Yesterday, Bluestem posted about First District Republican hopeful Jim Hagedorn's reasoning that a candidate's close ties to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann would be a liability. The Minnesota Independent picked up the news in Hagedorn: Quist too close to Bachmann, too
controversial. while Dump Bachmann posted"Is
Michele Bachmann a Political Liability?".
The Political Party blog at the Post Bulletin picked it up as well, and political reporter Heather Carlson extended the story by having a chance to interview and observe Bachmann at the Rochester Republican Women's fundraiser where the Nostradamus of the North was the headline speaker:
During Bachmann's visit on Monday to Rochester, I asked her if she planned to endorse anyone before the 1st District Republican Convention on April 17. She said she is not going to endorse anyone. But while addressing members of the Rochester Area Republican Women, she mentioned Quist's name several times in reference to issues he has raised with the Democrats' health reform bill. She did not mention any other GOP congressional candidates. Quist's wife, Julie Quist, serves as Bachmann's district director.
Loyal readers probably remember that Bachmann participated in a February health care "town hall" in Rochester that was in fact nothing more than a Quist campaign event and that Quist earlier participated in her "House Call" "press conference" in Washington. None of the events together or separately implied an endorsement. Of course not.
Elsewhere in the paper, editor Jay Furst takes on questions raised by a series of large ads the Minnesota Majority has taken out in the Post Bulletin, asking readers to call Walz's Washington office with their objections to the health care reform bill. In P-B doesn't censor paid political advertising — within reason, Furst argues in part:
. . .An anti-Walz, presumably pro-Republican group called Minnesota Majority has run attack ads in the P-B over the past few weeks that portray Walz as a blue-faced lapdog of House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi . The ads are fairly crudely put together and are not exactly original in concept -- how many political cartoons and ads have you seen over the years in which one politician is attacked for being a lapdog of another?
. . .The P-B, like virtually every newspaper, TV station and Web site in the free world, runs political ads from paying customers.
. . .The ads make assertions that clearly bend the truth, such as this one: "For the first time in 30 years, federal tax dollars will be used to fund abortions." Most reasonable people would say this is crazily exaggerated and false, though in fact it's the gist of one of the final hangups that nearly derailed passage of the health care bill.
Do we hold political groups responsible for the "truthiness" of their advertising? We don't fact-check every assertion; we do make sure the ads are clearly marked, that the sponsor is listed by name, address and phone, and that they don't violate the bare minimum of good taste -- no nudity, foul language, racist words, defamatory accusations or insane charges.
To say that a conservative political group can't run an ad that portrays Walz as a chihuahua is to say we'll never run an ad showing House Minority Leader John Boehner with 2nd District Rep. John Kline as a shitzhu on a leash. We'll never get to the end of determining what's tasteful political commentary and what's not, if we go down that slippery slope.
Instead, readers can make up their own mind about the fairness of the ads, and if they're unhappy, they can call the advertiser. In this case, if you don't like the Walz ads, call Jeff Davis of Minnesota Majority at 612-605-1435, or write him a pointed but civil note and send it to 1730 New Brighton Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55413.
A number of Bluestem's loyal readers had asked me to respond to the ads; I declined. Readers who objected were expressing their outrage at the crude art work and fact-checked the ads in their letters to the editor far better than I could. See for example: March 13 attack ad misrepresents Walz's position, Attack on Walz was vicious, untrue,'Minnesota Majority' ad distorts health care reform, Minnesota Majority's ad on Walz was offensive, Conservatives reveal their hypocrisy, Lap-dog ad is a new low and Attack ads on Walz demeaning.
And my reaction as writer tended more toward ridicule than outrage. As Furst points out, the notion of a lapdog is cliche--and in Walz's case, one the right has trotted since he was elected. Yawn. Other than Furst's need to review the meaning of the word "truthiness," there's much to be said about political ads that help pay the bills.
Within the last week, I've seen ads for Ann Coulter books, Republican web site designers and other such things on some of Minnesota's finest liberal blogs. It's rather like the anarchist group Chumbawamba taking royalties for their hit "Tubthumping" from a video game publisher in order to fund their subversive ways.
As far as the content of the Minnesota Majority ad: Meh. Blue dog? Walz never joined the Blue Dog Coalition, nor voted for TARP, nor a number of the actions those who read the ad are supposed to get in a froth over.
Instead, I asked my kindly old Auntie Tild to help create a parody of the ad. Until Hagedorn's criticism--and Bachmann's demure refusal to endorse the only CD1 Republican candidate seeking party endorsement whose campaign events are graced by her presence and whose name drips from her lips--the parody was only visual.
I want to thank both Bachmann and Hagedorn for providing the content, as well as Minnesota Majority for the stunning visual ideas. Now, if I add all of the disclaimers that Furst and the Post Bulletin need in paid political ads, will the Post Bulletin run my independent expenditure on Mr. Hagedorn's behalf?
Artwork: A parody of the Minnesota Majority ad. This is political satire--not an independent ad on Mr. Hagedorn's behalf. Note the disclaimer in yellow on the top of the ad (above); One of
Comments