August 15, 2005

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

It's all about money

Guest-blogging for Daniel Drezner, Joseph Britt argues that NARAL's over-the-top ad was aimed, not at convincing voters, but at firing up its donor base:

The playing to the activist base that Tierney and other commentators criticize as a political tactic is not primarily that. It is instead a fundraising tactic; NARAL used, and continues to use, violent rhetoric to its most committed (or most gullible) supporters, seeking not votes against John Roberts but money for itself.

There are dozens of institutions in Washington doing the same thing. If an issue that can be used as a hook for fundraising doesn't exist, one can be invented. It isn't enough for institutional advocates to be effective; they also have to look busy.

Posted by Jane Galt at August 15, 2005 10:14 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments
Posted by: Thorley Winston on August 15, 2005 12:56 PM

Just to be clear then, NARAL’s strategy was to put out a false ad attacking Judge Roberts that backfired and hurt their credibility more than Roberts’ in order to convince donors to give them more money. Do these donors realize that by choosing this route, NARAL will probably be even less effective in opposing future judicial nominees because people will be less inclined to take them seriously any longer?

Posted by: spongeworthy on August 15, 2005 2:53 PM

That's just it, TW. And don't you think it speaks not only to the intelligence of their donors, but also to their perception of their donors?

I mean, they made a calculated gamble, that shouting Wolf now would attract the Birken-bucks before the next appointment when their lost credibility would become apparent.

I guess you have to be pretty cynical to be that thrilled about aborting babies in the first place.

Posted by: difrench on August 16, 2005 9:44 AM

I heard via Rush Limbaugh that "they" -- the liberals -- are saying their mistake was not in putting out a false ad but in putting it out too early. That they should have waited until a time closer to the senate vote to release -- I assume so that it could do damage before being proven false.

Didn't Dan Rather make that same mistake?

Posted by: Nick on August 16, 2005 10:15 AM

And in other news ... 2+2=4

The president can't run again, and we're still more than a year away from mid term elections. What voters did people think those ads were going to influence? The ones that get out to vote for Supreme Court nominations? Oh right... voters don't have direct say in those. And I hardly think that the Senate was going to be influenced by those ads.

Didn't take a rocket scientist to put those pieces together, and I suddenly realized how sarcastic I'm feeling this morning.

Posted by: Rick DeMent on August 17, 2005 8:21 AM

Right it's much better when Republicans put out their smear ads closer to elections, at least then the lying has a point and a purpose.

Comments are Closed.