I missed this the other day... On Septmeber 30, the Walberg folks have another attack ad:



First, can I just say, "Sour On Schauer" has to be the stupidest thing I've heard this year. Really? That's literally the best thing you can come up with? I support Mark Schauer, and I can come up with more clever ways to attack him! And what's with the lemons? Really? And the bouncing lemon animation, as if they were singing a song... but they're not singing?

Maybe I just don't get it. But really, come on! I'm all for creativity, but come on! Congressman Walberg, hire a better ad agency! These are awful!

But that's not the important part. A stupid campaign ad will be forgotten pretty quickly. Here's the important part:


Right there, "Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee and Walberg for Congress." As far as I know, that's the first time the NRCC has helped Walberg pick up the advertising bill. It's not unusual for the party to help pay for some costs for a campaign-- staff, polling, etc.-- as long as the party gets something out of it, too. But I don't remember seeing the NRCC actually help pay for ads before.

Normally, I'd say that means Tim Walberg is running low on cash, and needs some extra help to make ends meet. The third quarter just ended, so FEC campaign finance reports should be coming out sometime in the next two weeks and we'll get a clearer picture. If the Walberg campaign can't even pay for its own advertising, they're in trouble.

But I said, "Normally, I'd say that means..." Why wouldn't I say that this time? Frankly, because the NRCC doesn't have much money either, and has a lot of contested incumbents they're trying to protect. At the end of August, the DCCC had almost $54 million on-hand, compared to $14 million for the NRCC, and the DCCC was spending about twice as much as their Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Cook Political Report says that the Republicans have 37 seats in danger this year, compared to just 18 for the Democrats.

That makes me think there's some other reason than Walberg being short on cash. The NRCC is spread thin enough that I'd think they'd have better things to do than help Walberg pay for a crappy ad.

I don't know, this one has me puzzled.

Labels: 2008 Election, Advertising, DCCC, Mark Schauer, NRCC, Tim Walberg