Personally, I'm past getting overly excited about political advertising. I'm more conerned about ad hominem attacks on non-candidates.
Still, it's instructive to review how we came to be where we are. MSNBC has just posted a fascinating article on John McCain's South Carolina campaign. For those who may not recall, McCain's 2000 campaign was killed there by what was until that time the one of the worst - perhaps the worst - modern examples of smear and lie-based candidate character destruction.
It's an example followed since and to this day.
So, what did our Republican colleagues - primarily supporters of George Bush - do there?
"Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict."
And what do they think of it now?
"Charlie Condon, a former South Carolina attorney general who supported Mr. Bush in 2000 and is now co-chair of Mr. McCain's South Carolina committee, said the downward spiral the contest took was not surprising.
"Our primaries have a way of doing that," Mr. Condon said. "There is a tradition of it, it is accepted behavior, and frankly it works."
He added, "There are no regrets about 2000. To this day I don't have one. If someone did those things shame on them. But I did see that there was a need for bringing up issues."
The article makes it plain that McCain's problem was not responding effectively in a way which proved the lie of these malicious statements. I do not advocate the use of these dishonorable slurs. But, whining doesn't help, and there's been a lot of whining lately from the local recipients of these tactics.
To repeat. Fight back with truth, effectively presented and quitchur bitchin.
Ask President Kerry.
Until Democrats learn how to a) craft simple messages in sentences NOT paragraphs, b) to cite the facts (and there are so many now) of the other side's failure, and c) respond to attacks immediately and forcefully, we stand the chance to lose. Republicans know the effectiveness of what I've just written in the previous sentence and have coupled that with fear and scare tactics to bring them victories. If we are lucky enough to win a majority this November and next November, we will have to run on our own majority record and be ready to strongly defend our record. Can Democrats be tough?
There are a few Democrats who are now willing to talk tough, call it like it is (eg, Stark on S-CHIP yesterday), (Whitehouse at the Mukasey hearing yesterday). That is what the American public want to hear from their representatives.
I'm tired of weak Democrats who want the right thing but don't want to offend anyone. Which is better? An elected Republican or an offended Republican?
And finally, RK has been a great source of talking points, facts, and "righteous indignation" for candidates. Now go use them!
The solicitor had the nerve to tell me that I was not aware of what was going on "behind the scenes." I told her to assume that I was an "average" voter (I'm probably more alert than the average voter). With this assumption, I asked her how much of a sucker she thought we are? I went on to tell her that I was less concerned with behind the scenes' antics than with public results. I concluded (in rage) that as an average person, I can see why the electorate is so disappointed with our ineffective leaders and their furtive actions that help no one but themselves.
What a pathetic system we have.
Matt, maybe you saw Bill Moyers' Journal last night with Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater. Regarding the Blackwater Congressional hearing this week, Scahill and Moyers said this about the Democrats:
JEREMY SCAHILL: I think that Blackwater has made a-- a very serious strategic error in how they've handled their publicity for years. And now, we're seeing the company go on the offensive. I think Erik Prince held his own in front of the Congress. And I-- and I attribute it largely to the fact that it appeared as though the Democrats didn't really do their homework on him. I mean, here you have the man who owns the company providing the largest private army on the US government payroll in Iraq. A billion dollars in contracts. Twenty-seven of his men killed in Iraq. We don't know how many people he killed. No private actor in the occupation of Iraq has had more of a devastating impact on events in Iraq than Blackwater. And I just felt watching that hearing-- and I went down for it-- that many of the Democrats hadn't done their homework.BILL MOYERS:: Well, they-- well, they were reading the report at the time that he was testifying, right?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. And you see them flipping through the pages. And it appeared as though a lot of the members were just sort of paging through it while Erik Prince was testifying.