Punch and Arcuri.
Had a feeling it was going to be this bad, but honestly... I guess I didn't realize how bad "this bad" truly could be. The congressional district I live in (NY-24) is being completely flooded with ads paid for by both candidates and independent front groups. Watch five minutes of commercial television and you will see an unrelenting battle between these forces, in which the ads overwhelmingly spotlight the candidates they oppose. They've got the low, ominous music, the gravel-voice guy, the nasal, sarcastic-sounding lady, the uncomplimentary photos of Brand X candidate, all cloudy and grayscaled. Some are clearly national ads customized to fit the district; others home made. All are execrable.
It would be no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I have voted for (and even volunteered for) Michael Arcuri (D-NY) in the past. That is not because of any deep or enduring loyalty towards the candidate; again, I vote strategically. His election means one less vote for Boehner and the crew. (Remember: When you stay home, you ride with Boehner). But I have to say, his ads are as childish as those of his opponent. In fact, some of them seem calculated to alienate the most hard-core of Democratic party constituencies - those traditional left anti-war folks who hold their noses every two years to vote for the lesser of two evils. Arcuri's got an ad out accusing his opponent of supporting a group that will "cut defense spending in half". Like that would be a bad thing.
Still, the evident power struggle that's playing itself out from coast to coast is hard to abstain from, particularly when you see inflammatory ads that so distort the history of the last two years. Tagging the TARP bailout to Obama. Saying the stimulus "failed". Even with all this, though, it isn't merely the factual distortions that make these ads detestable. One must recall that advertising - unlike many other forms of speech - is crafted to have an emotional impact. It's not just that they are inaccurate. Far more crucially, they are designed to discourage people, to scare them, and to make them more cynical.
The result of all this? Another class of badly compromised legislators, no matter who wins any individual race. Hence, government becomes more dysfunctional as elections become more driven by corporate cash. Mission accomplished!
luv u,
jp
It would be no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I have voted for (and even volunteered for) Michael Arcuri (D-NY) in the past. That is not because of any deep or enduring loyalty towards the candidate; again, I vote strategically. His election means one less vote for Boehner and the crew. (Remember: When you stay home, you ride with Boehner). But I have to say, his ads are as childish as those of his opponent. In fact, some of them seem calculated to alienate the most hard-core of Democratic party constituencies - those traditional left anti-war folks who hold their noses every two years to vote for the lesser of two evils. Arcuri's got an ad out accusing his opponent of supporting a group that will "cut defense spending in half". Like that would be a bad thing.Still, the evident power struggle that's playing itself out from coast to coast is hard to abstain from, particularly when you see inflammatory ads that so distort the history of the last two years. Tagging the TARP bailout to Obama. Saying the stimulus "failed". Even with all this, though, it isn't merely the factual distortions that make these ads detestable. One must recall that advertising - unlike many other forms of speech - is crafted to have an emotional impact. It's not just that they are inaccurate. Far more crucially, they are designed to discourage people, to scare them, and to make them more cynical.
The result of all this? Another class of badly compromised legislators, no matter who wins any individual race. Hence, government becomes more dysfunctional as elections become more driven by corporate cash. Mission accomplished!
luv u,
jp
Comments