Chris Coons Starts TV Ads
Katie Ellis at DelDems points us to a piece from Hotline On Call, who notes that Chris is capitalizing on the post-Labor Day tea-wrestling that Mike Castle and Christine O’Donnell are indulging in to go up with TV ads early. Chris is going up with a positive ad, featuring his budget accomplishments and some basic bio.
The ad:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nst2x7SDsaU[/youtube]
Nice!
And from Hotline:
Here’s a sign of how negative the GOP primary in the Delaware Senate race is becoming: The Democrat in the race, sensing an opportunity, has accelerated his TV strategy and is already going up on the air.
New Castle Co. Exec. Chris Coons (D) is going on the air today with a positive ad that stands at stark contrast to the ads being aired on the GOP side by Rep. Mike Castle and the Tea Party Express-backed Christine O’Donnell before the Sept. 14 primary. […]
Nice move — showing up to look like the grownup in the room while the conservatives spend their time fighting over who has the fewest ideas for fixing the mess we’re in.
Tags: Chris Coons, DE-Sen
“…while the conservatives spend their time fighting over who has the fewest ideas for fixing the mess we’re in.”. Such a spot on summary of the whole modern GOP.
he better watch how he uses the holy word “conservatives”. That type of uppity talk from a liberal can land you a spot in the All Spin Zone, or the Chalk Board of Justice.
Pretty nice ad by Coons, if a little boring.
Nice move-Castle should not be annointed the victor in November just yet!
It is a great ad. I see on his web site that he calls Castle out for voting himself a pay raise. I like the out of control DC insider vs. the hard working, no nonsese, guy next door theme.
However, the mess Coons cleaned up, more or less, was a mess left by Democrats. And he’s hoping to leave behind the stench in the Land Use Department.
I like Chris, but he’s carrying a lot of unwanted baggage. And the thought of enduring 2 years of Paul Clark as county executive, where he’d be watching over Land Use for the benefit of his developers’ attorney wife — well, that might be the best reason of all to vote for Castle over Coons.
Castle will have a hard time arguing about land use and Paul Clark. Most voters eyes will glaze over in a boredom coma. On the other hand, everyone understands voting with Bush and giving yourself a raise.
“Castle should not be annointed the victor in November just yet!”
No, that will have to wait until November. But I don’t think out-nicing Mike Castle is the path to victory. Being a nice guy is pretty much all Mike Castle has, and most Democrats buy it. Coons has to knock down Castle’s approval rating among Dems, plain and simple.
Chris Coons is well aware he can’t win a nice guy contest with Castle. It’s also why the nasty primary with O’Donnell is such a gift to Coons.
Not as big a gift as you might suppose. Castle himself hasn’t said anything nasty, so there’s no YouTube moment to capitalize on. And the attacks against him are about his “liberal” voting record — hardly a message that drives down his numbers among Democrats. The way to attack Castle is to hammer at his ineffectuality, and to scare Democrats with the prospect of runaway wingnuts in Washington — Castle can’t stop them, Coons can.
Souring Republicans on Castle helps Coons. But Coons needs to win over Democrats to win in November.
All good points Geeze–still befuddles me that some Dems will vote for Castle though when they have a solid candidate for a change as his opponent…
Coons doesn’t need a Youtube of Castle being nasty. All he has to say is stuff like “Delaware is tired of the negative campaigning” and “Let’s leave the attacks behind…” That will link Castle with the nasty primary campaign, and inoculate Coons somewhat against negative ads from the Castle camp.
…still befuddles me that some Dems will vote for Castle…
Maybe some fear
Pam ScottPaul Clark becoming County Exec?I would bet, though, that there is alot of overlap between the Dem voters who voted for Paul Clark and Dem voters who have voted for Castle.
Anon: Good point.
Cass: Most people who voted for Paul Clark have no idea who Paul Clark is.
“still befuddles me that some Dems will vote for Castle though when they have a solid candidate for a change as his opponent”
Most voters enter the booth with very little knowledge of the candidates. That’s why name recognition is so important. The Dems who support Castle remember him as a pretty good governor, which is why one of his positive ads mentions his time as governor.
“Six years ago New Castle County was a mess of corruption…”
No, six years ago, the popular Democratic New Castle County Executive was a target of a political witch hunt by a partisan Republican prosecutor and politicized Justice Department that destroyed his political career. In the end, no “mess of corruption” was found.
Count me in as a Dem who will absolutely vote for Castle this time over Coons. No way in heck could I cast a vote that would allow Paul Clark to further rape New Castle County, not that I’m a particularly big fan of Chris Coons either.
Castle’s attack on Coons will be that he raised taxes.
Coons attack on Castle will be that he’s a Washington Republican.
Mike Castle voted against $288 billion in tax cuts (ARRA). Strangely Dems never seem to play that angle though.
“In the end, no “mess of corruption” was found.”
Please peddle that nonsense elsewhere. Unless you think it’s not corrupt that allegations of sexual harassment were taken not to the police but to the county executive, who instead of turning in the alleged harasser blackmailed him into voting with the county executive from then on.
On the contrary, what’s never been proved is that the prosecution was politically motivated. Not a single memo illustrating that has ever turned up.
“No way in heck could I cast a vote that would allow Paul Clark to further rape New Castle County”
Please explain what, if anything, would change in New Castle County should this come to pass.
In a vacuum the ad plays well, but in reality it’s disingenuous, and will be easy for Castle to attack. Coon’s ad talks about 6 years ago NCC was a “mess” and “then Chris Coons took over”… The problem is Chris was County President for 4 years prior to taking over as County Executive, so if NCC was as bad as he implies he either was ineffective as Council President, or incompetent.
Also the financial picture the ad paints is false. It talks about balancing the budget, implying the prior County Executive failed to do so, when voters should know that’s not true. One can argue it was easier prior to 2005 when Coons became County Executive, because of the booming real estate market, but that isn’t what the ad says. The ad talks about out of control spending, again, if spending was really out of control where was he as Council President?
He brags about cutting his pay, which lets face it given his net worth is no big deal. Bloomberg takes a dollar a year as NYC mayor, sorry I’m not impressed with Bloomberg’s token salary, or Coons taking a small pay cut, when it doesn’t really hurt them financially.
Coons’ ad ends with the voice over stating: “Today NCC has a triple A bond rating” the clear implication is the AAA bond rating was new under Coons. It wasn’t! In just a few minutes of Internet research I was able to obtain the various announcements of AAA bond ratings (Fitch, Standard and Poor’s, & Moodys) for NCC. Not only was the prior administration the first to obtain AAA bond ratings for NCC, but at least according to the actual information Fitch listed to support the yearly AAA ratings from 2002 when Fitch first gave NCC its AAA bond ratings to its press release this afternoon NCC was in a far superior financial position prior to Coons becoming CE.
I’m not blaming Coons for the NCC financial sate, or even claiming he hasn’t done a good job in light of outside economic factors, but only pointing out that if you review the Fitch press releases from 2002 through today they don’t support Coons’ commercial claims, and make it clear the financial condition was better prior to Coons tenure as CE.
Some of the statements from Fitch’s press release this afternoon that disprove Coons claim of repairing NCC finances are:
“The county prudently built up very high general fund reserves from the late 1990s through fiscal 2003, due to a combination of moderate overall spending increases, strong growth in the RTT, and state legislation that increased the county’s share of the RTT. Between FYs 2004 and 2009 overall reserves were reduced more than 30% but remained strong at the close of FY 2009, providing slightly more than 50% of total general fund spending. The county addressed a continual structural imbalance, driven largely by expenditure growth and RTT decline and overall economic softening with a substantial 25% property tax increase in 2010.”
Fitch refers to the prior administrations reserve build up as prudent, and contrary to the commercial’s reference to “out of control spending”; Fitch refers to it as “moderate overall spending increases”.
According to Fitch reserves were used only during the last year (2004) of the prior administration to balance NCC budget, but reserves have been used to balance the budget every year during Coons administration.
Again I’m not saying the economic situation didn’t require the use of reserves, it did, but the commercial states Coons balanced the budget (falsely implying it wasn’t done previously), and omits that Coons was only able to balance the budget over the last 6 years with the surplus the prior administration Fitch indicates “prudently” built up. .
In Fitch’s 2004 press release regarding the AAA bond rating it stated:
“The ‘AAA’ rating reflects New Castle County’s exceptionally strong financial position, a diverse employment base anchored in financial services and manufacturing, and a moderate overall debt burden. Fitch believes the county will maintain robust reserve levels well in excess of the enacted floor of 20% of revenue in the general and sewer funds through comprehensive financial planning and budget controls put in place by the current administration. At the close of fiscal 2003, the unreserved general fund balance of $122 million was equal to 96% of recurring spending and transfers out. Elections this fall will replace the term-limited County Executive and expand the County Council, possibly leading to new spending priorities. However, Fitch anticipates the overall approach to conservative fiscal management will be retained given formal adoption of key financial policies into local law.”
Either Fitch (and the other two rating agencies) don’t have a clue about municipal finances, in which case Coons should not tout it in his ad, or the reality is regardless of other issues during the prior administration, the bleak financial picture that Coons likes to claim he inheirted just isn’t true.
Good job, ID. Coonsie is trying to run on his county record? BWWWWWWAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA.
A good number of the points you made could be applied to Jones-Potter as far as implications that certain accormplishments of the office are theirs to claim. The state’s AAA rating comes to mind.
Make no mistake I want Coons to upset Castle, or walk over O’Donnell, but I have a problem with false ads. And I think it is reckless to have an ad that implies you balanced the budget, and the guy before you didn’t, when they guy before balanced the budget all 8 years, and only used a surplus once according to Fitch bond ratings press release today, and Coons has needed the surplus, built up (prudently according to Fitch) during the prior administration, to balance the budget each year he’s been in office. What the commercial called “out of control”
spending Fitch called “moderate”.
I don’t think Castle’s stupid, and the Republican Senate campaign will have no problem picking a piece the commercial that took me literally 5 minutes on-line to see was full of false implications at best, at worse an intentional distortion of Coons record at the expense of the prior administration.
Geezer, not to belabor the point, but private citizen’s have no means to prove a US Attorney engaged in a politically motivated prosecution. US Attorney’s are immune from civil liability for their actions while employed by the federal government. This probably explains Connolly’s silence since leaving the US Attorney’s Office (USAO). Any false public statement Connolly now makes open him up to a defamation lawsuit. Congress could investigate alleged misconduct by Bush era USA’s, but unfortunately members of Congress have bowed to political pressure not to re-litigate Bush era misconduct.
However, the federal court has already determined Connolly violated federal rules in the Chris Roberts case. Federal Judge Sue Robinson found Roberts’ allegation that the timing of the indictment was politically motivated to be strong, and ordered Connolly to defend his actions. Instead Connolly tried to block the Court’s inquiry, which failed.
Judge Robinson ordered Connolly and his subordinates to testify under oath (in the privacy of her office- outside the presence of the press or Roberts’ attorneys). After privately examining Connolly and his staff under oath, Judge Robinson made it clear in her ruling that FBI agent Jeffrey Troy’s testimony that Roberts’ “indictment was timed with the election in mind “ was “credible”, and “contrary to the representations made by the USAO.” Judge Robinson found “the record clearly demonstrates that the indictment was timed with the 2002 election in mind.” In plain English Judge Robinson found the senior career FBI agent (Troy) was telling the truth, and Connolly and his subordinates weren’t credible (judicial speak for “lied”).
In the only hearing concerning whether Connolly violated DOJ rules in the prosecution of an elected official, the judge who examined Connolly under oath, specifically found he wasn’t believable, and that contrary to Connolly’s express denials Connolly did file the indictment against Roberts with the election in mind.
Unless a future Congress (or DOJ) fully investigates allegations of Bush era prosecutorial misconduct, any misconduct Connolly (and others) engaged in can’t be proven in public. However, while civil immunity prevents victims the opportunity to prove prosecutorial misconduct, Connolly had the ability (and constitutional burden) to prove his indictment allegations at trial, but Connolly (not the PA judge) elected to drop all indictment charges instead of proving a single allegation at trial. Despite Connolly’s voluntary failure to prove a single indictment allegation in court with actual evidence, you want the accused to prove his innocence, and to prove Connolly acted illegally in the prosecution. That isn’t how our justice system works!
Thanks for belaboring the point, ID. Gordon’s political career was destroyed by Connolly and the Bush DOJ.
A1 ♥ Gordon? Gordon was pond scum. Gordon was lucky that grouchy old Judge Fullam didn’t like Connolly’s looks. Gordon crew’s accounting legerdemain papered over financial mismanagement; for a while, the temporary tidal wave of property transfer revenue covered things up. Gordon and his clowns exposed the county to dozens of lawsuits.
And Iowa Dem ♥ the oily Chris Roberts? These professions of love explain much of what we’ve been reading in recent months. Judge Robinson rejected sleazy Roberts’ claim of vindictive prosecution; soon thereafter, Roberts pleaded guilty.
Thank you Belinsky! And remember Korn successfully sued over the “prudent” build up of reserves which should not have been piggy banked for pet projects and securing loyalties….Next!
I am talking about the Bush DOJ criminal prosecutions. I am glad that Korn did what he did, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Coons’ alleged “mess of corruption.” And of what “dozens of lawsuits” do you speak?
Belinsky, I don’t love Chris Roberts, let alone hold him in any esteem, but I expect more from a US Attorney than someone charged with a crime, whether that Defendant is an elected official, a drug dealer, or bank robber.
Despite Judge Robinson indicating the case against Roberts’ was a simple bribery case; Connolly didn’t take the case against Roberts to trial. Instead several months after the Court refused to throw out the case because she found Roberts failed to prove Connolly acted out of personal animus against him.
Connolly offered Roberts’ a very generous plea deal conditioned on Roberts’ testify to Connolly’s satisfaction against Gordon. When this sweetheart plea was arranged Gordon hadn’t even been indicted (that happened over 6 months later). In late 2005, over two years after Roberts pled guilty Connolly informed the Court he was now ready to go forward with Roberts’ sentencing, because Roberts’ testimony was no longer needed. This was because Connolly had already told the 3rd circuit he was not appealing two of the three schemes the PA Judge dismissed. Roberts’ coerced testimony related to one of the two dismissed schemes that Connolly elected not to appeal.
Anyone who knows any career federal prosecutors knows they don’t appeal only some dismissed counts, if all the dismissed counts are valid. Not only did Connolly not appeal 2 of the 3 dismissed schemes in the fall of 2005, in the summer of 2007 he dismissed 100% of the indictment charges against Gordon, even though the case against Gordon wasn’t yet set for trial. This wasn’t an eve of trial dismissal, or a dismissal based upon a pre-trial ruling (Connolly’s complaints about Fullam’s pre-trial exclusion of evidence related to a scheme against Freebery only, and the Freebery and Gordon cases had already been separated for trial by Connolly).
Concerning the financial condition of NCC under Gordon, look whether Gordon had it easy while County Executive due to the housing bubble is a fair argument. However the fact remains Gordon was able to get the legislature to increase NCC’s portion of the transfer tax, which helped build the surplus. And Gordon balanced the budget all 8 years in office, and according to the most recent Fitch press releases (yesterday), and the prior press releases concerning the NCC’s AAA bond rating, 2004 was the only year during Gordon’s administration that any surplus was used to balance the budget, and the surplus has been used during all 6 years of Coons’ administration. The first year NCC received AAA bond ratings from all three rating agency’s was in 2002 during Gordon’s tenure. Fitch’s press releases call the spending increases during Gordon’s tenure “modest”. If the Fitch rating agency is still bamboozled regarding NCC finances beginning in 2002 then Coons’ ability to maintain the AAA rating isn’t impressive. However, I’m not so arrogant to believe that NCC’s financial condition was in poor condition, and independent rating agencies were hoodwinked, and continue to be hoodwinked. This information is coming from outside agencies as opposed to sources with a stake in the dispute, or an axe to grind.
Fedora, actually whether Korn was successful or not depends upon ones reading of the courts ruling. And thank God the reserves were as high as they were, otherwise the property tax increases necessary to balance NCC budget would have made the 25% increase look like nothing.
The definition of a “pet project” depends upon the value you place on a project. Many think with the advent of the Internet and Kindels libraries are pet projects, I disagree. However if the equivalent of Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” was built under Gordon’s tenure, back when NCC was flush, where was Coons as Council President to protect NCC from this boondoggle?
The use of the term “prudent” build up of reserves comes not from me, but from the Fitch rating agencies press release regarding the renewal of NCC’s AAA bond rating that was released yesterday. I’ll trust the 3 bond rating agencies regarding NCC’s current and past fiscal picture, over someone with an axe to grind.
I always learn here at DL. Thanks for the fine posting Iowa Dem.
Yes, thank you, Iowa Dem.