Aaron Blake appears to be incensed that Wendy Davis is running a very negative political advertisement in the Texas gubernatorial campaign. The ad points out that the Republican nominee, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, once successfully sued someone because a tree fell on him causing him to suffer partial paralysis but now opposes the exact same kinds of law suits while serving at the Lone Star State’s top law enforcement official.
Admittedly, the advertisement is a personal attack, as it focuses on Greg Abbott’s disability. But it’s not about his sex life. It’s not about his college transcripts or the provenance of his birth certificate. It doesn’t attack his wife or children.
It’s about a matter of law and policy, and it’s about Greg Abbott taking advantage of the law to redress an injustice that was done to himself and then denying that same remedy to other Texans who find themselves in the same or similar situations.
We can debate exactly how “nasty” this advertisement is, but it is a substantive attack that raises a legitimate issue. It’s not gutter politics.
But, I guess you can judge for yourself.
It reminds me of certain people who grew up as children receiving Social Security assistance and now tell you that it’s all a Ponzi scheme.
At least Ryan didn’t have the balls to call everybody out for mocking his (imaginary) youthful poverty. (“How dare you bring my widowed mother into this!”) For chutzpah like that you really have to be from Texas.
Republicans don’t have unfortunate accidents; they are always victims deserving financial redress.
My dear friend D incurred a similar injury. Falling out of a tree he had helpfully offered to trim for an elderly widow. No insurance company to sue because he had been negligent. The VA was there for his medical needs and rehabilitation. Then he had a choice — go on federal disability for life or training for a job that he could learn to do and do it from a wheelchair. He went with the latter and for years his workdays with commute were twelve hours long. He eventually bought a little house and set up his own business that he operates from home. Also, with leg braces and modified crutches he learned to stand and manage short distances without the use of his wheelchair. Quite remarkable considering that his injuries aren’t limited to his legs.
How dare anyone have the nerve to make an ad that tells the truth about any TPGOP member. Do they not realize that TPGOP members like cockroaches only survive in the dark.
Do they not realize that TPGOP members like all cockroaches only survive in the dark.
Yes, it’s a legitimate attack ad. However, it’s not smart and savvy campaigning for four reasons. First, it’s too weak in making the case that Abbott sides with corporate interests over people. Second, in 2014 tort issues aren’t a driver for TX voters. Third, Democrats need to appreciate that tolerance for hypocrisy is high amongst voters. Four, the ad makes it too easy for the opposition to cry foul because it’s not appropriate in any way to use a candidate’s physical disability (unless in GA and the candidate left most of three limbs on a Vietnamese battlefield).
On the subject of Wendy Davis, she would have been savvy to junk the “Barbie” hair. Visually, in her debate with Abbott it was distracting and distractions (as Gore discovered in his first debate with his “clown” make-up) take away from a good debate performance. And like it or not, voters prefer candidates that look serious and conventional.
Last time I was in Texas Barbie hair was de rigueur
Not so many aged 51 and none of them are running for Governor. Boob jobs and showing lots of cleavage are also popular (and might get the votes of some not strictly partisan men), but a voting population that skews older and female doesn’t want to see that in female politicians.
Would also have suggested that Alison Lundergan Grimes trim her locks to shoulder length, but she’s much younger than Davis and she had long hair, but not “big hair.”
Neglected to mention in my prior comment that at a purely visceral or emotional level, Davis’ ad made me uncomfortable. At that level I’m reliably and highly conventional. At best this ad won’t help her, but it could significantly hurt her. Not the sort of ad one running from behind should be airing.
Speaking of hair visuals, your comment reminded me that in Kentucky, extra long hair down the back on women often reads as “devout Christian.” It has actual theological meaning in some denominations. Or at the very least, it indicates a serious and uncorrupted person. I can’t remember what denomination Grimes claims, but her hair speaks volumes, now that I remember that.
Having lived in both states, I think KY is somewhat like NC in that what passes in other parts of the country has to be tempered to the predominant attitudes in the state. So I can understand Grimes’ wanting to keep a foot in both sides of the cultural aisle, even as she is fighting against Mr Turtle, there. The extra long hair might be one signal reassuring voters (along with the Obama-bashing and coal-hugging) that she is not that liberal. i.e. She’s still one of them.
Sorry – I did mean Lundergan Grimes. I know other Grimes, so I think of her as a Grimes. Sorry, Ms. LG.
I make a practice of watching the ad with the sound off and then only listen to the sound to evaluate its impact because that’s the way most voters hear these ads. They consciously tune out, but the video or the sound gets through depending on whether they are working on something else or turn to chat with some one during the commercial.
From a pure video standpoint, it’s not clear what the ad is about except a double standard for disability payments. The sound carries most of the attack. Most sympathetic analysts of it still say it’s a desperation ad. Time will tell.
The fact that Abbott could not let it pass may get discussion of the issues which could pivot back into a discussion of Medicaid. And disabilities. And health care. There are three weeks left in this campaign.
Junking the Barbie hair would look like pandering just for an election. That and the pink tennis shoes are sort of a trademark apparently. I didn’t see the debate so I don’t know how distracting it was in that context. In Texas, however, that look is serious and conventional. Even Republican-looking.
We will likely see in the next week how it shakes up the race, if at all.
I do debates sound off first. Tends to highlight all the visuals that people do pick up but not usually consciously. It’s a good check on which one is more visually charismatic and confident, and that generally means which one is more likely to win.
Not sure I agree that most people see and don’t listen to campaign ads. They are so short and visually uninteresting that their impact on that level may be minimal. But if I’m wrong, Davis’ ad is an even bigger fail. The empty wheelchair at the beginning is a reminder of Abbott’s disability and by extension that he’s been successful in spite of it which increases his empathy vote. Don’t think that’s what the consultant was going for.
From memory, because I can’t find it on-line, the 2000 NAACP ad on the murder of James Byrd, Jr. was bold and effective. Quite possibly driving up AA voter turnout, particularly in FL. The NAACP knew exactly what demographic they were targeting, and also that whites inclined to vote for Gore would either agree or not be offended by it. What’s the target market for Davis’ ad?
wrt Davis’ hair — would have done it gradually beginning when she first considered running for governor. The pink/green tennis shoes were stylish and fun. Women are cool with some amount of stylish footwear. (Palin took that a bit too far with the platform shoes and seemingly expensive boots.)
Oh, Lord, rikyrah, that last point was quite excellent.
As to the first point, the game is given away by Blakes’ unwillingness to justify his criticism of the ad. He might as well write “Criticizing a man in a wheelchair is unfair.”
Zing. Pow. Yes.
Republicans don’t like Democrats who fight back. The issue is not physical disability; it is empathic disability.
Judging from the reaction and the media spin, it hit its mark.
Or the guys whose dad made his money (which they inherited) off of Stalin’s refineries yammering about socialism.