what the fuck are you talking about? the republicans run entirely exactly as you describe and guess which party is in power? your comment is frankly just a bunch of spin and bullshit not based in anything approaching reality. The best thing any candidate in this environment can do is to run on the reality that peo in their hearts know to be true rather than your version of how to be seemingly risk adverse, but in reality say nothing about anything that matters to peo

Incumbents in congress are well known local personalities.  Certainly a small percentage of incumbents are personally rude or nasty to their constituents.  Others may be personally corrupt.  This is not and has never been an issue with Chris Shays or with the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress.

Shays in particularly is a deft politician and quite possibly the most moderate Republican voter in the House.  He is strongly associated with reform and runs away from Bush as far as possible on many issues.

This is a Democratic district (based on the Kerry-Bush vote).  Shays barely squeaked by Farrell in 2004 and was trailing for much of the year.  The pundits now see this race as leaning ever so slightly to Shays.

Democrats in this disrict want this to be a battle of issues rather than personal appeal.  The biggest issue separating Diane Farrell from Chris Shays is the war in Iraq.  This may not be the right commercial for many districts but it seems like the right one for this district.

You sound like a Lieberman troll. The War in Iraq is THE issue. The war was wrong. It is killing both Americans and Iraqis for no discernible reason. And, most importantly, the money being used by the Bush Traveling Death Camp Machine deprives domestic programs and needs the funding they need.

You didn't stutter with your mouth. You stuttered with your brain. You seem rather ignorant of the facts and like a war apologist. How is your candidate Lieberman doing these days?

I agree with your general point, but I don't think that's true about Iraq anymore. I think it's good to remind people of the cost of the Iraq invasion. People have generally decided already that Iraq isn't making us any more secure. It's a big cock-up, and I think mentioning the domestic cost of it is OK.

Mimikatz, in CT this ad also gets to gut Nancy Johnson's and Rob Simmons's campaigns too.  The states small enough that broadcasting out of Hartford or New Haven results in broad coverage through the 5th and 2nd CDs.  The same issues that apply to Shays can also be brushed onto Johnson and Simmons - compliant lapdogs and enablers for Dubya's misbegotten and ill-conceived war and domestic policies.

Shays's flip-flopping on Iraq will do wonders for Lieberman's campaign.  It shows just how wrong Lieberman's position has been and the bankruptcty of his judgement.  Here in CT, you can just smell the stank of desperation in the Republican presentations.

... same tired lurker bullshit ...

Excuse me?  Do you see Democrats kicking ass by ignoring security and emphasizing education?  Seems to me this is the same strategy all the beltway consultants have been pushing for years and it freaken never works.  Don't get me wrong, I mostly love this ad and thing the first 20 seconds or so are fantastic.  It is just the transition in the end that leaves the impression I'm objecting to.

Of course the costs are connected, and raising the issue of the cost was brilliant on its own right, but I think it was wrong to then turn around and talk about college tuition.  Leave that for another commercial or give some space between the two issues (hard to do in only a few seconds).

After the $300 billion line I'd rather hear something like "just imagine what we could do with that money" or "while leaving ports unprotected with bin Ladin still loose" or something that didn't leave the impression it does.  She almost makes it sound like we should be spending that $300 billion on gas, which doesn't make much sense.

This is just a nit pick, but I thought that was point of these threads.

That would be my only real crticism of the ad. Especially in a very pro-Kerry district like CT-4, it would seem like a no-brainer to at least have the word "Democrat" on the screen at some point.

On Aug. 22, members from this community disparaged John Courage (TX-21) for omitting the word "Democrat" from his otherwise hard-hitting and effective ad.

There were some really insensitive comments to Glenn Smith's post the following day.

It does appear that Democratic challengers are a little timid about mentioning the "D" word in their ads linking the incumbent to the Iraq War. Though I can understand the frustration of MyDD members about this situation, I'm comfortable with the candidates making this call, based on what they think will fly in their districts.

My point on Aug. 23 was that we must evolve this government by replacing representatives in deep red districts with more moderate Democrats. We can elect more progressive representatives in the bluer districts. In TX-21, we wouldn't need to search very far to locate a more acceptable representative than what we've got. I do not know the situation in CT-4, but according to Chris Bowers' House forecast the district has a 5.4% PVI, I would think it would be safer for a challenger to use "Democrat" in their ad in this race than in TX-21, where the PVI is 15-20 points lower.