November 04, 2006
Divorce-Court Politics
From The New York Times
[The Senate is up for grabs in November’s election, and the Op-Ed page asked writers from four key states to contribute occasional dispatches during the campaign.]
Divorce-Court Politics
By Charles Baxter
Published: November 5, 2006
Minneapolis
Watching a recent debate for Minnesota’s vacant Senate seat, a friend of mine remarked, “I hadn’t expected the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But I was hoping for something better than Divorce Court. ”
In the debates, the Democratic candidate, Amy Klobuchar, generally discusses the issues, and her opponent, Mark Kennedy, generally attacks Ms. Klobuchar, sounding like an outraged husband. In one such exchange, when the topic turned to the war in Iraq, Ms. Klobuchar advocated a change of course; in response, Mr. Kennedy attacked Ms. Klobuchar, a district attorney, for the rising crime rate in Minneapolis. In the divorce-court politics of nondifferentiated anger, any attack will do.
So far, the strategy hasn’t worked for Mr. Kennedy. He is down by double digits in polls and is suffering from what one local political scientist calls “Bush drag.” In Minnesota, going negative hasn’t been effective, and the question is why. The Kennedy campaign’s ad consultant, Scott Howell (who was also responsible for the notorious “Playboy” ad in Tennessee), has mixed straightforward negative ads with more warm-and-fuzzy assaults, but none have effectively raised Mr. Kennedy’s polling numbers.
One such warm-and-fuzzy ad is instructive. In a staged conversation between a little old lady on a park bench and Mr. Kennedy, the Republican challenger is pestered with questions about why he keeps accusing Ms. Klobuchar of so many faults. “Because they’re true,” he says plaintively.
What’s interesting about the ad is not the predictable subject matter. It’s that the little old lady is straight out of Fargo — not the city in North Dakota, but the film by the Coen brothers. She wears a hideous pink cardigan sweater, a mismatched blouse, bright purple slacks and drugstore reading glasses. The actress playing the little old lady gives her a broad Minnesota accent, along with a slight dental-plate lisp. The ad is funny, but what is satirized, or plainly mocked, is the intelligence of the electorate.
********************************************************************************************
There is more to this op ed piece, but I'm stopping here because the writer pointed out one ad that has outraged me so much in the current nasty, stupid political ads campaigns. I've made use of the mute buttons on my remote controls, but I do watch each of the ads once.
The Kennedy ad is an outrageous insult to older people and there is nothing funny about it. It indicates that older people in particular are too dumb to know what's going on and that they are credulous enough to believe whatever the snake oil salesman tells them. Some older people do get taken, unfortunately, by slick con artists out to do them harm, a good description of Rep. Kennedy's posture in this ad.
The woman's attire is from the 50s. Older women don't dress that way these days. Even in the 50s women didn't dress in such bad taste.
Anyone who is stupid enough to air an ad like that exhibits such poor judgement that he doesn't deserve to be elected to anything. And hopefully he won't be on Tuesday.
[The Senate is up for grabs in November’s election, and the Op-Ed page asked writers from four key states to contribute occasional dispatches during the campaign.]
Divorce-Court Politics
By Charles Baxter
Published: November 5, 2006
Minneapolis
Watching a recent debate for Minnesota’s vacant Senate seat, a friend of mine remarked, “I hadn’t expected the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But I was hoping for something better than Divorce Court. ”
In the debates, the Democratic candidate, Amy Klobuchar, generally discusses the issues, and her opponent, Mark Kennedy, generally attacks Ms. Klobuchar, sounding like an outraged husband. In one such exchange, when the topic turned to the war in Iraq, Ms. Klobuchar advocated a change of course; in response, Mr. Kennedy attacked Ms. Klobuchar, a district attorney, for the rising crime rate in Minneapolis. In the divorce-court politics of nondifferentiated anger, any attack will do.
So far, the strategy hasn’t worked for Mr. Kennedy. He is down by double digits in polls and is suffering from what one local political scientist calls “Bush drag.” In Minnesota, going negative hasn’t been effective, and the question is why. The Kennedy campaign’s ad consultant, Scott Howell (who was also responsible for the notorious “Playboy” ad in Tennessee), has mixed straightforward negative ads with more warm-and-fuzzy assaults, but none have effectively raised Mr. Kennedy’s polling numbers.
One such warm-and-fuzzy ad is instructive. In a staged conversation between a little old lady on a park bench and Mr. Kennedy, the Republican challenger is pestered with questions about why he keeps accusing Ms. Klobuchar of so many faults. “Because they’re true,” he says plaintively.
What’s interesting about the ad is not the predictable subject matter. It’s that the little old lady is straight out of Fargo — not the city in North Dakota, but the film by the Coen brothers. She wears a hideous pink cardigan sweater, a mismatched blouse, bright purple slacks and drugstore reading glasses. The actress playing the little old lady gives her a broad Minnesota accent, along with a slight dental-plate lisp. The ad is funny, but what is satirized, or plainly mocked, is the intelligence of the electorate.
********************************************************************************************
There is more to this op ed piece, but I'm stopping here because the writer pointed out one ad that has outraged me so much in the current nasty, stupid political ads campaigns. I've made use of the mute buttons on my remote controls, but I do watch each of the ads once.
The Kennedy ad is an outrageous insult to older people and there is nothing funny about it. It indicates that older people in particular are too dumb to know what's going on and that they are credulous enough to believe whatever the snake oil salesman tells them. Some older people do get taken, unfortunately, by slick con artists out to do them harm, a good description of Rep. Kennedy's posture in this ad.
The woman's attire is from the 50s. Older women don't dress that way these days. Even in the 50s women didn't dress in such bad taste.
Anyone who is stupid enough to air an ad like that exhibits such poor judgement that he doesn't deserve to be elected to anything. And hopefully he won't be on Tuesday.
posted @ 7:08 PM
