![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/primaries_45x35.gif)
![[Quiz]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/quiz_45x35.gif)
Freedom's Watch Makes a Move in Louisiana
Freedom's Watch, a conservative independent group aligned with several former Bush administration officials, has launched new ads in an attempt to sway voters in a special election for Louisiana's 6th Congressional District. The move seems to confirm speculation that the group would focus its financial firepower on House races in the 2008 election.
The commercial, which began running in the Baton Rouge media market today, attacks state Rep. Don Cazayoux (D) as a serial (and cereal) tax-raiser.
Cazayoux is widely seen as the frontrunner in the May 3 special election to replace Rep. Richard Baker (R). The Republican nominee -- former state Rep. Woody Jenkins -- is seen as a controversial conservative and is not expected to run a modern campaign.
Freedom's Watch joins the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on the airwaves in Louisiana. The NRCC has spent $122,000 on television and polling in the district; the DCCC has dropped $151,000.
A 501(c)(4) organization, Freedom's Watch cannot directly advocate for or against the election or defeat of a candidate but rather can only talk issues. It can accept unlimited contributions and is not required to report its donors.
Asked about the decision to weigh in on such a high-profile House race, Freedom's Watch director of issue advocacy, Carl Forti, said that "tax policy is an enormously important issue nationally, and it is increasingly dominating the public policy debate." He added that "with the economic slowdown, it's important taxpayers know Don Cazayoux has a record of voting to raise taxes and fees on everything from groceries to hunting and fishing licenses."
The new effort by Freedom's Watch comes just days after a devastating piece ran in the New York Times that painted the group as adrift -- without a sense of purpose among either its staff or its donors.
There's little doubt that the group has labored through a series of starts and stops since its inception last fall.
Its initial foray into the political debate was a multi-million dollar campaign designed to convince wavering members of Congress about the rightness of President Bush's policy in Iraq.
That effort was followed by the ad in Ohio's 5th District special election that attacked the Democratic nominee as soft on illegal immigration and was
widely credited with saving the Republican nominee from the brink of disaster.
And then, nothing. As the Times' Michael Luo documents, Freedom's Watch struggled to define its vision and purpose both internally to the major donors backing it -- most notably casino executive Sheldon Adelson -- and to the public. After months of listlessness, Freedom's Watch President Brad Blakeman stepped aside and the group began working on re-making itself into an effective issue-based vehicle for the fall.
The hiring of Carl Forti coupled with the new Freedom's Watch ad in Louisiana seems to signal that those GOP strategists may well get their wish.
Forti, who ran the NRCC's independent expenditure operation for the last several cycles, would offer no comment about future plans for the group but it's hard not to see its decision to run ads in Louisiana (and take a pass on last week's hearings with Gen. David Petraeus) as a sign of its aims down the line.
With House Republicans lagging badly behind their Democratic counterparts, party strategists have made no secret of the fact that they would welcome a Freedom's Watch committed to running ads in House races. They may have gotten their wish.
By Chris Cillizza |
April 15, 2008; 2:57 PM ET
| Category:
Eye on 2008
Previous: Branding McCain: Straight Talker or Bush Clone? |
Next: Obama Responds (Sort Of) to "Bitter" Controversy
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: John Betancourt | April 17, 2008 12:09 AM
Funny, isn't it: Freedom's Watch has no problem whatsoever with allowing a fornicator and law-breaker to serve as one of Louisiana's senators: David (Diaper-Wearer) Vitter.
Ah yes, yet another fine example of right-wing hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy ...
Think about that when you're in the voting booth, Louisiana resident!
Posted by: vegasgirl | April 16, 2008 1:57 PM
Funny, isn't it: Freedom's Watch has no problem whatsoever with allowing a fornicator and law-breaker to serve as one of Louisiana's senators: David (Diaper-Wearer) Vitter.
Ah yes, yet another fine example of right-wing hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy ...
Think about that when you're in the voting booth, Louisiana resident!
Posted by: vegasgirl | April 16, 2008 1:56 PM
elmerick: Your nearly incoherent snide comments could easily describe the GOP.
Freedom's Watch: Another right-wing tool.
Disgusting ...
Posted by: vegasgirl | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM
All these liberal on this post need to look at the record of the bumocruts in the 110 congress, and decide if they want more of the same, amd $5.00 gasoline.
Posted by: elmerck | April 16, 2008 11:54 AM
crites that is.
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 10:14 AM
funny how liberals trumpet money from a rich foreigner like Soros but get their panties in a bunch when the conservatives do it. Bunch of hypodrites.
Posted by: neutral | April 16, 2008 10:13 AM
proud, disapproval of Congress is a long-standing phenomenon that doesn't seem to be tied to who controls Congress or which way the partisan winds are blowing. Voters just disapprove of Congress, period.
But at the same time, they approve of their particular congresscritter because (s)he is so much better than Congress as a whole. And the generic R vs. D numbers show that if voters do disapprove of Congress, they disapprove of the R's in Congress more than the D's.
Posted by: novamatt | April 16, 2008 7:43 AM
Why isn't it reported in this blog that Carl Forti of Freedom Watch was once the executive director of the NRCC? How about some real reporting? This is a very important fact that was ommited for God knows why.
Posted by: Russell | April 15, 2008 8:56 PM
Roll Call reports:
The House agenda appears thin even for an election year, and majority Democrats are in no hurry to send bills to die in the Senate or to provide targets for Republican sniping.
Democrats are counting on picking up seats this year, and observers say they plan to run on the strength of their accomplishments in 2007. ..snicker...what accomplishments are those?
Of late, House Democrats -- back in the majority after a 12-year hiatus -- have begun taking bills that would normally be considered under suspension and putting them through the rules process to have something to debate on the floor.
The suspension calendar is reserved for non-controversial bills, which are expected to pass by better than a two-thirds majority. And if you look at the list of recent House votes, there's not much there apart from post offices and federal buildings -- what else is new.
70% disapproval rating is just not bad enough. The Do-nothing Congress is trying hard to beat it's own dismal record.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 5:36 PM
proudtobeGOP:
Not to mention the "street money" the Philly ward bosses are paid to get out the vote.
Mayor Daley (Sr.)'s political machine in Chicago ain't got nothin' on Gov. Rendell. Wonder how much arm-twisting he had to do to get Mayors Nutter (Philly) and Ravenstahl (Pitt) to endorse HRC. ("No soup for you!")
Posted by: mnteng | April 15, 2008 5:25 PM
Proud, that method appeals to their Stalinist tendencies. Soros should be happy at least.
Posted by: kingofzouk | April 15, 2008 5:17 PM
sghost writes "I'm shocked! I thought the Bible condemned gambling! "
There you go, clinging to religion out of a sense of frustration again.
Talk about funny money...this whole superdelegate thing is super-sleazy. Many of the superdelegates who will decide the Dem presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Obama and Clinton.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported.
"plied with campaign contributions"... aka bribes for votes. The D candidate will be selected, not elected.
Sign in yard at DNC Headquarters:
Votes for Sale to the Highest Bidder
(serious offers only)
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 5:12 PM
Bush embraces Pope
Carter embraces Hamas
Obama votes not present
Posted by: kingofzouk | April 15, 2008 5:01 PM
Anyone have an idea how much money Freedom's Watch has (besides Adelson's fortune)? Even with the 501(c)(4)s and 527s, it looks like the R's are facing a large financial disadvantage to the D's in the general election. Especially with the shenanigans with the NRCC money.
Posted by: mnteng | April 15, 2008 4:57 PM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Results Posted Tomorrow!
Check Back Weekly For Updates!
Posted by: votenic | April 15, 2008 4:44 PM
If rich people want to spend their money on a political agenda, let them.
It looks like republicans will need all the help they can get this November.
Posted by: JNoel002 | April 15, 2008 4:32 PM
You mean to say that the ultra moral GOP is getting major financial backing from a man (Adelson) who makes his money through people gambling away their life savings?
I'm shocked! I thought the Bible condemned gambling! What a horrid little man!
Posted by: sghost | April 15, 2008 4:15 PM
"This is a blatantly illegal operation. Blatantly"
In that case, Fund for America is also blatantly illegal according to your analysis.
Fund for America was organized by Taco Bell heir Rob McKay, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and Anna Burger of the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU matched Soros with another $2.5 million, too. Other major donors include investor Donald Sussman, who has given $1 million and AKT Development of Sacramento.
They also cannot get directly involved in advocacy for or against candidates, but are expected to air television ads and take other political action aimed at helping Democrats.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 4:09 PM
"gotten" is not a word. "Forgotten" is a word.
I get the ball.
I got the ball.
I have got the ball.
Look it up.
------------
If this c[4] stays within the defined rules it will remain "legal".
Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 4:08 PM
just think, that if the candidates from "both" sides weren't tards these groups would wither on the vine
Posted by: | April 15, 2008 4:06 PM
"A 501(c)(4) organization, Freedom's Watch cannot directly advocate for or against the election or defeat of a candidate but rather can only talk issues."
But Freedom's Watch clearly exists ONLY to support particular Republican candidates, and defeat particular Democrats. This is a blatantly illegal operation. Blatantly. And they get away with it. The press doesn't even bother to mention this aspect of it. No wonder the public is cynical and feels there is nbo rule of law whatsoever.
Posted by: Dave Johnson | April 15, 2008 4:03 PM
"Think of how much influence just one really rich guy can wield in this country."
Yeah, like Goerge Soros who is weighing in heavily this year with more cash, delivering $2.5 million to a new political organization of his own called Fund for America, the liberal answer to the Freedom's Watch.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Cal writes
"Think of how much influence just one really rich guy can wield in this country."
Some people think its a free speech issue. More money = more speech.
Posted by: bsimon | April 15, 2008 3:48 PM
One zillionaire is funding this whole thing -- a casino magnate.
Think of how much influence just one really rich guy can wield in this country.
Enough to get a raft of sucker Repugs to vote against their self-interests, obviously.
Posted by: Cal | April 15, 2008 3:39 PM
Its the only way the Repugatards can get any positive help by running false and vicious lies about the Democratic's. Swift boating worked once, they are hoping it will work again.. Throw the Repugatards out of office! They are ruining our country, bunch of greedy, corrupt, basstards
Posted by: nallcando | April 15, 2008 3:17 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Hello Hillary, are you there?....maybe it's time that you consider a trip home to Chappaqua.
But thanks for your trouble anyway....we in the party do appreciate your stand-in performance as a debater for the swift boat boys. It was so good, for a moment, we almost thought that you were a swift boater!