We've been privileged this election cycle like no other in our ability to access, at will, political advertisements from across this great nation. The comparisons have been illuminating. The Republicans, with no marked legislative accomplishments this past session, certainly nothing that can be seen as a widely populist enactment, seem to have run almost as challengers. They went negative with personal attacks and innuendo, focused on their opinions and avoided associating themselves with the President and Iraq War they've unflinchingly rubberstamped in foreign policy, torture, and economics.
Why are none of them running on Terry Schiavo? Why so few joint appearances with El Presidente? Why the scattered, johnny-come-lately GOP candidate admissions that maybe, just maybe, Donald Rumsfeld should finally be fired as Secretary of Defense?
It wasn't always this way. Once upon a time, along with the smears, GOP candidates ran on issues and even ideas. I might not have agreed with all of them, but this time, after proving themselves impotent or felonious at governing, they got nothin'.
On the other hand, the Dems have several very simple issues they are closing on, sometimes brazenly, and the top tier are GOP support for Bush's Iraq War (you could call this war unpopular), a particular GOP candidate's closeness to President Bush, and a particular GOP candidate's failed personal attacks.
A properly planned and successfully executed campaign has a narrative that has been mapped out by a candidate and their core team from the very start, maybe even a year ago or more. For a challenger or newcomer, there's introducing oneself to the Party and winning the nomination, then reintroducing oneself to the general electorate, developing a message from seeds planted all along, climaxing with what are often called "closing arguments" as in a courtroom prosecution; an aggressively assured, logical conclusion drawn from all the evidence and testimonials the voter has been considering over the course of the election season.
Do it right, you tip the majority of levers your way.
Here's how the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is closing out, offering what a majority of Americans in every poll seem to want, "New Direction". It's a somber execution, but the ad offers relief from the evils the Party has been emphasizing to the public throughout the season. A dutiful tone, one designed to bolster faith that the Dems are serious enough for the job.
If you want to see a real super-closer, here's surging Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb with "Bottom Line". Last week Sen. George "Macacca" Allen's campaign tried smearing Webb with racy passages from his highly-regarded war novels. Too bad those novel have been praised in print by Conservatives including columnist George Will and Sen. John McCain. Not only has Allen suffered a backlash, but this week his campaign workers tackled a blogger at a campaign appearance and generally looked not particularly in control of his closing message.
Meanwhile, Webb's direct, confident final appeal hits his marine experience first, goes soldier-straight for the jugular on GOP failure without once mentioned their party. Then he brings his entire campaign together with: "Bottom line: they're not fighting for you. I will." He closes by asking for your vote in a rather classy way, notable for two reasons. For one, it's something he's been profiled and not having an easy time doing, not a real gladhanding politician born to it. For another, it's actually a tenet of George W. Bush to always ask for your vote, which seems like common sense maybe lost in the distancing media age.
Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee runs this one of his closers straight against Sen. Joe Lieberman, whom he beat in the Primary but faces again as de facto GOP candidate in the election. This one is actually pretty funny, an almost structurally delivered metaphor for Joe Lieberman's Bush-centric voting and issue record, "Insanity". The way it opens with Ned approving the message, like an in living color Rod Serling, keys that this is going to be different. I won't spoil the fun -- check it out and see if you giggle.
In a little-publicized Congressional race, Kentucky's 3rd District, Democratic candidate John Yarmuth leads with a fairly witty, fast-moving satire of his opponent's negative advertising, shows her talking with President Bush, hits on "change" and circles back to his opponent's fecklessness. The ad, "Golf with Saddam", is better produced than a lot of Rep. race ads I've seen, and ends with the clarion call-to-action, "because we can't change Washington unless we change the people we send there." Notice how he's not afraid to let viewers know he's a Democrat, a far cry from reticence by Dem candidates in some recent elections.
And finally, VoteVets made a splash this year with their ads, syndicated over different races with element replacement to customize it against a difference Republican in each. Again, these aren't personal attacks, but they are quite definitely policy attacks, the first of which was the devastating "Body Armor" which I profiled awhile back. Their second syndicated ad, "Tomas", is a heartbreaker, and don't tell me you can't see it coming.
Their closer is shot like an Apple spot -- single figures doing direct address against a white background, information cut sharp. The message almost surgically precise: "Because of Iraq". Three Iraq War vets, one missing half his arm, with Ret. General Wesley Clark (another vet, natch) slamming it home. The soldiers hit all the main arguments why the Iraq War is in itself a national security crisis, but Clark handily flips last week's highly publicized GOP fear-mongering ad against its purveyors:
So if you see commercials telling you to be afraid of terrorism, remember: it's because of Iraq.
C'mon, Tuesday.
As always, Politi-flicks is cross-posted to The Daily Reel.
No comments:
Post a Comment