I was doing a phone bank this weekend, asking the good people of Washington and Dodge Counties whom they planned on voting for in the Governor’s race. I did not find one Doyle voter. I talked with a couple of Mark Green voters, which was nice, and also with folks who were undecided.
Once of the undecided voters told me, and I’m paraphrasing here, “I’m undecided. I don’t even know who’s running or what the issues are. Just haven’t’ seen any TV ads yet to know.” The first time I heard such a response I was slightly puzzled, but several of the undecided voters said they were undecided because they hadn’t seen the TV ads to know who was running and what their issues are.
Saturday’s phone calls gave me a new appreciation for the importance of television advertising in a campaign. Before yesterday, I was one of those idealistic types who thought of the number of field representatives one could salary for the cost of one TV ad buy. I thought about the organizers, the yard signs, the buttons, the Packer-Badger schedules, that one statewide ad buy represented. And idealistic “grassroots is where it’s at” man that I am, I always was internally a little bitter at how much TV ads cost. But doing calls on Saturday showed me again that television and radio media advertising is a reliable, and sometimes the only, way to get your message to voters. And some voters really do rely on the ads.
All of that leads me to two observations and two predictions. First observation: television ads can be an effective, honorable, and even inspiring means for a campaign to communicate a candidate and a message to voters. Who remembers the “Morning Again in America” ad that Ronald Reagan ran in 1984? Or the first three ads from Bush-Cheney 2004? Watch them again, and tell me if you don’t get goosebumps, or crack a small patriotically-proud smile. And campaign ads can still be used within the limits of ethics and honor to create contrasts between a candidate and an opponent. Candidates have records and it is entirely appropriate and legitimate to lay out those records for voters, and to contextualize them to create contrasts between candidates.
The second observation is that campaign ads can be used in dishonorable ways, to mislead voters by distorting the record, either overplaying your own achievements or twisting your opponent’s record. I am afraid the first Doyle ad is guilty of the first distortion, overplaying your own record. WISC-TV in Madison found that the first Doyle ad played fast and loose with the facts.
Doyle’s second ad is a bit more fuzzy. There’s the macro and the micro issue. The macro issue is true of almost all of the rhetoric from Governor Doyle and the Democrats on stem cell research. Mark Green does NOT want to criminalize all stem cell research. Mark Green has consistently supported adult and cord blood stem cell research and research on lines from embryos already destroyed. Mark Green has voted against federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research, a specific subset of research. The rhetoric in this ad and elsewhere is that Green wants to “criminalize stem cell research” without the embryonic qualifier.
Second is the micro issue about whether or not the bills in question, which would ban human cloning, would also have the effect of banning certain methods of stem cell research. The Dems argue it would ban therapudic cloning, while Republicans argue that there were exceptions for stem cell research made to get broader support for the bill. And in fact many Democrats supported these three bills, including lefty hero John Murtha of PA, seniors hero John Dingell of MI, peacenik hero Kucinich of Ohio, national security guru Skelton of MO, and prominent Black Caucus member Clyburn of SC.
The two predictions, interrelated: First, the trend of not seeing much of Doyle in his advertising will continue. He doesn’t want people to vote for him, but to vote for his issues. Team Doyle knows his personal approval rating marks are low, so instead they’ll focus on “Extreme Mark Green” and “Big Oil” and “Big Pharma” and “D.C. politician,” and they’ll mix in some ads about jobs and schools and smiling faces. But you won’t see Jim Doyle talking to the camera much. And you’ll see an unusually high mix of negative in with the positive. When your own negatives are high, and everyone has an opinion about you, the winning strategy can be to do whatever it takes to drive the other guys negatives even higher. If the other guy is a blank slate, you need to win over every blank slate voter to the idea that he’s bad so his negatives end up higher than yours.
Second, Mark Green’s advertising will feature LOTS of face time of Mark Green. The obvious reason is that he doesn’t have a lot of personal name ID, so to build it up it has to feature lots of Mark talking to the camera. The second reason is that Mark is a good looking guy, looks younger side of middle aged with his new hair cut, and this sunny countenance and pleasant appearance nicely complement his optimistic message. Third and most importantly, the best way to defeat the negative ads that Doyle and Greater WI Committee will run is to show people Mark Green. They’ll see a smiling, happy Mark Green with his smiling, happy family and realize that there’s no way this genuinely good and decent man could be anything like the monster that the negative attack ads portray him to be. Bill Clinton’s personal charisma was able to pull it off when he was guilty of much of what the attack ads said; think how much better it will work when Green is genuinely so.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
The pack of hustlers that Green is running with DO want to ban embryonic stem cell research and would push to do so if he was elected Governor. At most UW home football games over the past few seasons, these nuts pass out a brochure from some phony front group called “UW Alumni for Life.” The brochure, titled “Praise to Thee Our Alma Mater?” makes the case for banning such research altogether in the state.
If you think that this isn’t the ultimate goal of Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life, you are deceiving yourself. Just ask the nuts who run these two groups.
Most of the campaign ads I’ve seen are through network TV… most good Republicans I know either don’t watch TV or never flip on network stations unless they are watching SOAPS.
Mark Green needs to get on cable networks also to reach his voters… also, he will need to produce some negative ads… Depending on how the ad is produced, it can work. Doyle will release tons and tons of negative ads… and they’ll work. (sadly)
Wisconsin Right to Life is hardly a bunch of nut-jobs, Wally, and also not a “pack of hustlers.” They are serious thinkers and activists who believe in a principle and fight for public policies aligned with that principle. And they certainly don’t hide their opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
If you accept the premise that life begins at conception, as I and WRTL and many prominent legislators and public policy thinkers do, then stem cell research that destroys embryoes is the same as an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Because it destroys an innocent human life, it is, in Tony Snow’s words, murder.
Wisconsin Right to Life seeks to enshrine in law and culture the principle that every life is valued and protected, starting at conception. And yes, that means making illegal embryo-destructive stem cell research. Do not think such a stand is impossible – For the good people of the nation of Poland, embryo-destructive stem cell research violates the Constitution, Penal Law, and Code of Medical Ethics.
Opponents of embryo-destructive stem cell research have not yet won the battle in the public consciousness that such research is wrong. Perhaps such a victory is impossible as long as we live in a Culture of Death that allows abortion on demand for any reason at any point in a pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean we won’t keep fighting on both fronts for a Culture of Life.
When I watch the Doyle commercial, my heart goes out to Maddy’s mother, having to administer a test and shot six times a day to her daughter. But my heart also aches when I see the pictures of President Bush with little Trey Jones, a snowflake baby, and I think that his little light could have been extinguished in a research lab somewhere.
“But my heart also aches when I see the pictures of President Bush with little Trey Jones, a snowflake baby, and I think that his little light could have been extinguished in a research lab somewhere.”
Danny, Danny, Danny… Let’s think about this for a minute. There are thousands and thousands of fertilized eggs frozen in IFV clinic freezers. A couple dozen have been used to start stem cell lines. A few hundred have been used for “snowflake” babies. The rest are going to be either burned at the stake like Joan d’Arc or frozen to death.
If you folks thnk that every fertilized egg is a human being like you or me, then you are honor-bound to try to shut down every IFV clinic in America because every one of them is a death chamber. Yes, a few pregnancies result which are carried to full term, but the vast majority of fertilized eggs are ultimately consigned to die, cold and alone or incinerated.
But the war against in vitro fertilization was never fought. You folks sit idly by. Where are Susan Armacost and Matt Sande when these horrors are occurring?
“If you accept the premise that life begins at conception, as I and WRTL and many prominent legislators and public policy thinkers do, then stem cell research that destroys embryoes is the same as an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic.”
Bravo, Danny, bravo! To the ramparts! Let’s fight for every frozen person about to die in the freezer! Battle stations, everyone!
Shall I hold my breath, or do you remain one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet?
So Wally. you don’t believe life begins at conception ok…..then when does life begin? (or do you believe life begins at conception but its still of ok to terminate such a life)
OK, Nate, let’s say that life begins when the egg is fertilized.
Now, why is it a sin to use a few fertilized eggs for embryonic stem cell research but apparently NOT a sin when you let thousands of fertilized eggs be burned in a medical waste incinerator or frozen to death?
And think about this one: There is a fire in the IFV clinic and you have the choice of saving the lone living human being in the building or the thousands of frozen fertilized eggs in the freezer. Do you save the worker or thousands of frozen eggs? A thousand little people or the lone guy or gal walking around?
Hypocrites, all!
I have a few comments to make, Wally. I didn’t say sin. There is no religious conotation or influence in my respect for human life at conception. It’s just common sense. I was a fire fighter for four years before going to school. In your hypothetical situation, I would save the lone human being because those eggs cannot not survive without the proper incubation. Consequently, I could not save the fertilized eggs by pulling them out, but I could save the lone human being. While I was a fire fighter, we all had to learn to make tough decisions. You save who you can. And lastly, you never answered my question….when do YOU believe life begins? What stage of development entitles a life to be saved?
In conclusion, who is actually the hyprcrite here? I HAVE a conviction about when life truly begins. Yet you have the audacity to say someone else is wrong while having no convictions yourself about the beginning of life. Could your lack of conviction about the beginning of life be attributed to your shallow emotional need to regergitate liberal propaganda?
The real question here is- Can’t you think for yourself?
When does “life” begin? When the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus.
If it begins any sooner, then every IFV clinic in the country is the equivalent of a death camp. After all, there are tens of thousands of these “little people” waiting to die in medical waste incinerators.
The wingnut groups must believe this, too, or you would see them picketing every IFV clinic in the country. Either that or they are hypocrites. Take your pick.
Polly Anna,
Is that your REAL name? Your parents must have been big Disney fans. Nevermind, its not important. Of all the times I’ve asked that question that is the first time I got that answer, or any answer. It even possibly makes some sence and one I will give some thought too but lets test if that theory is what you truely believe and the implications of that belief. If that is when you believe life begins than do you oppose abotion on the basis that when a woman is with child and hence the embryo is attached to the uterus than there is life? If that is the case than welcome to the pro-life side!!! If believing that life does exsist when the embryo is attached to the uterus and you are stilll pro abortion than that makes you you a baby killer by your own definition. Which is it? I’d really like to know.
What to do about abortion is a difficult issue.
Let’s say your dad raped your sister. Should she have the right to get an abortion?
Abortion is a difficult issue and emotions run so high on both sides, probably always will. I think circumstances like like your example are too rare to be the basis for a standard on abortions. However, those kind of circumstances are possible and it would be irresponsible not to consider them. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that any circumstances of conception could be a basis to negate the life of a child. I can only say that if I was the result of those circumstances I would hope to brought to term and given up for adoption so that the circumstances of my conception would not be revealed to me till I was an grown up and mature enough to handle the truth of something so tragic. And as tragic as the truth would be I don’t think it would inable me or someone else from living a full and rewarding life.
As a side not I asked my mother once if she would get an abortion if she ever became pregnant from a rape. She told me no. She also said that she would not give the child up for adoption becuase the baby would still be part her as much as I (her son from marriage) am part her and she would not willingly seperate herself from any child that was hers but she said it much more eloquently than that.
I know there are alot of women who would not feel that way and I’m not saying they should but I thought it valuable to share one womans feelings on the subject.