Last week, I pointed out the amateur and desperate nature of Jim Ward's hit piece on David Schweikert. If you haven't read that post, scroll down, and read what I said and then check out the new version. (Click to enlarge)
The first thing to notice is that Ward has abandoned the false claim that the Wall Street Journal and Fox News called him "an anti-establishment outsider." He still uses that phrase, but he no longer uses the mocked up Wall Street Journal and Fox News logo.
Next, he's still using that same great picture of Schweikert, but at least he has a better picture of himself. Well, that's a start.
He's also rewritten the headings so that he is the "Yes" candidate. The last piece had "No" under Ward's name and the voters were going to get the impression that they were to vote NO on Ward.
Ward has also downplayed the John Shadegg endorsement. Now it's safely tucked away at the bottom--high enough not to tick off Shadegg, but low enough so that people aren't wondering why the "anti-establishment" guy is being endorsed by the, well...establishment guy.
Ward still makes the false claim that Schweikert is a "20-year Career Politician" but at least he no longer lists years (all 7 of them) that make the statement such an obvious lie.
This is a much better effort. Some of the obvious lies have been removed; the connections to Shadegg have been downplayed; the photograph is better and he has shifted the piece so that he is the "yes" candidate.
So ward is left with a piece that at its core is still a 500-word effort to paint Schweikert as a big spending career politician--using statistics that (as I pointed out in the prior post) are bogus on their face.
What does Schweikert do to respond? The sucker play would be to debate the piece and talk about how he is not a big spender, not a career politician and how he can beat Mitchell. But why let your opponent pick the battle field? Besides, no one who reads Ward's hit piece is going to believe it. It's too full of weasel words and funny "facts"--and anyone who sees the two pieces side-by-side will see the changes and realize how bogus the first piece was. It's also possible that the mainstream media guys will point out that Ward has dropped the Wall Street Journal Claim.
To respond, Schweikert will simply print and mail copies of the documents that show how Ward moved to Arizona from San Francisco in late 2008, hired a campaign consultant in January of 2009, registered to vote in February of 2009 and announced for Congress later that year.
If there's anything voters can't stand, it's district shopping. And when a guy from San Francisco moves to Arizona and hires a campaign consultant before the boxes are unpacked and even before he registers to vote...well, that's a egregious case of district shopping.
My guess is that District 5 voters would even support a guy like Mitchell over the San Fransisco Newby.