Yes, now “Joe the Plumber” is a household name.  I actually had friends of mine, not in politics, texting me all day about “Joe the Plumber.”

It’s really quite amazing how one man can wake up one day, meet Barack Obama, ask him a question about taxes, and then instantly get shot onto the national stage of presidential politics.  Joe, the plumber from Toledo, instantly filled the role of average American worker perfectly for both candidates, as their poster child on a range of issues from taxes to healthcare and everything else in between.

But in my book you really haven’t made all the history books until you’ve been immortalized in a political TV spot.  Well, Joe the Plumber” did that one too.

Here’s an interesting question posed by an old friend of mine who is not in politics, but who works in television and film production. 

“In this election cycle, political ads have made a turn from skewing reality in ones own favor to, at times, outright lying.  Is this going to completely backfire on candidates and those who make these ads?  Look at it this way, political ads do work, particularly with swing-voters (who these “swing-voters” are and why they haven’t made up their mind yet in these divided times is a topic for another day) but if people start feeling like they are outright being lied to it stands to reason that ALL political ads will start to lose there ability to persuade.  This is why governing bodies in advertising censor agencies and brands that lie as they know that negatively effect everyone in this business.”  

Recently, several ads have made it to air in the presidential election that have gotten quite a few people in the media and on the internet pretty riled up.  One spot, created by the McCain campaign received a significant amount of attention, accusing Barack Obama of supporting teaching sex education to kindergartners.  While the McCain campaign defends it’s spot, the Obama campaign called the spot untrue and claimed it was a distortion of Obama’s stance.  Who can you believe?

Now let’s get to answering my friend’s question(s)

For those in politics, ads this cycle do not appear anymore harsh or nasty than any other cycle prior.  When you’re in this business long enough you get to see some very heavy hitters.  However, there is a markable difference between heavy hitting negative attacks and clearly untrue attacks.

The gray area in campaign attacks come when a campaign and their team takes a shred of truth and crafts an entire ad around it, making further insinuations and accusations that fall far from the actual truth itself.  But any legitimate political media consultant will not create all out lies.  Lies do tend to backfire on campaigns that dispense them.

When any campaign runs a demonstrably false ad or makes false claims it risks exposing itself to multiple forms of backlash that exist in the political theater.  Below I have listed the forms of potential backlash that a campaign exposes itself to when it takes a path of false attack.

VOTER BACKLASH – As I have discussed in this space prior, the American public no longer detests negative campaigning and contras advertising.  They have come to accept it as normal practice and welcomed aspect to our political election process.  However, people do not have any tolerance for attacks that are far-fetched, untrue, racially biased / sexist, character assassinations or attacks on families or other deeply personal attributes.  Attacks of this nature tend to draw immediate backlash from the voters, who make their own judgements and who will decide to view the candidate executing the attack more negatively than the candidate they are attacking.  

NEWS MEDIA BACKLASH – The second form of backlash against false attacks comes from the media covering the election.  Since Watergate, the news media has evolved from basic reporting on elections to campaign watchdog.  Many news outlets have a fact check feature, where they monitor campaign TV ads and make and report on their belief of the legitimacy of the attack.  In most instances, the media will run this segment on TV or in the newspaper and review the claims and determine if any truth is stretched and make any clarification.  However, in instances where an outright lie is purported, the news media will run a story about the ad and question the candidate or campaign who made the false allegation.  This type of reporting will make the campaign that conducted the attack lose credibility and damage them in the media.  If these stories gain traction and get picked up by multiple outlets, the damage to the accusatory campaign will be compounded.

BROADCAST STATION BACKLASH – Broadcast and cable TV stations have become much more adept at reviewing political advertisements before they place them in in logs for airing.  Larger stations have their attorneys check many of these ads, while others leave this work to station managers or traffic directors, who have become much more aware of what to look for in an ad that may raise questions.  Often, stations will require back-up for any claims made and will request any other information that may support such claims if they feel the ad appears to cross any lines.  Stations reserve the right to not air any advertisement that appears untrue or is proven false.  However, once an ad is up, it is very difficult to have it pulled down.  Once stations make a decision to air an ad, they tend to standby that decision.  often candidates that believe they are being falsely attacked try to have an ad pulled and learn the hard way that this isn’t an easy process (and by the time they do get an ad pulled it already has 500 grps behind it).  but if an ad does get pulled, this can become embarrassing and damaging to the accusatory campaign.

LEGAL BACKLASH – This is the hardest to prove and truly make anything of.  Every so often, candidates will make claim that they will sue an opponent for defamation of character or libel.  Rarely do these cases make it to court, but if a candidate does choose to pursue this route it could put the accuser and any others named in the suit in an uncomfortable legal position.  

Ultimately, false attacks can backfire on candidates, and depending on the type of false claim, they can lose a lot by taking such a risk.

A perfect example of this was Felix Grucci’s campaign for re-election in 2002.   Grucci, a first term member, was considered a shoe-in for re-election in New York’s First District on Long Island.   Running against little-known, and not well funded Southampton College, provost Tim Bishop, Grucci’s campaign launched an attack ad claiming that his opponent had ignored sexual assault charges at the school. As it turned out, the claims were based on inaccurate and discredited information from the college’s student newspaper. The attack backfired and Bishop was narrowly elected, one of just a handful of Democratic bright take downs in a big election cycle for Republicans.

CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS – Governing bodies do regulate political advertising, but not in terms of actual claims made.   Candidates and campaign committees must abide by federal election law, which falls under the authority of the FEC, aka Federal Election Commission.   Other groups fall under the authority of the IRS depending on their tax status.  But these organizations only dictate, timing of spots in an election cycle, how they can be paid for, and what specs the disclaimers must abide by.  

But there is an important point made by my friend’s inquiry.  If there continues to be an increasing amount of false campaigning, we can expect that there will be action taken.  Almost any industry that fails to regulate itself, will expose itself to forced regulation by the federal government, even campaign politics, which is made up by members of the federal government.

A month or so ago, we were privileged to watch a cross attack by McCain and Obama, referencing each other’s homes.  You know, your run of the mill elitist house hit.

Now, Barack Obama has this new spot attacking McCain for his cars – all 13 of them.  Airing in Michigan, which actually makes sense.

MI “Foreign Vehicles” Ad

I’m back – after a few days hiatus.  This one will be of interest to all you Facebook friends.

You know a communication medium has officially made it when you begin to see political attack ads being sponsored and purchased within it’s purview.

EMILY STEEL reports in an article for the Wall Street Journal, titled FACEBOOK POLITICAL ADS TEST LIMITS, that the notorious Moveon.org has started the practice of purchasing ad links on Facebook made to appear as legitimate news story posts.

Read below:

“AP Says: Palin Lied,” reads one ad, accompanied by an unflattering photo of the vice presidential candidate. Another ad — accompanied by the same photo — reads, “Washington Post breaks ANOTHER Palin scandal. Charging tax payers for her sleeping at home.” Another with a picture of John McCain grimacing reads, “Time’s Joe Klein has had enough of McCain’s dishonorable campaign lies. A must read.”

Clicking on the ads takes visitors straight to a story on the Web sites of those publications. People who click on the ad that reads “WSJ Says: Palin Lied,” for instance, are directed to a story on The Wall Street Journal Web site about the contradictions in Gov. Palin’s record regarding the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

But none of the publications cited in the ads bought them — or even was aware of them. The buyer — though never identified anywhere on the ads or on the pages that you land on after clicking on them — is the liberal group MoveOn.org. It’s the latest example of fuzziness about who’s behind what when it comes to political ads online.

I support political communications on social networking sites. Where there is speech there is debate and that is good for a democracy.  If we limit speech in budding communication mediums, we will be forever doomed to mediocrity and meaningless chatter.

However, this form of misleading communication is dangerous and wrong.

Proper and reasonable notification of whom is responsible for any political communication is absolutely necessary.  Any medium where mass communication is accepted, and paid political communication is present there must be proper disclosure.

Otherwise, people and will be subjected to harmful, misleading and slanderous claims that are irreversible.

Faceless groups and movements can appear to morph into any halfway legitimate entity and lay false claims intended to mislead people – This is exactly what Moveon.org is doing.  

They are hiding behind the tiny legal exception given to groups or candidate committees so that they do not have place a long silly disclaimer on pens and other small knick knacks.

They are also heading down a path, which will open up a Pandora’s box of veiled Facebook attacks, undoubtedly leading to an FEC ruling or some other government action to limit it or force disclosure.  This is what happened with mail and television commercials that were sponsored by smear groups in the ’80’s and ’90’s, which led to forced strict disclosure giving us the awkward disclaimers you see and hear at the beginning and end of TV spots.

Groups like Moveon.org always test the limits of political messaging, in attempt to mask their identity.

Why? Because their identity is meaningless, and in some cases, very negative in the minds of average Americans. They don’t represent businesses, union members, or people with one legislative agenda.  They are a group that was created on fighting Republicans.

They have a right to exist and communicate, but they continue to force needless action against other groups in the political arena because of their hidden agenda.

This year’s convention had a lot of excitement, with the Clintons’ drama, the brief appearance of Hurricane Gustav and the Palin non-stop news coverage.

So I wasn’t surprised when I found something missing from the mainstream press coverage – the attacks. Reporting paid very little mind to the tee-up on the contrast messaging for the Fall.  

At party conventions, normal fire breathing and attack messaging is done through surrogates.  This allows big name party leaders to go after the opposite party’s ticket without leaving any stain of negativity on their own nominees.

The nominee ticket usually spends their prime-time address outlining their vision and firing up the base.  Not this year.  

As this presidential head-to-head polling numbers bounce within the margin or error, the attacks were infused into all elements of the convention addresses.  And if this year’s conventions are any indicator of the heat to come, we are in for a good ride.  All four members of the national party tickets spent a great deal of time and energy during their nomination speeches whacking at their opponents.

How does this old news translates into new news?

These convention attacks provided the menu for what will be served up in the paid communications for the fall.  Sans, the surprise hit pieces that may rear their ugly heads in October, much of what was mentioned in these speeches will be communicated over the web, on the airwaves, over the phones, in mail boxes and on the stump this fall.

Already, not a moment to spare, Obama lit the airwaves this week, with a spot aimed at McCain, claiming ‘he doesn’t understand’ and painting him as another four year extension of Bush.  These attacks were showcased by Obama the night of his major address – if you missed it, you were asleep or under rock.

What we will see over the coming weeks is a build toward contrasting messages and themes, where each presidential ticket and respective party attempts to line up their values and vision with the voters, while pinning the vision and values of their opponents and their records in conflict with voters.  Remember, alignment and conflict.

So below, I laid out the attacks, launched by both tickets at their opponents, during the convention.  These were pulled from their speeches and their respective party messaging surrounding coverage.  

Attacks on McCain/Palin

• McCain is 8 more years of Bush
  
• McCain sides with Bush 95% of the time
  
• McCain only wants tax breaks for the rich, corporations
  
• McCain’s foreign policy is simply “Bush-McCain”
  
• McCain was “wrong” on national security
  
• McCain doesn’t get it
  
• McCain has caused our oil addiction
  
• McCain has poor temperament & judgment as a commander in chief
  
• Palin is inexperienced and is a heartbeat away from presidency

Attacks on Obama/Biden

• Obama opposes drilling & nuclear energy
  
• Obama has no record, and no experience
  
• Obama’s only experience is as a “Community organizer”
  
• Rural and red state voters were reminded of the perceived Obama slight when he said people in small towns ‘Cling to religion and guns’
  
• Obama is nothing more than, “dramatic speeches” and “devoted followers”
  
• Obama is a celebrity with no substance
  
• Obama will raise your taxes
  
• Obama uses “change” to promote his career

As the election progresses, it will be important to hone in on the arguments being made over time, and watch how each campaign makes points that fit into these arguments to build their strength and legitimacy among voters – which in political speak is referred to as ‘traction.’

Creating and finding traction with attacks and messages will be the main objective leading up to election day.

 

The Obama campaign is working on getting its footing back in the election, with a new line of attack on McCain.  Obama took the gloves off again this week, with a tough speech in Michigan and a new spot titled ‘WHAT KIND.’

This is another example that the Obama campaign decided to shed the cute and funny spots and replace them with traditional attack ads that center around crystal clear message delivery.

Unfortunately, I do not have a brightcove player so you can see the spot through the link below.

“What Kind”

The Obama Campaign released this ad today, titled SAME, which is a straight forward attempt at illustrating a close intimate relationship between McCain and Bush, on a personal and political level.  

This is the least creative spot put out by the Obama campaign so far in the General Election, and I think it is the most effective.  Past spots by the campaign tried poorly executed humor, light hearted songs and insinuation to try to convey the message that McCain is simply an extension of Bush.

This spot cuts to the chase and it is clearly Obama’s strongest line of attack.  I am willing to bet the Obama team planned this spot in timing with the Bush speech, which was supposed to take place at the Republican Convention.

This ad also shows message discipline, compared to the recent attacks on Sarah Palin.  These kinds of undisciplined, personal and overtly malicious attacks, if kept up, will undoubtedly back fire.  

Why? – While, voters have come to accept contrast and negative campaigning as part of the political process, they can much more easily identify personal attacks – and they have limited tolerance for it.

A must read  from this past Sunday’s New york Times is a piece by PAUL VITELLO titled, How to Erase that Smear.  Vitello reminds readers that attack campaigns, enlisted by politicians seeking office, have been around since the days of our founding fathers.  Below I have included excerpts of Vitello’s piece and sprinkled in some of my commentary and analysis.

When Thomas Jefferson found himself accused of planning to burn all Bibles and legalize prostitution if elected president in 1800, he was ready with a counterpunch that might make today’s most vitriolic campaign operatives stop short, if only to gape upon the greatness that once was presidential campaign slander.

Jefferson’s rival, President John Adams, was endowed with a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman”; and if re-elected he would crown himself king; and, by the way, he was “mentally deranged.”

The author of the attacks was not Jefferson himself, of course, but a master poison-pen pamphleteer named James Callender, who, historians have since determined, was bankrolled completely by Jefferson. (For his efforts, Callender spent nine months in prison under the Sedition Act for saying those things about a sitting president; Jefferson pardoned him immediately after defeating Adams and taking office.)

Essentially, negative smear campaigning is as Americana as apple pie and is arguable an older past time than baseball.

(more…)

While I already thought most operatives, and most voters for that matter, finally agree that ‘negative ads’ work in demonstrating an effective position about an opponent, here is another argument by a real pro to add to the mix.

Famous and yet equally infamous democratic strategist, MARK PENN, who served as a top adviser to President Bill Clinton and recently to Hillary Rodham Clinton, writes about how negative ads work in today’s POLITICO.

Feel free to read Penn’s full piece after the jump – good stuff here.

(more…)