Political Ads

Unless one is in the industry, political advertisements are more a nuisance than anything to most of the electorate.  I find it hard to believe that the messaging, no matter how slick, influences anyone to vote in a particular way.  What the politician says, what she does on the campaign trail, typically has more to do with how someone votes than anything.

There are, from what I've seen, some very well-done ads out in the hinterland.  In major metropolitan areas, at least in my experience, the ads are slick but boring.  Rarely is an ad from a major metropolitan area shown across the country for its inventiveness, its uniqueness or its humor.

A new trend, especially in Democratic ads, is to attack not the Republican opponent, but the Republican opponents' financial backers, especially if they're the Koch brothers.  Because the Democrats are hamstrung by their support of President Obama, they need a bogeyman to distract people.  If a Democratic candidate doesn't have a sterling record of her own, if she has supported the President too much, she deflects by attacking not her opponent, but the big money interests behind the candidate.

The trouble with this approach is that, like a tracer round, the Democratic efforts to distract voters is being used against them.  Billionaire Tom Steyer has been bankrolling liberal candidates across the country throughout the last year.  Not nearly as well-known as the Koch brothers -- thanks largely in part to that moron Harry Reid hypocritally labeling the Koch brothers un-American for their very similar actions -- Mr. Steyer has his own agenda.  Reasonable people can differ, but there is no qualitative difference between what Mr. Steyer and the Koch brothers are doing:  They're putting their money where their politics lie and backing candidates that support their policies.

Frankly, I support development of the Keystone pipeline and for that reason oppose Mr. Steyer's views.  It's crazy to me not to want to develop that energy source and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.  But that's not the point.

For Democrats to descry the infusion of money from wealthy supporters while at the same time having the likes of George Soros and Mr. Steyer, not to mention the wealthy elite in Hollywood, give financial backing to their candidates is a joke.  Sure, there may be more money on the Republican side, but at that level, there isn't a great deal of difference between one billionaire and another.

This could smack of desperation.   I haven't followed all the races across the country, but the chatter is that Democratic candidates are in trouble.

                                                --------------------------------------------

I have just a quick comment on the address President Obama made to the country last night.  I didn't see it but heard reports about it.  At a later date I'll comment on the substance of it, but one note in particular caught my ear:

ISIL is not Islamic.

This is not going to go over well in the hinterland.

I've read the portion of the transcript wherein the POTUS made the comment, and I understand what he was trying to do:  He was chiding the terrorists by trying to separate them from moderate Muslims, whose support he apparently covets, claiming that Islam does not allow for the killing of innocents.  He went on to say, correctly, that ISIL is not a state, and in that he's correct.

The problem is this is an era of sound-bytes.  The four words highlighted above are what most people will remember.  And ISIL is invoking Sharia law, thereby cloaking itself in the mantel of Islam.  Just as not all Germans were Nazis and all Japanese were inspired with the spirit of bushido during World War II, the general perception is that ISIL is an Islamic outfit.  With its murders of Shi'ites and westerners, its rape of women and slavery of opponents, ISIL is relying on its interpretation of Islam to carry out its agenda.  It may be a perverted sense of Islam, but it's Islam nevertheless.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles