Like many of you I've been following the comments and controversy regarding the Webb Ad that features Ronald Reagan. I do believe that some of the opinions against it, both from Democrats and Republicans, are fairly well founded. This ad isn't a clean home run and there is reason to be hesitant about running it.
But after further consideration, I've decided that I still like it and they should run it despite the controversy. Here's why:
1. Going for the Win
The Webb campaign is clearly going for a win. Too often we see candidates (on both sides) founder and ultimately fail because they don't want to lose the election. The Webb campaign has never taken that "just don't lose" approach and this is yet another example. Controversy? Sure. But it's going for the win instead of hoping that Bush's low numbers drag Allen down (i.e. playing it safe). This is one of the reasons I have supported Webb from the beginning. And if he fails, so be it. But he tried to win instead of playing it safe and trying not to lose.
2. Swiftboating
Much like the extremely cost effective Swiftboat ad, this thing is getting serious air time without ever having been on the air. Brilliant use (or lack of use) of funds. The more Republicans complain, the more times it gets played. The message gets out, a lot, at a very low cost.
3. Crossover
This ad goes directly after votes that, for the most part, have been Republican. Webb DOES have the record to win over those votes and his interaction with Reagan is simply part of that record. And no matter the subject, if Webb has a good ad that stands a reasonable chance at pulling crossover votes, Allen and his team will scream bloody murder. If they lose those votes they will lose the election. If Webb captures those votes he will win the election. Webb needs them, has the background to earn them, so he's going out to get them.
Are there risks with all three of these points? Absolutely. But (see point #1), if you don't play to win why are you playing in the first place?
Go get him, Jim.
Spot on Eric...
I couldn't help thinking about the irony of Wadhams saying that we're hippocrits using this or whatever he said, cause George Felix always compares himself to Thomas Jefferson. I am sure Thomas Jefferson is going to have a serious talk with Felix, when the end comes for Felix.
Until then Felix most loose at all cause, cause he like Bush is--the Worst ever Senator. In the weeks coming up to the election my life will revolve around getting Allen's dirty ass kicked out of office, cause he has three sixes on his head.
It's just as much Webb's as it is hers.
So in the august words of a woman who almost became First Lady, SHOVE IT!
Here in the Virginia Senate race, we have two polar opposite viewpoints on this issue:
1) Jim Webb strongly supports embryonic stem cell research.
2) George Allen opposes it, just like George W. Bush.
In other words, if you care about curing Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Juvenile Diabetes, cancer, etc., the choice in this election is clear: Jim Webb, the candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research vs. George Allen, the candidate who kowtows the far-right wingers on this and so many other issues.
We don't need Reagan's endorsement for a person of Webb's accomplishments. We should just go with the guy we got. It's not necessary to overdo the Reagan connection.
But saying all that I spent four hours going door-to-door canvassing for man today, so I have a right to express this opinion and I very much support him with my money, my time, and my bad knees carrying me around neighborhoods.
How silly, foolish and stupid would that be?
If I did it or somebody says something nice about me, it is liable to end up in my resume. It is fact and what their closest kin thinks of it is really superficial as long as yuo are not disparaging that person, which this add clearly does not do.
If the Republican party is bullying the elderly, then the Republican party should give her a break as you say.
I see your argument as saying, oh, don't put the truth out there because the R party won't like it. We have to find a better way of dealing with such bullies than codependent accommodating behavior. Virginians deserve to know the truth about the candidates.
You can't politically go against a First Lady who is 85 years old and spent 20 years taking care of her husband who had Alzheimers, you just can't win this one. The Webb campaign should graciously apologize to Nancy Reagan, remove the ad, and move on.
Hey with the canvassing I did today, we should win anyway. But no conservative Virginian will be won over if he feels Nancy Reagan has been wronged as a lady and a widow. I've lived in Virginia all my life and I can tell you that.
But Ronald Reagan is an American President.
He belongs to everyone. The American Presidency is more than just one person. Yes, she's his wife.. but was the same and has the same consideration been given to John F. Kennedy or Jackie Kennedy?
Or even the Kennedy Family or their kids?
NO. why. because the Kennedy's are a public family.
We don't give the Kennedy's a break. Why the Reagan's?
I still think this ad is a perfect play for the middle. The ad obviously scares the bejesus out of the Allen campaign, because it obliterates Allen's narrative of Jim Webb the "Hollywood fiction writing movie producer".
Webb will likely need to respectfully address Mrs. Reagan's concerns. But I think he should still proceed with this ad.
"The more Republicans complain, the more times it gets played. The message gets out, a lot, at a very low cost."
That statement presupposes that everyone who's read or heard about the ad will hunt it up and see it for him/herself. That is, we have to assume a certain degree of intellectual curiosity, as well as ability to think critically. Frankly, I don't see it happening. I think the majority of people will have read about it in the paper and will take for granted everything they read.
In the meantime, the same story is being printed in every paper: "the ad has, first the voice of Reagan, then another *just like Reagan's*, endorsing Webb. The better to confuse the hapless viewer. And that Nancy Reagan wants it pulled."
That's going to be enough for most; they'll have made up their minds without seeing the ad (or listening to the voices), because the paper said it was so. Just like whoever's writing the stories (and, obviously, Mrs Reagan as well) is taking Allen's propaganda as Gospel, never mind it's all crock, *without having listened/seen for themselves.*
So no, I don't think our message will be getting out as much as you hope.
The Swiftboat ads did seem to get their message across. I don't recall if the MSM always played the entire thing (I'll bet Fox did) or just sections. But either way, the message was repeated enough to sink in.
Could that work with this? If MSM presents it in much the same manner that we're debating - a partisan widow vs. a public record - then they'll probably end up getting our message out. Even if they don't play the full ad. In that case it's just like the swiftboats. Message delivered.
However, if the MSM takes only specific angles - Webb campaign screws over beloved widow - then it tangles or loses the message entirely.
If the public media battle become all about the second option I will have to revise my opinion. So far it's leaning, but it's still too early in this game to make that call.
Isn't it nice when Republicans complain! Yes, and Nancy, in case you didn't know it, being a president's wife makes you a public figure and makes Reagan a public figure, therefore there is no copyright on his image.
In fact he was a public figure when he was an actor. As one who has studied copyright laws a little I think Nancy Reagan needs to just shut up. I wouldn't be surprised if it were not Nancy, but others in the Republican party who are behind the stink.
Please keep using it.
The fear from the republicans on this ad is palpable, that is why they are so desperate to gin up a 'controversy'.
my worry is more about this "same voice" spin than about Nancy Reagan being portrayed as a ripped off widow. I think she might be open to persuasion once she knew all the *facts* (write her a polite, s-mail, message and include a disc of the ad so she can view it for herself
But if the "same voice" meme becomes the accepted "truth", then we're screwed, because everyone will assume we're trying to bamboozle the populace. And that just won't do, since Democrats are running, at least in part, on a "no more lies" ticket.
It's really *too bad* that the English phrase about someone whose ear isn't too good (as in -- can't distinguish voices, tunes, etc) is that he "has a tin ear". The Polish phrase: "an elephant stepped on his ear" (slon mu na ucho nastapil) is not only much more expressive but sounds as if it had been coined for this particular situation :)
This is an excellent analysis from Eric in my opinion!
You have to play to win to have the best chances of winning. John Kerry "played it safe" in 2004 and lost for all the wrong reasons when he should have won in my opinion!
The bottom line is that what Reagan says about Jim Webb IS TRUE and that the ad is excellent to help win over the MANY disillusioned Republican voters and moderate Republican voters out there who are weak members of Allen's voting base and who can be won over to Jim Webb!
Nancy Reagan would probably support Webb over Allen if she could speak her true feelings and if she was not under any kind of political pressure from the GOP leadership.
From what I remember, Nancy Reagan had to almost have her arm twisted to endorse Bush in 2004 because she strongly disagreed with him on the stem cell research issue!
I hope that this excellent and masterful Reagan ad for Jim Webb runs 24/7 because it is effective and it will work very well for Jim Webb with the MANY disillusioned Republicans out there against Bush "rubber stamp" George Allen in my opinion!
This is going from bad to worse.
Who's running this horrible campaign? Didn't anyone on the Webb campaign see this coming? Does no one have a decent response to Mrs. Reagan's letter? This has become a lose-lose-lose situation for Webb. He's blown his chance to turn it around. He CANNOT run this ad without alienating Virginia voters.
Who was this ad supposed to appeal to? Whose vote was to be changed? Republicans? Certainly not. They'll be furious that a democrat is using Reagan's image, (particularly after his wife has told them to stop). Was it to appeal to democrats? The same democrats who hated Reagan? or some other democrats?
The ad was a bad idea, and now made worse by what appears to be a very insensitive candidate running a clueless campaign.