NC-08: Rep. Hayes pummels Kissell (D) in his first ad

[MarkWarner08]

In the first ad aired by either side, Congressman Robin Hayes alleges Democrat Larry Kissell failed to pay payroll taxes for his employees. It's unusual for a five-term incumbent to start his reelection campaign with a negative TV ad, but it's to be expected for an incumbent who is trailing in most early polls. Hayes' is trying to undercut Kissell's "man of the people" message, and he may succeed, largely because Kissell has underperformed in fundraising and must conserve his resources for the fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9oeARMOagk

The core premise of the ad is true -- Kissell doesn't pay those taxes. Why? Because he tecnically has no campaign workers, instead, he lists them as a independent contractors to avoid the additional tax burden. His campaign workers don't mind because they realize that unlike 99% of candidates in competitive House races, Kissell is neither personally rich nor a friend of many rich folks. Kissell is a public school geography teacher who makes $33k a year. Before he worked as a a teacher, he was a textile worker; textile magnate Robin Hayes inherited millions and oversaw the closure of several North Carolina textile plants.

Rarely in politics is this choice between two candidates so clear. The incumbent, a Duke-educated millionaire who cast the deciding vote for CAFTA (a free-trade pact that endangered NC textile jobs), faces off against an underfunded challenger, who was ignored by the Washington Democrats in 2006 and still lost by only 330 votes.

The DCCC attmpeted to make up for this missed opportunity by holding fundraisers to pay of Kissell's debt and offering help in the fall. While It's quite difficult for a school teacher without political connections to raise money for this kind of campaign, it's nearly impossible for any Democrat to raise substantial funds in this poverty-stricken district. If there is one contest where the DCCC's COH advantage is definitive, this could be it.

[Meeker]

Kissell should win this one this time. The increased black turnout will push him over the edge.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The core premise of the ad is true -- Kissell doesn't pay those taxes. Why? Because he tecnically has no campaign workers, instead, he lists them as a independent contractors to avoid the additional tax burden. His campaign workers don't mind because they realize that unlike 99% of candidates in competitive House races, Kissell is neither personally rich nor a friend of many rich folks.

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Democratic campaigns, this strikes me as a little unusual.  Typically, Democrats are quite good to their campaign staffers, even offering them health insurance.  Republicans typically do not.

[MarkWarner08]

The core premise of the ad is true -- Kissell doesn't pay those taxes. Why? Because he tecnically has no campaign workers, instead, he lists them as a independent contractors to avoid the additional tax burden. His campaign workers don't mind because they realize that unlike 99% of candidates in competitive House races, Kissell is neither personally rich nor a friend of many rich folks.

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Democratic campaigns, this strikes me as a little unusual.  Typically, Democrats are quite good to their campaign staffers, even offering them health insurance.  Republicans typically do not.

Most of these staffers understand that Kissell isn't a Jon Corzine, whereas, Hayes is a prodigious fundraiser and has vast personal funds at his disposal. If Kissell wins, he'll be much better funded in 2010, and he'll be able to pay his campaign aides as full-time workers.

[Spaghetti Cat]

In the first ad aired by either side, Congressman Robin Hayes alleges Democrat Larry Kissell failed to pay payroll taxes for his employees. It's unusual for a five-term incumbent to start his reelection campaign with a negative TV ad, but it's to be expected for an incumbent who is trailing in most early polls. Hayes' is trying to undercut Kissell's "man of the people" message, and he may succeed, largely because Kissell has underperformed in fundraising and must conserve his resources for the fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9oeARMOagk

The core premise of the ad is true -- Kissell doesn't pay those taxes. Why? Because he tecnically has no campaign workers, instead, he lists them as a independent contractors to avoid the additional tax burden. His campaign workers don't mind because they realize that unlike 99% of candidates in competitive House races, Kissell is neither personally rich nor a friend of many rich folks. Kissell is a public school geography teacher who makes $33k a year. Before he worked as a a teacher, he was a textile worker; textile magnate Robin Hayes inherited millions and oversaw the closure of several North Carolina textile plants.

Rarely in politics is this choice between two candidates so clear. The incumbent, a Duke-educated millionaire who cast the deciding vote for CAFTA (a free-trade pact that endangered NC textile jobs), faces off against an underfunded challenger, who was ignored by the Washington Democrats in 2006 and still lost by only 330 votes.

The DCCC attmpeted to make up for this missed opportunity by holding fundraisers to pay of Kissell's debt and offering help in the fall. While It's quite difficult for a school teacher without political connections to raise money for this kind of campaign, it's nearly impossible for any Democrat to raise substantial funds in this poverty-stricken district. If there is one contest where the DCCC's COH advantage is definitive, this could be it.

Just because one candidate is rich and the other is a public school teacher doesn't make the public school teacher the "clear choice."

[MarkWarner08]

In the first ad aired by either side, Congressman Robin Hayes alleges Democrat Larry Kissell failed to pay payroll taxes for his employees. It's unusual for a five-term incumbent to start his reelection campaign with a negative TV ad, but it's to be expected for an incumbent who is trailing in most early polls. Hayes' is trying to undercut Kissell's "man of the people" message, and he may succeed, largely because Kissell has underperformed in fundraising and must conserve his resources for the fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9oeARMOagk

The core premise of the ad is true -- Kissell doesn't pay those taxes. Why? Because he tecnically has no campaign workers, instead, he lists them as a independent contractors to avoid the additional tax burden. His campaign workers don't mind because they realize that unlike 99% of candidates in competitive House races, Kissell is neither personally rich nor a friend of many rich folks. Kissell is a public school geography teacher who makes $33k a year. Before he worked as a a teacher, he was a textile worker; textile magnate Robin Hayes inherited millions and oversaw the closure of several North Carolina textile plants.

Rarely in politics is this choice between two candidates so clear. The incumbent, a Duke-educated millionaire who cast the deciding vote for CAFTA (a free-trade pact that endangered NC textile jobs), faces off against an underfunded challenger, who was ignored by the Washington Democrats in 2006 and still lost by only 330 votes.

The DCCC attmpeted to make up for this missed opportunity by holding fundraisers to pay of Kissell's debt and offering help in the fall. While It's quite difficult for a school teacher without political connections to raise money for this kind of campaign, it's nearly impossible for any Democrat to raise substantial funds in this poverty-stricken district. If there is one contest where the DCCC's COH advantage is definitive, this could be it.

Just because one candidate is rich and the other is a public school teacher doesn't make the public school teacher the "clear choice."

In terms of socioeconomic background and perspective on politics, I'd argue that a scion of a wealthy Republican family would provide a clear contrast with a populist public school teacher earning less than than the median income. In short, Kissell is a working-class hero, while Hayes never had to work a day in his life.

[Keystone Phil]

In short, Kissell is a working-class hero, while Hayes never had to work a day in his life.

I'm so glad to know that you've never supported Patrick Kennedy.

[MarkWarner08]

In short, Kissell is a working-class hero, while Hayes never had to work a day in his life.

I'm so glad to know that you've never supported Patrick Kennedy.

If Patrick Kennedy ran against a populist former textile worker/ school teacher, I might support Kennedy's opponent.

[Keystone Phil]

In short, Kissell is a working-class hero, while Hayes never had to work a day in his life.

I'm so glad to know that you've never supported Patrick Kennedy.

If Patrick Kennedy ran against a populist former textile worker/ school teacher, I might support Kennedy's opponent.

I love how it's "might support Kennedy's opponent." I guess those working class heroes are only meaningful when they have that (D) next to their name.

[MarkWarner08]

In short, Kissell is a working-class hero, while Hayes never had to work a day in his life.

I'm so glad to know that you've never supported Patrick Kennedy.

If Patrick Kennedy ran against a populist former textile worker/ school teacher, I might support Kennedy's opponent.

I love how it's "might support Kennedy's opponent." I guess those working class heroes are only meaningful when they have that (D) next to their name.

Phil, I wouldn't cast a vote solely based on a candidate's persona. There are certain things that matter more, for example, the issues!  My point was that Kissell's personifies the meritocratic ideal, something which I admire in politicians.

It's not logical to apply my support of one candidate to another race, one which would feature a candidate whose political beliefs are likely to the right of mine.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, I wouldn't cast a vote solely based on a candidate's persona. There are certain things that matter more, for example, the issues!  My point was that Kissell's personifies the meritocratic ideal, something which I admire in politicians.

I know. You just need to give us the talking points. They don't really matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is logical to apply it when you seem to put a lot of stock into it and bash the opponent for being the opposite. It's a double standard when it only matters more when it's a Democrat who happens to be the working class hero.

[MarkWarner08]

Phil, I wouldn't cast a vote solely based on a candidate's persona. There are certain things that matter more, for example, the issues!  My point was that Kissell's personifies the meritocratic ideal, something which I admire in politicians.

I know. You just need to give us the talking points. They don't really matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is logical to apply it when you seem to put a lot of stock into it and bash the opponent for being the opposite. It's a double standard when it only matters more when it's a Democrat who happens to be the working class hero.

This is laughable. I respect Larry Kissell for the courage to mount a quixotic challenge to a seemingly entrenched Republican incumbent. The day after election day 2000, I remember reading about Rob Simmons upset win in CT-02, and my first reaction was one of respect for the candidate who defeated a 20-year incumbent.

If you think I'd base a vote on a person's background instead of their position on cap-and-trade policies, the estate tax, the earned income tax credit, our entitlement crisis, etc., then you are mistaken.

KP, your tangential ad hominen attack belies the greater point of this thread, which is that Robin Hayes in running scared in June.

[Keystone Phil]

If you think I'd base a vote on a person's background instead of their position on cap-and-trade policies, the estate tax, the earned income tax credit, our entitlement crisis, etc., then you are mistaken.

I wouldn't think that. Again, you were the one who put so much into the working class hero. Again, that only seems to matter when it is someone of your party who can carry that banner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ad hominen attacks? I asked you what you'd do if the tables were turned. Suddenly, the situation changes from "I'd maybe support one of Patrick Kennedy's opponents" to "No, no, the issues are what matter!"

I swear, your posts seem like press releases from the DCCC especially when you compare me to "Robin Hayes running scared."

[Sam Spade]

Truthfully, Hayes has tended to run better when he's running scared, as opposed to when he thinks he thinks he's got things in the bag (which he won't in this CD), so who knows...

[MarkWarner08]

If you think I'd base a vote on a person's background instead of their position on cap-and-trade policies, the estate tax, the earned income tax credit, our entitlement crisis, etc., then you are mistaken.

I wouldn't think that. Again, you were the one who put so much into the working class hero. Again, that only seems to matter when it is someone of your party who can carry that banner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ad hominen attacks? I asked you what you'd do if the tables were turned. Suddenly, the situation changes from "I'd maybe support one of Patrick Kennedy's opponents" to "No, no, the issues are what matter!"

I swear, your posts seem like press releases from the DCCC especially when you compare me to "Robin Hayes running scared."

Thanks for the humor, KP. I never said that I'd support a Republican challenger to Patrick Kennedy. Since the RI Republican Party is a joke, the more viable challenger would likely come from a primary.

In response to your predictable DCCC quip, can you cite another example of me overhyping a Democrat's chances in a key House race? Don't cite Jim Gerlach, because we both know that most politicos gave him a 50/50 at best chance of surviving. When it comes to predicting House races, I ignore my partisan instincts.  I wouldn't have predicted the correct result in 44 of the 50 closest 2006 House races if I'd been a DCCC hack.

[Keystone Phil]

Thanks for the humor, KP. I never said that I'd support a Republican challenger to Patrick Kennedy.

As I said above, you said you'd "maybe" support the Republican. Here it is:

If Patrick Kennedy ran against a populist former textile worker/ school teacher, I might support Kennedy's opponent.

Oh, wait. I guess you didn't specifically say a Republican! Those Republican working class types aren't good enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said your posts sound like a DCCC press release. That's not me saying you're a hack. It was just worded in a very hackish manner.