ArchPundit

Too many things going on at once.  First, it is not Personal PAC behind any calls that are specifically saying Beth Coulson is the ONLY Pro-choice candidate and they aren’t asking questions in their calls according to Terry Cosgrove’s comments which weren’t appearing at first. Here they are:

Nice try.  To bad all of this is a sad fabrication to raise money and gain attention.  Apparently, there are those who are unaware  of a July 1 ’06 state law that says all calls must be identified by the organization or person paying for the calls.   Personal PAC follows the law and we are using the same script we have used for Beth Coulson over the past three election cycles: Beth Coulson is a pro-choice leader.  That’s it. We identify ourselves with the calls.  Not to worry though as Personal PAC has every intention of clarifying this matter with our donors, the media and the voters of the 17th district over the next 6 weeks.
Stay tuned.  Terry Cosgove, President & CEO, Personal PAC

Next

The message you claim we are using is a fabrication, not that the calls themselves are a fabrication.
Just to be perfectly clear, we are saying Beth Coulson is pro-choice leader.  The words only and Dan
Biss are never used anywhere in our script. Terry Cosgrove

First, assuming Terry’s is accurate here, my apologies for saying Personal PAC was behind the specific calls people are receiving.

There are two or three possibilities here, but one thing is clear from who I am talking to–there are calls identified as PRC Research or Precision Research who are not identifying themselves as anything other than the firm and who are saying Beth Coulson is the ONLY pro-choice candidate.  Precision Communications is and was used by Personal PAC, but it does general work on a lot of pro-choice campaigns so I jumped the gun.  I am sorry for that. I do know that calls before September 5th were received by many people and those calls are exactly as Terry Cosgrove describes them with an identification of Personal PAC and the message that Coulson is a pro-choice leader.   The calls that don’t identify any sponsor and say she is the ONLY pro-choice candidate started about September 6th. I have no idea if there was some overlap, but that’s the reports I’ve gotten from people in the District.  That would seem to indicate someone else is making those calls according to Terry Cosgrove’s post.  Coulson’s campaign has denied knowing about or making the calls so that leaves us with the question of who is paying for the newest batch that use a different script and don’t identify the calls as the law generally requires.  We should find out in October reports.

Some of the calls seem to be asking in the form of a question which is a push poll, albeit in a very mild form.

What does this mean?  It can mean several things–on top of calls that Personal PAC is doing, someone else is calling the district with this message and not identifying themselves–that could be Coulson’s campaign or another third party. It could mean Personal PAC’s phone contractor is doing a bad job–not terribly likely to me since it’s a fairly well established firm especially in the area of choice campaigns.  It could mean Cosgrove is lying–which I don’t think is true because he’s tough, but he’s not dishonest from everything I’ve heard about Terry Cosgrove.

All this said, I’m don’t find an endorsement a big deal–that’s doing business in Springfield. I do find spending money on a race between two strongly pro-choice candidates even when one is an incumbent an incredible waste of resources and often counterproductive to large issues of women and just health care in general.

This kind of effort is exactly what gave us Senator Joe Lieberman. I wasn’t a huge Lamont guy by any means and I never thought he was perfect, but a key to Lieberman’s victory was the pro-choice interest groups backing him solely.  And what do we have now? Joe Lieberman campaigning and singing the praises of a very pro-life candidate for President.

Is Coulson going to back Brady if he is the nominee? Or Birkett? And does she give cover to right wingers? Yeah.  I get the endorsement as a political practicality, but taking dollars for a progressive cause to support a candidate over someone just as progressive is a waste and counterproductive if it keeps Republicans able to pretend having a party of moderation.