of the ad. A shorter one is on the air.
Good ad. ARe you sure this is a TV version? It's longer than 30 secs and there's no "I'm Tammy Duckworth, and I approved this message." What's going on here?
October 18, 2006 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
For God's sake why do Democrats constantly feed into the image of McCain as this wonderful bi-partisan figure!
Can't they tell that McCain is going to be the Republican Manchurian candidate for 2008, who will run a Bush style stealth campaign of *winking* at the right-wing of his party, while talking about "bi-partisanship" and "ending the culture of Washington."
And it's all a fraud! It's nothing more than a Republican trick that says if we can't hold onto power directly and shut Democrats out, we'll do so indirectly by blathering about "bi-partisanship".
Translation: If WE have power, then "bi-partisanship" means you compromise and we get everything we want. If you take power YOU should be "bi-partisan" which means you shouldn't govern to get what you want while ignoring what we want -- that's only for Republicans, you should "compromise" so we get most of what we want.
It's an idiotic game. And every time a Democrat mentions McCain between now and 2008 he ought to say that he's a right-wing Republican partisan. His name should NEVER enter a Democrat's mouth except to criticize him as fraud.
Hillary can compromise with Republicans all she wants, but you NEVER see a Republican giving her any credit for it, do you? They'd sooner bite their tounges off than say in a campaign ad "Rep. candidate X and I support the Hillary bill."
Why are Democrats so stupid?!
October 18, 2006 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The paranoia by liberals over John McCain is rather comical. If Duckworth could use Tom DeLay to get elected it would be fine with me.
John McCain is not going to be elected president. Sucking up to the lunatic fundamentalists and supporting torture has destroyed much of McCain's cachet. The rightwing still detests him. An independent run is no longer much of an option. That was his only route ever to the presidency I think.
Not real smart, John.
I guess McCain just wanted to be president too much and made himself unfit.
Best, Terry
October 18, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dworkin and terryhallinen, Uhhhhh... not quite. Y'see, it was the neo-left, helped along by their elitist queen Arianna Huffington, and her "shadow government" movement back in 2000 who were hoisting John McCain up as some bastion of all things good and decent, merely because he was behind the joke that was "McCain/Feingold". According to the left McCain was their darling and they would have voted for him in a heartbeat. They didn't even bat an eyelash when McCain stood up with Huffington at her Shadow Government rally during election '00 and endorsed Bush. Of course the neo-left wanted Bush elected, it was part of their power play. They didn't get it then, and merely oinking on as though they get it that Bush is bad doesn't change the fact that they don't get it now either.
They didn't care that McCain/Feingold was a joke because it only gutted contributions to democrats, leaving the fat cat contributers to the republicans free to dole it out. They didn't care that McCain threw a Native tribe off their ancestral mountain so a buddy of his could strip mine it, nor did they care that McCain had helped Viacom evade FCC laws and further their media consolidations.
Obama is effectively stepping over the line the republicans drew in the sand when they started attempting to smear Duckworth on the immigration issue. He does so in a way that would force them to smear their own presumptive candidate for '08. Forcing them to have to withdraw on the subject.. is this over your heads or something? Perhaps you just want to attack democrats..
October 18, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent ad, particularly for Barack's home state. He is known to be bipartisan and a consensus builder, this speaks to that and bolsters Duckworth as well.
October 18, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to think this is a clever double-bank shot, but I don't think so. The Republicans can slam McCain all they want; they have been doing it all along, and it's how they keep him in line. Besides which, 08 is two years away, and few people outside the Duckworth district are ever going to hear anything about this dispute.
October 18, 2006 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad came out today and I saw it this morning a couple times flipping back and forth on the morning gabfests. Haven't seen it once tonight and on the 5pm news shows on all 3 majors both Roskam's and the NRCC ads are running ad nauseum as they have been for weeks now. 3 or 4 times an hour for each. If Duckworth can afford to air the Obama ad it is an effective counter. If she gets it the Repubs will have wasted millions. But she needs the cash to do it.
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/
October 18, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen the ad air here yet, either. But I think it's very effective.
I have some sympathy for the arguments against invoking McCain, but I think it's fine if it works. Here, the point is to win over just a few % of those in the middle, by painting Ro-scam as the liar who just wants to get elected, and TD as the statesman. And, on that level, I think the ad works well.
Tammy could use more money, but there is another close, and somewhat overlooked race here in the IL-10 (north shore), where Dem challenger Dan Seals trails Rep incumbent Mark Kirk by just two points in today's poll, 46%-44%. Dan really needs more expo$ure on TV. And locals, please consider getting involved:
www.dansealsforcongress.com
-- ARG
October 18, 2006 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess with the proper parsing, McCain's plan doesn't include "amnesty" or "benefits for illegal immigrants".
Under McCain's plan, all those millions and millions of illegal aliens would receive benefits: after having been given legal status. [UPDATE below]
So, if we parse it just the right way, Obama isn't lying. To be complete, he could say something like: "McCain's plan doesn't include benefits for illegal immigrants, because we'd wave a magic wand, declare all those millions of illegal aliens to be legal workers, then give them billions and billions of dollars worth of benefits."
As for the amnesty claim, well, I guess that depends on exactly how one defines the word "amnesty". If you define it in the exact same way as Obama appears to do, and in the exact same way the president Bush does, then McCain's plan isn't amnesty.
However, millions - perhaps billions - of people around the world will perceive McCain-Kennedy as amnesty, and all the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. will perceive it as amnesty and will tell their friends in their home countries that it's amnesty.
-- Interesting links of the immigration march organizers
UPDATE: In addition to benefits for post-magic-wand former illegal aliens, McCain-Kennedy may also include benefits for illegal aliens while they are illegal aliens.
October 19, 2006 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Keep in mind that those "post-magic wand former illegal aliens" would also start paying taxes into the system.
Current benefits are paid by taxes on the people working NOW -- not by interest earned on the taxes paid by the beneficiaries years ago when they were working. (Social Security is not a savings plan. It's an insurance plan.)
So that means, more legal workers paying taxes now will be BETTER for the system, not worse. By the time these newly legal workers start getting benefits, they will have paid their fair share (and then some -- remember that Social Security tax is a regressive flat tax).
So the plan makes a lot of sense. That's why McCain and Kennedy both support it (not to mention Obama and Duckworth).
-- ARG
October 21, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take No Prisoners :
I would say to not worry about Roskam's ad.http://travelerdiogenes.blogspot.com/
This is not some backwoods constituency Tammy Duckworth is fighting for. The people in the district are quite intelligent and are not about to be swayed by phony knee-jerk appeals. In addition, immigration is NOT a sizeable issue in the disctrict.
It is, of course, a good thing that Obama stood up for her. It certainly added a few votes to her coffers. Roskam's ad did not reduce her count at all. If anything, it would have created an anti-Roskam trend, for showing himself to be an asshole.
The ad actually gives the impression of grasping at straws. Suburban Chicago residents are not the likeliest in the nation to be swayed by boogeyman scare tactics.
And to those outside the state who may not be aware, Illinois is not one of those states where some GOP Sectretary of State has stacked the deck. IL went strongly for Kerry in '04 and has a sane government, in spite of the bribery-type corruption that has gone on here since the dawn of time. We're in good shape here, safe from Rovian effects.
IMHO, the $870,711 that the RNCC dumped into the district is $870,711 that they aren't spending elsewhere. No GOP vote stealing will happen here in '06, so the election will be what it will be. Every vote will be counted. If Tammy wins or loses it won't be because of some appeal to baser instincts or voting problems.
October 21, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I note that no one seems to be disputing how the "it's not an amnesty!" amnesty would be perceived, nor is there any dispute that Duckworth/Obama/McCain are playing semantic games.
As for the comment, I'm certainly no expert, but aren't those workers going to be mostly low-wage? Will they end up taking more out of the system than they put in? Even if they don't do that, will they put as much into the system as they would if they were higher-wage workers?
And, in addition to the amnesty giveaway, there's also Bush's totalization agreement with Mexico. From the official fact sheet on that scheme: According to the GAO, the proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and their family members eligible for Social Security benefits. Mexican workers who previously lacked the required 40 quarters of coverage could qualify with as few as 6 quarters of coverage...
October 31, 2006 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink