Category Archives: Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

Just when you thought the wacky campaign of Ralph Nader could not get any wackier, today’s San Francisco Chronicle gave us a sample of the doublespeak the desperate politco, with a tenuous grip on reality, employs to mislead the public and the press.
While it would be easy to use this as a springboard for yet another example of the politically suicidal inadequacies of Ralph Nader & Co., instead it’s a better opportunity to take a look at slippery rhetoric, and see how easy it is for someone to put out “spin” that sounds good, and does not get questioned by the press.
After reading today’s accounts I had to say I was impressed by Kevin Zeese’s twisted-tongue logic. He has a future selling HMOs and Wal-Mart rezoning requests with the new heights he’s acheived in doubleplus ungood speak.
First, let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine, for the background to this story not provided for in the San Francisco Chronicle. For those of you who have lives, and as such do not follow the pettiness and irrelevance of the Nader 2004 effort, Mr. Nader’s campaign has once again failed to get on a state ballot, in this case, California. Unable to get enough signatures from registered voters who live in Califronia, Nader will not apper as a presidential candidate choice this fall.
This is entirely due to the fact that Ralph Nader made a specific decision to run as an “independent” candidate, and not as a candidate of the Green Party, for many reasons, most of which made little to no sense. Instead he chose to “go it alone,” especially when many Green Party and Nader 2000 supporters indicated they would not support him this time. So he thought he could do it all himself.
Big mistake. Since then he’s had to throw in his lot with an odd mix of arch-conservative Republicans, and the half-dead remains of the old Reform Party, in an attempt to stitch together a semblance of a campaign. As this half-baked effort floundered, he asked for the endorsement of the Green Party at their Convention in Wisconsin this summer and lost, due mostly to his unwillingness to campaign for the support of assembled delegates – or even to attend the convention itself. Once again, Ralph’s political bumbling cost him more support, and the Green Party nominated someone else.
There’s our historical context. Basically Ralph Nader is entirely responsible for the decisions he made time and time again to get to where he is today. Had he been a better candidate, and perhaps had better advisors or at least had the political sensibilities of someone in the 21st century, he might be in a better position, but he’s not . Boo Hoo.
Now, let’s take another look at some of the spin in today’s Chronicle and see just how convoluted it is. The California Green Party chose not to invoke some (odd) rules to change their party’s nominee here in California for the sake of Saint Ralph, instead opting to go along with what its party members had decided earlier this year.
Upon hearing this news, Nader Spokes-bot Kevin Zeese pulled out a uniquely Orwellian piece of rhetoric:
“What you’re seeing is a lot of angry California Greens, that they’re  having David Cobb shoved down their throat,” Zeese said. “It’s become an  issue of basic democracy for the Green Party.”
So let me get this straight. The Greens elected someone else to be their nominee. Ralph Nader, who is not a Green, asked for a decision by executive fiat to overturn an election he lost, so that he could be the nominee and crash the party. And somehow we’re to accept the Green Party is “having David Cobb shoved down [the Green Party’s] throat?”
After ten-plus years in politics, I still don’t know how someone can get up in the morning and say something as patently false as this, and still have some respect for themselves, much less face the press and the public and think they’re going to have any credibility.
More bewilidering to me is why anyone in the press would listen to either the crybaby candidate or the crybaby spokes-bot after these, and many other duplicitous statements.
What’s also interesting is that Spokes-bot Zeese doesn’t get any of this half-baked nonsense challenged, or even questioned. You’d think that any political reporter, even half-aware of the historical context of the situation, would at least ask a few follow up questions to make this clown back up such a Stalin-esque statement. Instead the reporters put David Cobb on the defensive, and yet he’s done nothing wrong.
More interesting is the focus (clearly a byproduct of spin by the Nader campaign and allied Green activists) that somehow Nader’s attempts are part of a plan to get enough votes nationally to “get money” from the federal government as part of the public financing given to Presidential candidates. This is a new spin that’s popping up, both in this article, and in television coverage of a Nader appearance in Los Angeles a few weeks ago.
This is a more insidious lie, one that is harder to thwart. Unlike Spokes-bot Zeese’s earlier comments, these are more murky. But there are a few basic facts to consider:
1. “Funding” that comes as a result of a Nader candidacy (unlikely as that may be) would not help the Green Party of America in any way shape or form since he’s not a Green Party candidate this year.
2. It is unlikely we’ll be having public funding as we know it for any more presidential campaigns after this one, given the many challenges to the system as is, and the fact that it is under-funded. Also, Gov. Dean showed that it was possible to raise lots of money with small donations, and no financing – something Nader only dares dream of.
3. Cynical appeals to get public money need to be thoroughly investigated. Given Nader’s manipulative fundraising one has to wonder if these appeals are just meant to deceive good Greens who want to build their party to support Nader.
In fact it’s more likely that if on some weird off-chance Nader took control of any public money, it would more likely end up in the hands of Nader-allied consultants and groups as was the case with Pat Buchanan’s past campaigns for president.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Nader’s campaign is not nearly the threat it was to Democrats four years ago. Now that people are holding Nader to the same strict standards of conduct and the same level of political combat real candidates have to endure, he’s got neither the political sense, or the ability to take the heat a credible candidate for president needs to have to win.
It’s also becoming clear that his appeal does not extend past the handful of old-school leftists who would never cast a vote for John Kerry, and as such aren’t going to be the boon to Bush that Rove, Nader, and the gang were hoping for.
At the rate Nader and Company are going, they’ll be nothing more than an asterisk of history, and it’s time for good folks to finish this guy off politically so we won’t have to listen to any more his or Spokes-bot Zeese’s yammering and whining.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

So we’ve finally gotten to the end of the most anti-climactic vice-presidential selection process in recent memory. Sen. John Edwards, the man with a lot of charm (and a lot of money) has been selected. Time to move forward.
Kudos are due to the folks at DraftKerryEdwards.com who started promoting the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket back in December 2003, and event went live with a website at the time of the Superbowl (ironically between the Carolina Panthers and the New England Patriots) for being so far-sighted.
Kudos also for getting so many people on board the campaign, and getting those stickers out, even out here in Venice Beach!
People have been asking me “who’s it gonna be?” for some time now, and I always responded with two answers: realistic – he’ll most likely pick Edwards, for the reasons the echo chamber has stated for months now; and curious – he’ll pick someone we’ve not heard much about that will surprise us all.
Pressed, I always said Edwards, despite my own early misgivings about him, solely based on the fact that even in the hyper-short primary season, he never seemed to win many states and that his campaign seemed to mostly say that he looked good, had a lot of money, and spent a lot of time raising money, and oh yeah, he’s from the South. Not exactly a lot there to read. That said, now that we’ve seen him be a good sport and campaign for Kerry for so long I am sure he’ll do fine. What do I know, right?
As for the “experience issue” – while I am sure this will be raised, I’ll simply play my “reverse the names” game on this quotable notable, not unlike the way Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne did this morning with this trip via the Campaign Wayback Machine:
When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards’s lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.
“You’ve been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you’ve only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship. . . . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That’s why I’m thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”
Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday.
I am sure that will drive the “My Guy Right or Wrong” crowd will try to toss this down the Memory Hole, but such is the way of things these days. Still, it’s an interesting point to remember.
My favorite non-news “buzz” surrounding the selection process, and the selection of Edwards himself, has been the revival, one more time ,of the “Hillary Clinton Presidential Conspiracy Sweepstakes,” with lots of wild-eyed talk about alleged scenarios about how this year’s process is being somehow manipulated to Get Hillary Elected President. Now we have to hear that somehow Edwards and Ms. Clinton are locked in some bitter rivalry to the death now and in the future as a result of Mr. Edwards’ selection.
Surely you remember these theories, back when General Wesley Clark was running for president. Clark, was a stalking horse for Sen. Clinton’s devious plot to take the nomination at the summer convention. Read any right-wing (and even some left-wing) blogs and columns from Fall 2003, and you see what nonsense this really was/is.  
Now, most people haven’t heard the term ‘stalking horse’ much less know what it means, and in the era of the staged convention and rules designed to keep crazy things from embarassing anyone at a major party conveniton, this was one of the most unlikely scenarios Campaign 2004 was going to face.
In fact, I’d say these kinds of punditocratic scenarios are about as likely as likely as, say, Monica Bellucci spontaneously coming over to the Waterfront Cafe to buy me a Bitburger during said Democratic Convention this summer. *
No, when it comes to Hillary, put aside the logic – the Clinton Conspiracists need to weasel their way in and have their day. If they can make a buck off it, even better. Today was no different – many stories about Edwards’ pick included commentary about how he’s somehow automatically become a rival to Sen. Clinton should Kerry lose in 2004, or win and serve two terms to 2012.
Now far be it from me to join the Hillary Bashing Society of America – I don’t know her, have never met her, but from what I read she’s no more outrageous a Senator than any one of a number of folks on the other side of the aisle. The hysterical squealing of luminaries like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have made bashing this woman a money-making industry for 12 years now, and I fail to take them seriously as anything but people who have to hawk more stickers, tapes, and books.
Put the echo chamber assessments about the alleged now and future rivalries of Edwards and Ms. Clinton aside, for a moment. Let’s all take a nice dose of Reality Juice, and think for a moment about this.
We haven’t even finished this election, and already, we’re trying to pick who’s going to run in not one, but two elections, both of which assume different outcomes to the one we haven’t finished yet. We’re also supposed to make assumptions and pronouncements about such, not based on any facts, but based on emotion, and whatever sells our latest books or blog. Makes for exciting copy, but really will have little to do with events in the future.
More importantly, one has to ask a hard question – just how realistic is a Hillary candidacy/presidency these days anyway? After 12+ years of relentless bashing, coupled with her own accomplishments and missteps, is it realistic to think that if Ms. Clinton were to run that she’d be a viable candidate? In an era of Faux News, 24-hour scandal mongering and professional PR hit men (and women), is it even possible such a candidacy would be viable past a few primaries?
Unfortunately, unless something major changes in this country, I’m afraid the answer is no. I am sure she’s a nice person and all, but after seeing what the media did to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, who didn’t have the defenses a Clinton would, it’s hard to see how this would shake out any differently, ex-First Lady or not. It’s unfortunate that’s one of the realities of our system, and it’s unfair, but it is what it is.
So when you hear more of these conspiracy theories, just remember it’s one of those things political junkies and pros love to talk about, and the “Land of What If” is a fun place to play. Unfortunately for us, it clouds the news coverage, and we end up talking about some professional mouth’s latest vacation in that magical land, instead of trying to assess what’s happening right now, in the real world.
*Message to the talented Ms. Bellucci – You can still come by and visit me here in Venice Beach if you want.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

What a difference a few weeks makes for the fledgling Nader 2004 campaign. This week the US Green Party declined to “endorse” Nader’s non-Green “independent” candidacy in favor of nominating their own candidate, party activist David Cobb. So much for coronations on the Left.
Reading about the Greens’ convention in Milwaukee, WI was like reading about a long gone era in Democratic and Republican conventions – one in which the outcome was not predetermined before the delegates got there, with real drama, and a very contentious debate before a decision on who their nominee would be, and a close vote.
In an era of Reality TV, I think both Democrats and Republicans have missed the boat on this. Can you imagine if we had a real Democratic convention, with real drama, and realtime dealmaking, televised as the ultimate reality show? Might have been fun. Ah, but I digress.
By all accounts, it is Ralph Nader who did the best job of defeating Ralph Nader, losing the chance at ballot access in many key states, including California. Nader’s stubborn decision to run as an “independent” (or nominee of what’s left of the Reform Party, depending on what day you ask spokesman Kevin Zeese what their candidate’s message is) managed to highlight already simmering tensions between the self-styled pop idol candidate and party from another generation of lefty types.
Many were already sore about Nader’s past slights, heavy handed management style, a refusal to share volutneer lists and information with grassroots party regulars, and a distinct lack of cooperation with local Green activists and leaders like San Francisco Supervisor and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez.
The fact that Nader refused to run as a Green, and refused to even attend a convention from whom he sought an endorsement demonstrated a real lack of politcal sense even a kid running for fourth grade president has. If you want the group to vote for you, you have to ask them first and it probably helps to actually show up as well. The Left is not big on coronations – heck you can’t even wear leather or eat a burger in one of these places, so trappings of royalty tend not to sit well.
This was on the heels of more bad news for the Nader machine. Recent reports in the Washington Post detailing more suspicious misuse of non profit facilities for Nader’s presidential camapign resulted in an ethics watchdog group filing a formal complaint against the Nader campaign, and raising more questions about Nader not unlike past charges of financial shenanigans brought against Nader by watchdog groups concerned about PIRG fundraising.
Additional reports of Nader’s second attempt to get on the Oregon ballot did not help his cause much either. Reports that conservative leaning groups were attempting to “stack” the event to benefit Nader, not out of some love for Nader’s policies, but instead in a bid to try and defeat Kerry, had none of the grassroots charm or energy Nader wishes his campaign had.
Instead it was an effort muddled by those who have no interest in Nader at all – except as a potential spoiler to defeat John Kerry in the fall. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the aging and increasingly bitter Nader and his dwindling camapign. A new ethics complaint now filed against the Nader campaign, and allies of the Bush/Cheney campaign only lead to more stains on the record for St. Ralph and company.
Thus it’s time to reassess Nader’s candidacy in the light of reality. Additional reports of sagging interest and internal disorganization within the Nader operation continue to dodge the campaign, to the point where Nader’s band of folks can no longer keep repeating the “press is out to get us” retort they’ve been using for over 10 years now – it’s time to realize that this circus ran out of calliope music a long time ago, and the only ones left paying for it are people who hope that it will somehow harm Kerry in some circuitous way.
It’s time to wonder what kind of legacy Ralph will leave on this race, in the final analysis. It is also time to wonder why news about this sorry candidacy is deemed on a level equal to that of the President or a sitting US Senator’s major party challenge of said president. Call me crazy, but this little circus’ tent is on fire, and the ringmaster’s been drinking 40s on his lunch break. Not exactly a professional three-ringer like the Democrats and Republicans are putting on.
Many polls show that if an election were held today in many “swing” states, Nader’s 3% could tip states to Bush, or at least make Kerry sweat a lot more than if the question was to choose either Bush or Kerry , hence the attention/concern/encouragement of Nader by folks on all sides. However, polling is not a predictor of future results – they are only a snapshot in time which assumes Nader’s on the ballot – note the word “assume.”
Thus, while Nader’s numbers now indicate a threat, that assumes of course, that he’ll be on the ballot. However, given his lack of organization, his lack of a Green Party nomination (with its access to the ballot in over 22 states) and a campaign message that gets more and more muddled each day starts to make the hopes of Bush supporters wishing for another “Nader factor” to help the President win re-election dimmer and dimmer.
Unlike the Gore camapign, which foolishly pissed away its advantages one by one, and ignored Nader until it was too late, the Democratic side has a unity of purpose not seen in ages, and will do whatever it takes to ensure that this election, win or lose, will not be held hostage by Nader.
It’s rare one gets to see a candidte implosion in such slow motion. Usually when we see a candidate go down in flames the media is too busy fanning them for us to get to see just how bad the crash can be. At the rate Ralph Nader is going, the tent’s collapsing, the lions have escaped, the carnies are being jailed, and yet the ringmaster is still insisting the show will go on. Don’t bet on it.
UPDATE: Salon.com published a new feature detailing more of the many things Ralph Nader would rather you not read about, lest it make you think he’s anything less than a saint.
UPDATE 2: Faced with the cold hard fact that he did not get enough signatures to qualify for the Arizona ballot Nader abandoned his bid for ballot status in that state. Predictably, Keven Zeese assumed his role of Chief Crybaby for the camapign, and whined about the “unfairness” of it all.
Now, this afternoon we’re hearing more whining and crying from Kevin Zeese, probably the whiniest spokesman for a candidate in recent memory, accusing people of dirty tricks. Guess when your boss is dishing out the attacks it’s ok, but when someone calls you and your boss on your sullied reputations, life’s not so good, eh, Mr. Zeese. So much for “fairness” from the Nader crew.
Memo to Kevin Zeese: When the rules say you need a certain number of signatures that are legitimate to qualify for the ballot, that’s the number you need.
This is a “1” or a “0” type situation – whining and “debating” have no place. You guys failed in your mission, and now you’re not on the ballot. Stop blaming others for your own inability to organize an effective campaign.
Your own incompetence, and the sheer lack of political skill or strategy by Boss Nader, are not the fault of the Democrats, Republicans or The Man. It’s yours. Time to own your failures and move on, kids. The whining and crying is getting a bit old.
Hey! Take a page from the great Maddox, and get some Johnson’s and Johnson’s “No More Tears” baby shampoo. Charge it to the campaign – it’s a legitimate expense for you!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

According to a good friend at the Screen Actor’s Guild, it seems our truth-challenged bloggers and talk show hosts out there have been peddling a lie to their listeners, and it’s creating all sorts of headaches for the Guild.
The lie? That the “liberal” Screen Actor’s Guild doesn’t have a portrait of Reagan in its offices, despite the fact that he was a president of the union for many years.
This isn’t a debatable point at all – it’s one of those “1 or 0” situations, and in this case it’s a “1” and the people lying about it are a “0.” It’s a lie. Smirky Republicans can make up all the stories they want, but it’s still a lie.
One that’s caused the Guild quite a bit of hassle as Self-Appointed Guardians of Liberty (aka cranks) call up the Guild and proceed to bitch mightily about the injustice of it all – unaware that they’ve been hoodwinked by self serving liars who needed to ride Reagan’s death for a boost in the ratings. The guild had to waste a lot of time answering questions and putting out press releases to correct what was a lie. Odd how journalists and others jumped on this without checking facts, such a shock, really.
I can personally attest to the total falseness of said lie – I have attended events at SAG’s main offices, including one at the James Cagney Conference Room. When you enter the room there are portraits, all identically sized, of every former president of the union – including such notable “liberals” as Ronald Reagan and George Murphy*.
What a tremendous waste of everyone’s time, all caused by a nice big lie told by people who claim to be our Moral Guardians. Thanks kids. It’s good to know that some people feel a need to memorialize the former president with a nice big lie that causes good people a big headache.
*It’s interesting to note that most actors who run for office are Republicans: George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple Black (although she was defeated in her one bid for Congress she served as Ambassador several times), Fred Thompson, Fred Grandy, and of course Arnold Schwarzenegger. Doesn’t fit the Crank Squad’s view of the world, but I guess with blinders on you can see more or less what you want.
UPDATE: A brief mention of my site on this topic appeared at LA Observed! Thanks Mr. Roderick!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Whenever I hear the latest news about how the war in Iraq is being conducted, I like to replace the names of those involved with other names, to get a new perspective on the news. For example:
“WASHINGTON – After the deadliest month yet for U.S. troops in Iraq, top Gore administration officials fear the situation will deteriorate in coming weeks as insurgents try to create turmoil amid the June 30 handover of power to Iraqis.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, White House officials said Monday they see reason to be hopeful that the situation will eventually improve. But they can’t say when the turning point will come.
From President Gore on down, the administration now acknowledges that the U.S.-led occupation bred more frustration among Iraqis than the White House had initially expected.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Would a President Gore be allowed to run a war and occupation as poorly as the Bush Administration has done, and get a free pass from the media? Probably not.
In fact whenever I read about the war, the economy, or any current event, I like to cross out “Bush”, “Cheney”, “Rumsfeld” et al and replace them with “Clinton,” “Gore,” “Cohen” or any other non-Republican name, just for fun. Would such news and events be permitted, nay, even defended by the chorus of pundits and writers who shout approval to the current administration? Hardly.
It makes you realize just how divided this country is right now – and how each side has developed an almost irrational devotion to loving “their guy” and hating “the other guy.”
Criticism is one thing, standing up for the candidate you believe is one thing, but nowadays it seems people are very rabid in “their guy.” Talk to a Bush supporter and they will be hard pressed to give you a reason the President could lose his or her vote.
I’ve often said that I think the President could announce on TV that he axe murdered orphans and buried them in the Rose Garden, and he’d still have FOX News, the GOP base, and an army of pundits who would still defend him to the bitter end. After all, he’s “their” guy, and they have to defend him, No Matter What.
Then again, the president has announced we’ve been doing some nasty things to POWs in Iraq, the deaths of more of our brave men and women in one month than during the entire war, and an economy that continues to putter, yet he still seems to do OK with most folks on his “side.” Who cares what those hippies in the blue states think anyway?
It’s not that much different than the blind defense many on the other side gave President Clinton during the whole Monica Lewinsky affair. Now, I voted for Clinton, twice, but even I thought he acted like a big idiot cheating on his wife the way he did and where he did it. I know too many guys like that in politics, and I’ve discovered that men with a “cheating heart” cheat in business and politics too, if they can get away with it.
While I wasn’t sure booting him out like some wanted to do was the right response, I didn’t think it was worth defending either. But as you may recall, times did not allow for shades of gray in one’s opinion. You either hated Clinton or loved him – regardless of the facts.
But that’s where we are now. Two sides who will not waver in support of “their” guy, no matter what. A precious few undecided voters who will play a significant role in determining who wins. And two candidates spending incredible amounts of money to kick, stab, beat, and punch the other guy and rile up their folks to get to the polls. We’ve already seen the opening salvos – and it isn’t going to get any more pleasant or intelligent as the months pass.
People often ask me what “issues” will decide this election and I tell them that this is the most issue-less campaign we’ve seen, ironically at a time when we really do need a rational discussion of what the next few years are going to be like.
We could use some intelligent conversation between an incumbent President who has been singularly responsible as commander-in-chief of a war that is not going very well, and an incumbent US Senator who has counter-punched the attacks, but still leaves us with little in the way of what he’d do any different or any better.
I don’t expect to hear much of such thoughtful discussion from two campaigns that seem bent on spending every dollar and using every surrogate to lie, cheat, and attack their way into power. While it would be easy to lay all the blame at Bush’s feet, he’s not the only one engaging in the shenanigans of spin and attack.
Remember all those anonymous attacks on Howard Dean as a tool of Osama Bin Laden? Remember how each Democratic debate was a “Piss on Dean” match? Not exactly a model of statesmanship on the Democratic side, to be sure.
You, however, can bypass the foolishness and make an informed decision for yourself. Rather than listen to some blowhard talking head, or some noisy TV ad to make your decisions, spend a few minutes trying to find out what the real issues are – and what’s more hot air being belched out of an advertising person’s word processor.
There are some excellent websites out there – in particular, I recommend Spinsanity.org which has a good record on deconstructing the latest comments by both sides and exposes the truths and distortions from each camp.
Too many good people are dying in Iraq and too many good people are looking for work right now to allow the decision as to who will be running the Executive Branch of the United States Government a ping pong match of attacks and counter attacks by clever advertising folks.
The campaigns may not be interested in something a bit more dignified – but you have the choice as to whether you will listen to it, or find out the facts for yourself and make a decision based on good information, instead of bad spin.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Here we are, living in the United States, apparently one of the most powerful and free nations on earth, about to pick the person who is going to lead the Executive Branch of the national government in a time of uncertainty and crisis. You’d think such times would merit a serious, and careful campaign by all sides, as people are asked to make a decision that will have significant impact both now, and in the future.
And here’s the debate so far, and what we can look forward to, if history, and the personalities involved, are any indication of what we can expect to hear every morning on the news:
PING!: President Bush said today that Sen. John Kerry was a flake, a Communist, and wants to reduce the military to a kazoo band and a pack of Cub Scouts with slingshots.
PONG!: Sen. John Kerry, responded to the latest attack ad campaign by calling Bush the worst president since Hoover, and labeled his poor grammar “appalling in time of world crisis.”
PING!: A nasty surrogate of President Bush, in a meth-induced right wing frenzy, likened Kerry to Stalin and Lenin, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone not voting for the President was a non-American hippie freak. The Bush campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.
PONG!: A nasty surrogate of Sen. Kerry , in a similar frenzy, likened Bush to Hitler and Satan’s Spawn, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone voting for the President was a non-American nazi freak. The Kerry campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.
Ok, perhaps I’ve exaggerated. A little.
However, this is what we can expect, and what we’re getting already, now that the we’ve got our nominee on the Democratic side, and the vitriol can begin. Already President Bush is putting out some of the most misleading ads and attacks, backed up by the money he’s got. Sen. Kerry is responding, as he promised (“Bring it on!” – remember that?) but doesn’t have the money to mount a full response, so he has to spend time on the trail speaking up. Every day some little droid writes up the day’s talking points/vitriolic rhetoric, with the nastier ones saved for surrogates, and someone has a response.
Now, I’m not one of those people who whines “negative campaigning” for the sake of saying “ooh it’s too mean, boo hoo” and then goes home to watch The Apprentice, Survivor, Big Brother, or any one of a number of nastier things on TV or the movies.
There’s nothing negative about bringing up an opponent’s past and asking for a closer examination. For example if someone says he or she is a strong conservative family values candidate, but in their own life gambles excessively and cheats on their spouse, it’s not slander to point this fact out. Armed with this knowledge, people can decide if it’s relevant or not. It isn’t pleasant to talk about, and disclosing such information isn’t meant to be happy, but facts in context are relevant and should be discussed. There are dozens of other scenarios, this is but one.
Unfortunately, the kind of name calling , nasty insinuations, the “might be” slur, and the the “you’re unpatriotic if you don’t vote our way” crap I can’t stand are the standard so far, and it is going to get old very fast.
The news media is going to get bored and whip out a custom copy of Mad Libs to write their stories. We won’t really get an accounting from either candidate on their past, good and bad, that would tell us whether they should be in the White House. We deserve better and it’s high time for Americans of all political stripes to demand better from their party’s standard bearer.
Also if Sen. Kerry hopes to win this election, he can’t allow himself to play a standard point-counterpoint, hit-for-hit campaign, and allow the landscape to be defined by a bunch of bogus soundbites concocted by Karl Rove. He will never have the money to match Bush and Rove dollar for dollar to buy the ads needed, and the soundbite “noise” will get in the way of talking to voters about what he’ll do if he is elected in 2004.
Now I’m not suggesting that Kerry and his campaign aren’t good at what they do – they are great! – but what I am suggesting is that they’re going to have to think out of the box to get around the wall of bullshit and money the Bush team is going to have at their disposal (not to mention he is an incumbent with all the power that entails!)
I’ll admit – I’ve never run a presidential campaign before and I’m sure that if Robert Shrum were to read this he’d call me up and tell me just how full of crap I am. Indeed. After all how many presidents did I elect all by myself? Zero. But I also know that when you’re up against the overwhelming odds of a poweful incumbent who has more money in his change purse than you do in your bank account, you will lose if you play their game.
That’s why you need to pick up your money and go to another table and pick a game you have a chance instead. If I’m losing at roulette, I leave with my pocket change and go play craps instead where I have half a chance (although some would argue that the way I play craps I have NO chance but that’s another story…)
Kerry needs to leave the table with his money and play another game. Pole vault over Bush’s pompous and hollow rhetoric with something that gets people excited, that makes them laugh, but also make them think. Take people by surprise and make them want to stand out in the rain on election day getting those extra voters out. People with considerably less than Kerry, both politically and personally, have pulled off such wins and he can do it too.
Here’s a few past campaigns to take a look at and consider. Now as always, keep in mind that copying past advertising word-for-word never works – we’ve seen that done to death in both politics and in commercial advertising. What does work is the observation of how others thought outside conventional boundaries, and then consider how one might do so themselves successfully. Enjoy the history lesson!
A trip via the Wayback Machine finds us with some case studies. You can find out more at your local library, or online at Google.com
1990: Paul Wellstone vs. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, MN: In 1990, a relatively unknown college professor, Paul Wellstone, got the nod to run against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz, who had enormous financial and political resources at his disposal. Given no chance to win by the Democratic Establishment in Washington, and little hope by even his own supporters (at first), Wellstone, it seemed was doomed to be a footnote to history.
Wellstone’s team realized this quickly and rather than wallow in self-pity or throw up a few scattershot humdrum ads, they instead played off a pop culture phenomena of the time to launch a very memorable ad campaign. A new film, Roger and Me had been released to wide acclaim, and a humorous 2 minute ad starring Wellstone in “Looking for Rudy”, mimicking Moore’s film, was made.
The ad only ran a few times – but the humor combined with constant replays on national television news programs, began an effective redefinition of the race. Without a lot of money what little message out there had to be memorable – and it worked. Combined with Wellstone’s humor and campaign organization, he ended up being the only Democratic challenger to win a US Senate seat that year. Wellstone’s media consultant would go on to make the ads that helped Gov. Jesse Ventura win election in 1998.
1992: Russ Feingold vs. Sen. Bob Kasten, WI: Two years later, a similar race evolved between a little-known state legislator, Russ Feingold and incumbent Bob Kasten, another powerful incumbent with a ton of money. Again, up against such odds, Feingold ran an ad campaign played up his commitment to the voters of Wisconsin (painted on his garage door, no less) and dismissed the usual negative blather with an entertaining ad putting such nonsense in the context of Elvis sightings in the National Enquirer.
These and other informative and unusual ads communicated his platform of economic and political reform far better than if he ran conventional tit-for-tat advertising responding to each nasty missive from the incumbent. He continues to serve in the US Senate today.
1994: Ron Sims vs. Sen. Slade Gorton, WA: Ron Sims, an energetic and thoughtful Seattle politician, challenged longtime Washington politician Slade Gorton in what would be an uphill battle similar to Wellstone and Feingold’s races in previous years. Sims was a dynamic speaker with a powerful life story, coupled with a knowledge of public policy rarely matched in state politics. Sims’ challenge was bold, and had the potential to be another upset win.
Unfortunately, his campaign fell short, primarily because he was hit relentlessly with advertising attacking his record, much of it distorted and untrue. Outspent by the incumbent, Sims did not have the resources to run the ads needed to counter the charges.
His advisors elected to engage in a traditional “ping-pong” style combination of attacks, responses and scattered positive pieces. Without the money needed to fund such a campaign effectively, much of Sims’ message was lost amidst the crush of Republican advertising that returned control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in 50 years.
To be fair, Sims was the only challenger to do reasonably well in a year when many well-funded people lost (including House Speaker Tom Foley), and it may have been impossible for him to win no matter what he did And, it is not as if his advisors were incompetent – they were and continue to be, some of the best in the business. However, their bid was a longshot to begin with, and they had nothing to lose by trying something a little more “out there.”
It’s not unlike fighting the British in the Revolution. Do you march around in red coats in a straight (and much shorter) line like the British do, or do you wear darker clothing and hide behind trees and outwit your opponent?
Sims went on to win two terms as King County Executive, the second most powerful position in Washington politics. He is now running for Governor this year.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com