Jeb Bradley Runs Negative TV and Radio Ads: Two For the Price of One?
Jeb Bradley now has ads on NH Television and Radio. He is going negative right out of the box against Congresswoman Shea-Porter and ignoring his primary opponent John Stephen. So he gets a two-fer.
Strategically I’d have to say that’s pretty smart. But Jeb Bradley is also sticking his neck out.
Starting a campaign on a negative note can be risky. Voters might not appreciate negative and frankly deceptive attacks in the month of May. That act will get old fast.
Congresswoman Shea-Porter will continue to take the high road. That's the way she campaigned last time and she and her supporters intend to do the same this time.
The Stephen Campaign is already energized but this will be taken personally. No team wants to be dissed like this.
All in all though, I’m really looking forward to the Republican primary.
Chaz Proulx
6 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
The former magician does not seem to writing many editorials these days. I'm confident that Mr. Bradley will make the same mistakes that he made in 2006. He'll spend way too much time listening to the political consultants and the wealthy party elite on how to run a campaign, hence the use of media buys. Negative or otherwise.
Meanwhile, Mr. Stephen will appear at every parade, fair and gathering and build momentum at the voter level. This time he will win because Bradley won't have a pack of candidates to hide behind.
Its way too early to see if Mr. Stephen can defeat the incumbent. But I'll say one thing, her newly filed legislation protecting Goss International with trade tariffs is not only unfair and unbalanced- but if this is the type of legislation she supports then it makes it that much easier to elect the next Congressman from the first congressional district of New Hampshire, John Stephen!
Goss employs 1000 people in NH and has been the victim of unfair trade practice by a Japanese Company.
Standing up for a NH firm and NH Jobs is bad?
That's a hard thing to explain to voters but you are welcome to it.
High road?
Like it or loathe it. Free markets and free trade are part of the economic landscape.
It is unfair to selectively place tarriffs on some companies and industries but not others- regardless of whether they are from New Hampshire or not.
If NAFTA, CAFTA and the rest of the free trade legislation is bad than have the Congress change the law. If New Hampshire needs greater protection from free trade than have the entire state opt-out of NAFTA. That's right I said opt out of NAFTA. I understand The Port of Halifax, Nova Scotia was given the opportunity to opt-out in exchange for deepwater development rights to its port. I think this legal preceedence would hold up.
But is is much easier for the Honorable Shea-Porter to introduce a bill to please her constituants. A bill I'm sure will be killed anyway. For just the reason(s) I've stated. Its just plain unfair.
I first learned of this idea after reading the meetings and minutes of the asianpacificgateway.net.
Of course now I can't find the section. I think it would be most interesting and valuable if New Hampshire and New England could opt out of NAFTA.
I've tried hard to make this clear but havn't chosen the right words yet to make my point clear.
Let me try again:
The Goss Company was in a civil litigation and won a settlement but has not been paid the settlement amount.
The civil case in question is what separates the Goss situation from the other issues you raise.
Many Democrats myself included have problems with Nafta. Unions are still big players in our party and Union workers lost jobs under Clinton because of Nafta.
I agree the Nafta issue is legitimate, but Trade Laws that were violated against Goss date back to 1979.
Goss is just trying to compete under the rules and should be supported by our congressional delegation.