The ad is so effective it could have lost the following line from Kris Rech. “We attended a meeting for CureSearch, and within two hours of being in the meeting, we knew that there was no funding for childhood cancer.” Well that is not true. In 2004 (when Rech first met with Coleman) the White House released this press release saying the President was going to increase cancer research funding by $629 million. The release pegs the total research investment throughout the NIH at $5 billion. (While the release doesn’t break down the percentage going to childhood cancer, it is obvious a chunk is)
Rachel E. Stassen-Berger with the Pioneer Press continues to look further:
Murphy found that the White House was celebrating cancer research funding in 2004 but the oops gets a little bigger. According to this press release CureSearch got $2.75 million in 2006 — and it was the third year of the organization getting such federal cash. That means in 2004 CureSearch itself got funding for childhood cancer research.
EDIT: Fixed grammatical error in first line.
NOTE: This was before MDE decided to give me my own thread about it. I’m glad he’s trying so hard to distract from the content of this post.
I also can’t help but wonder if this touchy-feely ad from Coleman is an indication that his internal polling shows people were turned off by his negative attacks.
“we knew that there was no funding for childhood cancer”
Clearly this line intends to give the impression that there was not enough funding for childhood cancer, not that there was $0. Why not nitpick her outfit and jewelry too.
Then why doesn’t the spot say “there wasn’t enough funding” instead of “there was no funding” if that’s what was meant?
I know you’re just (tee hee) an uninterested bystander, Sean2, visiting us from New Jersey where your proud status as a Democrat shines for all to see. But, gosh, with the Coleman campaign spending tens of thousands to produce this spot and hundreds of thousands to run it…maybe they could have said what they meant instead of leaving apologists like you scrambling to tell others that we have to somehow divine the meaning of the words.
You should be ashamed of yourself Aaron. Referring to Mrs. Rech as just a “weepy mother” is disgusting. Team Franken must be very proud of you today.
The implication is that Senator Coleman introduced a bill that directly resulted in the funding of childhood cancer research. But it never says the bill passed.
Any follow up on what became of the legislation?
Here’s the link to the press release announcing its passage in the Senate
http://coleman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=2e37527a-a91c-2e7f-38a9-112c0d359128
(mods feel free to delete my comment)
The bill was signed into law by President Bush yesterday in fact.
Story: http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=22451
Michael, you ought to find someone else to call the proverbial kettle black.
Wow Aaron, you got a “You should be ashamed of yourself” from Mr. Brodkorb himself! Although he misquoted you, I’m still way jealous!
Ah…it looks like Aaron changed the text. I have a screen capture.
Aaron: what was the grammatical error in the first line? It seems you changed a word, rather than fixed a grammatical error.
Mrs. Rech was telling her personal story. Should a personal testimonial be censored by legislative affairs? Should we have a hearing to make Mrs. Rech accountable for her oversight?
Geez, no. Mrs. Rech was telling a story of how Norm Coleman helped her family and her mission in his capacity as a US Senator. I for one love the ad. I think it shows that when Norm goes to DC each week, he doesn’t just wait for the phone call to come with instructions from the Bushies as so many here would like people to believe, but he works on behalf of Minnesotans. I’ve seen it first hand on a particular issue a few years back, and it is good that others can see it via this ad.
Breaking News: Brian Melendez and Al Franken to hold press conference today to call “weepy” Mrs. Rech a liar. Developing…
Sorry Dems, but this one is over.
Looks like you’re doing a good job. They’re already attacking you personally instead of discussing issues, which proves your theory that the Coleman campaign just wants personal attacks and digressions instead of running on his record or the issues.
Right because somewhere along the line someone at the Coleman campaign sure didn’t think to themselves “hey we need to get some emotional piece up to get the woman votes, we could put it on during Oprah, how about something with a crying mom and a terminally ill child, that’d be gold.”
Lets face it, this is politics… and it’s obvious this families unfortunate circumstance/story is being used as a vote getter. This has been used on both sides of the aisle by different people in different years.
So when someone like Aaron (or myself) calls this woman a weepy mother (which is totally true to begin with,) it’s used in the sense of describing what the Coleman campaign is using her as… So what is worse? Using this sort of story to your political advantage… or calling it how it is, and describing the situation as everyone else sees it?
Clearly Democrats have been guilty of these sorts of emotional ploys to tug at the heartstrings of voters… and so have Republicans… Politics as usual.
weepy, adj.
tearful
Is she “tearful” in the ad? Yep. More phony outrage from Coleman’s ugly attack dogs.
I’m kind of interested in why Coleman decided to run such a nice human-interest story type of ad. Has Coleman’s internal polling shown a negative response to the nasty politics of his last ad? There must have been something to trigger such a dramatic change in direction from the Coleman campaign.
Jeff: After reading your posts and comments, I’m not sure if you have access to a TV set, but both ads are currently running. Campaigns are allowed to run multiple TV ads. I’m surprised you didn’t fact-check your claims that the bowling ad (three guys talking about Franken’s “juicy porn”) was off the air before you advertised your theory that Coleman’s campaign changed tactics due to some mysterious internal polling.
Senator Coleman’s next ad will lay out his position on crime:
“I’m opposed to it.”
— stay tuned —
I have heard that even Al Franken has sympathy for sick kids and if given a chance as our Senator would not turn his back on needed medical research…
This is what as known as an “Ahhh Ad” but it says nothing about the issues or role of a Senator from Minnesota. What is next, Norm Coleman helps a little old lady across the street and thusly deserves my vote? According to both Leni Riefenstahl and Albert Speer, even Adolph Hitler loved dogs and small children. doesn’t mean I would have ever voted for the guy. This ad adds nothing to the discussion.
amuse -
So let me get this straight. Instead of showing an example which illustrates a track record of effectiveness, you’d rather just hear campaign promises? I’ve got a news flash for you — anyone can give campaign promises. And they can put lipstick on them and sound really good. And they will tell you what you want to hear.
Show me someone who has demonstrated that they can be effective in the DC environment, and that is worth something to me.
Michael, when in the world did I say the two weren’t both being run?
Do you disagree that the CureSearch ad came after the nasty bowlers ad? I’d hope you’re not so argumentative that we need to debate chronology.
It doesn’t take long running that sort of vitriol for voters to be turned off.
I’m open to other suggestions — why has the Coleman camp decided on such a drastic change in tactics all of the sudden?
OK Aaron, maybe he didn’t misquote you, but I’m still jealous. You got MBB to complain about your choice of words while ignoring the point of your post. That’s just cool.
Michael, when does Aaron say that she is “just” a weeping mother?
No Dan, it is just stupid to think that this shows effectiveness… I mean come on, you honestly think that a sick child would face opposition within the Senate… oh wait not under a Democratic controlled Senate but maybe under a Republican controlled one. This doesn’t do anything other than to use misery and pain for Norm Coleman’s political purposes… opportunism at its’ absolute best by Norm the Weasel.
Google this young man.
Maybe you all should read this childs caringbridge website. This ad you are disecting is about a families struggle with cancer and childs mothers attempt to find MORE FUNDING for childhood cancer research. I spent about two hours reading her journal entries, in which Senator Coleman was mentioned many times. I think that alot of facts by Esme Murphy and Rachel E. Stassen-Berger are assumed including the fact that this mother met Coleman in 2004. The ad does not say that, according to her sons website it was 2005.
Hats off to this family, and if you take the time to read what they have accomplished, I think you will agree too.
Well said amuse. That and Brodkorbs phoney outrage is right out of the Rove playbook.
The real problem I’ve seen discussed in the news: it is simply not profitable to develop medicine for rare childhood diseases — blockbuster drugs are what are developed first of all other drugs. We can’t trust the free market to develop cures for diseases that can be maintained for many years for thousands of dollars per month. Our public and private non-profit research institutions need funding to develop cures. My problem with this ad is it claims that Coleman would do this where Franken would not, or that Democrats had some hand against this funding. I can’t imagine either is true (this was a bipartisan, widely accepted bill), so I can not take any value from this ad aside from an emotional response. If all Coleman’s team can come up with is emotional response ads, obviously they can’t come up and don’t want to discuss policies that will drive our nation to prosperity.