|
Edited on Wed Jul-26-06 03:15 AM by RummyTheDummy
My two cents: This is the race Henry's camp wanted.
1-They'll roll out the Istook-Abramoff ads early and often and put him on the defensive.
2-Istook has a looooooong record to run on. Lots and lots of targets.
3-Istook winning without a run-off is actually a good thing for Henry. The run-off in 2002 put Henry's name on the map and while taxing from a resources standpoint, kept him in the news for an extra month. When you're trying to boost your name recognition across the state, that extra month is huge. Istook won't get it. Voters will tune out. Bad news for Ernie.
4-Henry is infinately more likeable. I don't think the 2002 race has ever been truly appreciated. Unknown St. Sen survives a run-off and beats a drowning in money NFL Hall of Famer and Congressman in a state where the Republican has every concievable advantage. Anyone who followed that race remembers the commercials with Henry and his daughters rolling around playing with puppy dogs on a sunny day. Great ads. Largent came off as robotic. Can anyone see Istook rolling around on the ground with puppies?
5-Istook will come out swinging on the lottery in an attempt rally his moralist base. Meanwhile half of that base is sneaking off to 7-11 to buy scratch offs when nobody is looking. This issue doesn't work for them IMO. He'll also sling some tort reform mud, too. Only trouble is, explaining tort reform is not exactly a made for TV experience.
6-Henry has spent about 5 cents so far. He's raised more than 3 million and will raise more. Henry has the high ground here. The trick is not getting too complacent with all that dough as the Largent camp did in 2002.
I see it 52-43, Henry
People have problems with Henry. I like him, but I have problems with Henry. However, the image of Ernest Istook lording over this state for four years will get me to the polls on election day rain, sleet or snow. No doubt about it.
|