John McCain may have belatedly deplored the tone of the Republican nomination campaign, but the slew of attack ads keeps on coming
• Read part one
Over the weekend, Senator John McCain showed a little of the irascible honesty that endeared him to liberals and journalists back in the days before he sold his soul for a second-hand view of Russia. On Meet the Press, he said that the current campaign cycle has "gone way too long and gotten way, way too personal … Attacks on character and all of that have been very unfortunate."
This from a man who saw his daughter drawn into a race-baiting smear and who watched his own campaign get hijacked by xenophobic conspiracists. So it must be pretty bad. McCain calling a political environment "nasty" is like Rush Limbaugh calling a college student a "slut." Oh, wait.
It is ugly out there and the sad fact is, ugly is working. Should Mitt Romney pull out a victory in Illinois on Tuesday night, it will be in large part due to the $2.6m he and the Super Pac supporting him spent on ads, two-thirds of them – as McCain observed – negative. Romney is outspending Santorum and his Super PAC in Illinois by $2m.
Romney's overwhelming force, however, may be the very factor that urges Santorum and Gingrich to stay in the race. The bitterness of the battle has raised the personal stakes, perhaps making the prospect of hurting Romney almost as appealing as actually defeating him. Gingrich allies in particular have argued that the vicious nature of Romney's attacks discredits him as a candidate: two congressmen in support of Gingrich wrote a letter to newspaper publishers arguing that Romney's "negative attack mentality, unfortunately, is a reflection of his own persona."
The toxicity of this campaign rhetoric – studies have shown it to be unprecedented – has seeped into the larger political conversation. It has created an escalating verbal arms war about issues as well as individual politicians – thus this edition of our attack ad watch now includes dueling ads from the Republican and Democratic national committees about the so-called War on Women.
NOTE: An ad's effectiveness is judged on the Horton scale, so named after the devastating "Willie Horton" ad implemented against Michael Dukakis in 1988. The scale ranges from one to five: a five means the ad is potentially devastating, a one means it is merely a flesh wound.
The Wrong Choice
Aired: In Illinois, part of a $3.7 million ad buy on the Chicago airwaves almost entirely devoted to criticizing Santorum.
Attacking: Rick Santorum
Paid for by: Romney campaign
Film style: Text from almost-invisibly-labeled sources slides over stock footage, side-by-side images of Santorum and Obama speaking. An especially nice touch: When the ad quotes a conservative think tank economist that Santorum's policies are "economic illiteracy," we see a baby in a crib. Babies don't know anything about the economy!
Accusation: See above. The ad is basically a clip job of the worst quotes about Santorum's economic proposals the Romney campaign could find. They are misleadingly (and just barely, the attribution type is so small) attributed to news sources. In most cases, the quote cited comes from an individual giving his opinion; it isn't the factual determination of the news organization. As if the liberal media could be trusted anyway!
Relation to the truth: See above. The quotes are real, but they are entirely subjective.
Unintended consequence: Really undermines the credibility of the E-trade infant spokesman.
Horton Scale score: Four. Subjective opinion or not, Santorum has not made the economy the centerpiece of his campaign, opening himself up to the perception that it is his weak spot.
Funny but True
Aired: Nationally on satellite radio
Paid for by: Santorum campaign
Attacking: Romney
Film style: It's a radio ad, but the twangy background music whispers Deliverance.
Accusation: The ad recycles Santorum supporter Foster Friess' joke about "a liberal, a moderate, and a conservative" walking into a bar – to be greeted by the bartender with "Hi, Mitt." It then goes onto portray Romney's statements about English-as-a-national language and his abortion positions as "saying what he thinks people want to hear."
Relation to the truth: It's all pretty plausible except for the "walking into a bar" part. More seriously: Romney has never tried to hide his pro-life conversion – though he has tried to finesse just how pro-choice he was. He did seem to soften his position on making English the "official language" when he campaigned in Puerto Rico.
Horton Scale score: Two. It's a clever-ish way to keep pounding Romney as a craven flip-flopper but, really, satellite radio?
Meet
Aired: Supported by a $310,000 buy in Illinois
Paid for by: The Red White and Blue Fund, a Santorum-supporting Super PAC
Attacking: Romney
Film style: Anti-Romney intro pans in extreme close-up over a blue-tinged still of Romney. His eyes look black, deep pools of nothingness; when the camera pulls back, we see a still of Obama as a mirror image. Jaunty music and color pictures of a smiling candidate accompany the introduction of Santorum-to-the-rescue rhetoric.
Accusation: Romney's vaunted economic expertise is really more of the same kind of policies Obama supports. The ad says Romney backed the Wall Street bail-out, left Massachusetts $1 billion in debt and gave the nation the "blueprint" for Obama's health care plan.
Relation to the truth: On the yes-or-no question of the bailout, yes, Romney supported TARP, though that policy did not put "America trillions in debt." He most definitely did not leave Massachusetts in debt; the number comes from a budget projection. What's more, Romney had little control over the state budget: over 700 of the 800 vetoes issued by Romney were overturned by the state legislature. (This draws into question his skill at governance but that's not the point of this ad.)
Horton Scale score: Two and half. Truthiness kills – the ad's inaccuracies are subtle enough that they only underscore existing perceptions. The score would be higher except that the spending behind it means few of the voters that might be swayed by it will see it.
Gonna Get Rid of That
Aired: Web-only
Attacking: Romney
Paid for by: Democratic National Committee
Film style: Urgently zooming text, with a doleful gong as the presumed death knell of Planned Parenthood; the clip of Romney saying "Planned Parenthood – gonna get rid of that" plays several times as the text reminds viewers of the non-abortion-related services Planned Parenthood provides.
Accusation: Romney will get rid of Planned Parenthood. The ad sails on the winds of the Republican "war on women," latching onto the discomfort voters have over the GOP candidates stirring up contraception issues.
Relation to the truth: The statement is taken out of context; Romney was citing several organizations he'd cut funding to in order to balance the budget. He also listed the National Endowment of the Arts and Amtrak, but no one has accused him of launching a war on trains. A Romney spokesperson said explicitly that the governor was not actually proposing eliminating the organization, just its funding.
Horton Scale score: One. Web-only, and only tangentially related to the contests at hand. It does, however, continue the Democrats' efforts to paint the GOP as anti-woman, a message embedded by sheer repetition into the national conversation.
Obama's War on Women
Aired: Web-only
Paid for by: The Republican National Committee
Film style: Fuzzy VHS third-generation dubbed clips of Bill Maher being a dick, followed by conspicuously female members of the news media discussing the White House's reputation as a "boys' club."
Accusation: Bill Maher's support of the administration basically means that Obama just called your mom the c-word. Also, the Obama administration meets the legal definition of a "hostile workplace for women."
Relation to the truth: Not sure when Maher was tapped for a cabinet position; this and other Republican-generated calls for attention to his crude insults did, however, properly shame Obama adviser David Axelrod out of an appearance on his show. There is, however, anecdotal evidence that the Obama White House is fraternity-like – not so much anti-woman as totally oblivious to women. Does this constitute a "war"? If so, it's a very cold one.
Horton Scale score: Two. Obama has, electorally, been dominating the women's vote, but the kind of accusations aired in this video could create enough free-floating doubt about the administration's commitment to women that the birth-control red alarm won't be the kind of turn-out generator Democrats are counting on.