Shouldn't the NRCC be putting this money towards the legal funds of John Doolittle and Tom Feeney instead of blowing it on counterproductive ads that raise Nancy Pelosi's profile with independents and Democrats? Poor Republicans - they have to spend so much money on ads when the DCCC gets all that free advertising from when GOP Reps are indicted.

I would suggest that you look at this:  http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/blog /.  They have this clever little blog here that I suggest you take a look whenever you can.  Type in whatever comments you would like and this will show them what happens when an unpopular party creates a blog.

Now... are these ads actually making a significant effort to make Nancy Pelosi look bad or decrease her popularity? Or are they just going Pelosi == local rep and leaving it at that?

Because if they can reduce Pelosi's current shine that seems like it would be to the Republicans political advantage, but running commercials saying "your local democratic representative is close with the incredibly powerful, relatively popular Speaker of the House of Representatives"... uh... that actually sounds like free campaigning for the local dem rep.

They are trying to link Pelosi to local Dem reps.  The Democrats did the exact same thing to freshman Republicans in 1995 and 1996 by linking to Newt Gingrich in their districts.  This strategy really did not work as most freshmen Republicans were reelected even as Clinton was winning reelection and Newt Gingrich was much more unpopular than Pelosi.  

The only Republicans that lost because of Gingrich in 1996 were Bill Martini(NJ-08), Peter Blute(MA-03), and Peter Torkildsen(MA-06).  The others lost due to either scandal or being way too right wing for their districts.  

Those are national polling numbers.  Does anyone have any idea how popular Pelosi is in those particular districts?

The article says that Republicans are using automated phone calls.  Are these effective and, if so, are Democrats also using them and, if not, why not?

I noticed that Steve Beshear, running for Governor in Kentucky, was attacked by the Republicans as a San Francisco liberal.  I don't know where Beshear stands but he isn't in the House, isn't running for the House, and hasn't been indicted or entered into a plea deal (take that Ernie Fletcher). Then again, Heath Shuler was labelled a football player and then attacked because of unspecified connections to San Francisco.  Attacking somebody as a football player in the south was, ahem, non-productive.  The reference was so vague that my reaction was, no Shuler played for the Redskins ; not the 49ers.

I wonder if Mitt Romney eliminates their old Massachisetts liberal cry (also as/more liberal than Ted Kennedy).  They've been pulling this since at least 1976 and my feeling is it has become meaningless.  The original, calling Jimmy Carter a "southern-fried McGovern" had some zip to it.  

GOP has realised that politics is about culture - and nothing else. They want to tie the Democratic Party to Hollywood and San Fransisco, and claim the rets of America for themselves.

Politics is about culture, not about issues or experience. That's why it's so stupid of progressives to think that "experience" matters for a presidential candidate. No. Likeability, charisma and identity are the deciding factors.

We should assist them in their efforts by contributing to their advertizing campain.

.....even my hard-core Republican dad calls her a GILF  -Grandma I Like to ....  :)

Its what the polling in the districts they're targeting shows that matters. Some of these freshmen reps vowed to be an Independent voice for Congress, and thus far have a greater party unity score than the GOPer they replaced.

  Now that the Democrats have given the Republicans everything they wanted on Iraq, the Republicans will stop attacking them and calling them names. Right?

  I mean, that was the plan, wasn't it?

All this will do is increase Pelosi's name ID and remind people that the Democrats elected the first woman Speaker of the House.  This helps Dems among women and does not hurt among men.  More power to you, NRCC!

Gee, just think, now all they have to do is go around saying Democrats won't fight for what they believe in and they will probably get their majority back. Our leaders made that statement true.

I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. When I get stabbed in the back, I would rather get it from an enemy. The Congress might as well remained Republican. They have destroyed our chances of beating a lot of people.

I followed the senate race here in CA closely between Feinstein and Huffington (yes Ariana's ex)and was amazed at the power of pure negative advertising. Feinstein had a 65% approval rating in the winter before the election.  Huff spent something like 30 M$ on attack adds.  By August her approval had dropped to the low 40s.  Problem for the Huff is that his disapprovals went up during the campaign even faster.  If he wasn't the candidate another Republican could have won.

This current tactic by the repubs could work to at least cut into Nancy's approval numbers and then in later campaigns individual candidates  might be able to use her as an issue.

The point is that the electorate will respond to these adds even if individuals are oblivious that they are so responding.

Isn't the knock on Pelosi that she hasn't gone far enough? How's that gonna help Republicans?

Part of the point of this campaign is to advance the girly man, Breck Girl, Dems are wusses themes.  Whether or not attacking Pelosi herself is effective, making the party the party of the girls, especially girls from gay SF, is an attack on the brand.