BRIAN CHRISTOPHERSON / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Saturday, October 21, 2006 7:00 pm
Some Nebraskans have grown tired of the mudslinging in this year's Senatorial race, but one UNL political science professor points out that attack ads tend to work and likely will be around for years to come.
By BRIAN CHRISTOPHERSON | Lincoln Journal Star
She doesn’t let them talk to her anymore. They had their chances. Now their words just offend the ears.
“I’m Pete Ricketts and I approved this …”
No, Nancy Wells doesn’t hear that part. She’s already hit the power button.
At 57, mud fights between grown-ups just lack appeal.
“It’s gossip,” she said. “Just on a bigger scale.”
Frustration was in her voice. She thinks Democrat incumbent Sen. Ben Nelson and Republican challenger Pete Ricketts are probably good men away from the mess of politics. And yeah, she’ll even end up voting for one to be her senator.
Right now, though, she’s positively sick of them. Thinks they’ve gotten too caught up in flinging dirt at the other side and forgot to talk about the guy in the mirror.
Want zingers? No problem. Want substance? Get a magnifying glass.
“I think Nebraskans are more intelligent than this. It’s stuff you’d think you’d hear on the East Coast,” she said.
“I come from an era when people like that were gentlemen and there was a certain decorum.”
Some are calling it the most tawdry campaign to hit Nebraska, the best finger-pointing money can buy. A state record of about $20 million will be spent by the candidates to win your respect.
With that money has come a bombardment of political ads — some with animated turkeys, some without.
The one constant is that respect hasn’t necessarily followed.
Mary Kinney, a 50-year-old North Platte resident, seemed to be the voice of a fairly large choir when she said: “I’m very tired of both of them. Instead of trying to prove each other to be liars, I’d like them to stand up and tell what they would do for us.”
The spectators’ grumblings are matched by the players.
To the question of what she usually thinks the first time she sees a Nelson ad, Ricketts campaign manager Jessica Moenning said: “I’m usually just confused. It’s one thing to spin something. It’s another to lie about it.”
And what does Nelson spokeswoman Marcia Cady think of Ricketts’ ads? “When I see an ad, I’m looking for what factual backup is in the ad. We’ve not seen a whole lot of that with Pete Ricketts. And that’s not an empty accusation. That’s a fact.”
And if people aren’t vocally complaining about the ads, they’re furiously rushing to write about them.
On Oct. 8, the Journal Star ran 10 letters to the editor all tired of the negative tone of Ricketts-Nelson adds. To sample a few:
Tom D. Johnson of Lincoln wrote: “Pete, your ads make me ashamed to be a Republican. Ben, your ads make me ashamed that I have voted for you in the past.”
Mike Parks of Lincoln wrote: “How do I raise my children to grow up and act like adults when the choices for senator act like they are younger than my 9-year-olds …”
Tally up all the complaints and you wonder why a candidate even tries to verbally attack an opponent.
After all, voters always say they can’t stand attack ads. If that’s really the case, they must not work, right?
You might be surprised.
v v v
“Oh, yes. Absolutely yes,” answered the professor.
The topic was attack ads and UNL political science instructor Elizabeth Theiss-Morse was pointing out exactly why they’ll be around for many elections to come.
“They work in a number of ways,” she said. “No. 1 being that if the candidate is being attacked and doesn’t attack back, it’s just a loser. The candidate who does the attacking wins.”
Attack ads, Theiss-Morse said, fire up a candidate’s base supporters and maybe, just maybe, creep a little doubt into the minds of the opponent’s party members.
And maybe enough doubt makes those voters stay home on Election Day.
The campaign’s had some harsh moments, the professor admits, but sometimes she thinks people quickly forget the attack ads of campaigns in years past.
Her opinion: “I don’t think it’s gotten that nasty yet. That doesn’t mean it won’t.”
v v v
One of the issues in broaching the subject of negative ads is determining what exactly makes an ad “negative.” Everyone has a different opinion.
Moenning, for instance, wouldn’t classify an ad as negative so long as it’s true.
“If it’s true, it’s fair game,” she said. “That’s what we tried to focus on. We ran some ads with Ben Nelson appearing with other members of his party (the Clintons, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry), and some people said those were negative. … People might have a negative impression of those folks, but you’re known by the company you keep.”
The most-talked-about ad seems to have come from Ricketts’ side. It’s an animation that shows Nelson shooting wild turkeys while the “Old McDonald Had A Farm” nursery song plays in the background to unusual lyrics.
The ending words to the song state: “Millionaire Ben Nelson got caught avoiding taxes and still won’t pay the taxes he owes.”
The ad is claiming that Nelson fraudulently claimed greenbelt status to avoid $10,661 in taxes. Nelson paid $15,058 in back taxes when a Sarpy County assessor decided tax breaks should not have been granted him, but the Ricketts’ camp thinks he owes more.
As for the animation and jingle, Moenning said: “It’s a tough election cycle both locally and nationally and that was a way to inject a little bit of humor into what’s been a tough cycle.”
Cady called the ad “juvenile and immature” when it came out.
Later, Ricketts sent out another ad seemingly aimed at humoring to an extent that started with the words: “On an African safari, Ben Nelson killed a lion, a zebra, a steenbok, a blesbok, kudu, springbuck, warthog, ostrich, lynx and a giraffe … Now, he’s killing the truth.”
Cady deemed that one “disturbing.”
In the meantime, Nelson launched some ads digging into Ricketts’ past as a chief operating officer at Ameritrade.
“Ameritrade lost millions of dollars, (and) Pete Ricketts laid off more than 1,000 employees” in 2001 and 2003, the ad states. “Yet, Ricketts took over a million dollars in bonuses for himself.”
Accompanying those words is a picture of Ricketts laughing.
Moenning responded by saying the ad was referring to the dot-com crash and, really, Ameritrade’s moves helped save 1,500 Nebraska jobs.
Along the journey, Nelson also had an ad that said Ricketts supports a 30-percent national sales tax. The Ricketts campaign called that an outright lie.
“They may not want to hear the ads where you want to set the record straight, but they remember them,” Cady said.
And so those are the ads we get.
Who started the negative boulder rolling?
To no surprise, fingers point both ways.
“The first ad we ran never mentioned Ben Nelson’s name,” Moenning said. “They were the first one to mention the opponent’s name.”
She calls Nelson a “serial negative campaigner,” reminding that the senator called Chuck Hagel “a crook” in a 1996 campaign.
Meanwhile, Cady notes that Nelson three times told Ricketts he would pull down his attack ads because Nebraskans were tired of the negative stuff.
“But Ricketts refused to do that, saying, ‘I need to get my name out there.’”
v v v
If Nebraskans feel dirty from this campaign, they should know they aren’t alone in their uncleanliness.
Mud always flies during election season, but this one might have more kicking up than usual. With the Democrats feeling like they’ve got a good shot to seize power in Congress — something they haven’t done since 1994 — both sides have decided attack ads are a necessary measure.
Look to North Carolina:
A radio ad from Republican Vernon Robinson discussing opponent Brad Miller: “If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals. … But if you elect Vernon Robinson, that party’s over.”
Mariachi music plays in the background.
And in Ohio:
An ad sponsored by the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee discussing Republican senator Mike DeWine: “Sen. DeWine HAS worked together … voting 92 percent of the time with President Bush.”
All the while, the viewer is looking at a picture of DeWine and Bush with their arms around each other. The frame keeps zooming in until the men’s faces are almost distorted, and then the kicker: “Mike DeWine likes working together … with George Bush.”
A chorus of children sing in the background: “The more we work together, the happier we’ll be.”
While these ads drive some people nuts, they make others laugh.
That’s what most Ricketts-Nelson ads do to 24-year-old UNL grad student Ben Boldt these days.
Who’s Boldt voting for? Nelson. All because of one political ad.
It seems Boldt was a big fan of a Nelson ad that showed clips of Nelson doing random gallant things.
In one scene, Nelson is wearing a hard hat, a lab coat, goggles and holding a test tube.
There was Ben Nelson — the scientist.
Whether intended or not, Boldt found it “hilarious.”
See? These ads work.
Reach Brian Christopherson at 473-7438 or bchristopherson@journalstar.com.
Eye-catching ads
The most talked about political ads never fail to leave the public red-faced — either because of laughter or anger. Here’s a look at some of the more eye-catching clips on the market right now. You can find links to many candidates’ ads on the Internet at www.youtube.com.
* Scott Kleeb got some high praise this week from New York Times columnist Adam Cohen for his “rancher ad.” The Democrat Kleeb is running a tight race against Republican opponent Adrian Smith. Cohen rated Kleeb’s ad second on his list of seven campaign ads worth watching. Wrote Cohen: “In this Hallmark card of an ad, talking heads praise Mr. Kleeb while the sun-dappled candidate rides a horse in iconic cowboy style.”
* The National Republican Senatorial Committee has put together an ad condemning Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford for being a hypocrite in their eyes. Ford filmed one of his ads from a church pew, which the NRSC took exception to since Ford attended a 2005 Super Bowl Playboy playmate party. “What kind of man parties with Playboy playmates in lingerie,” the ad asks, “and then films political ads from a church pew?”
* Talk about burning someone. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee used Republican Conrad Burns’ own foul mouth against him. The ad begins with a disclaimer: “The following contains language by Conrad Burns, unsuitable for Montana.” Then comes footage of Burns criticizing Montana firefighters of doing “a piss-poor job.” Democrat Jon Tester is the beneficiary of the ad, which includes plenty of other unpleasantries.
* Michael Steele, a Republican running for the Senate in Maryland, had a clever ad that predicted how his opponent will attack him through ads, even flashing to a newspaper headline that says “Steele Hates Puppies.” At the end of the ad, Steele says: “For the record, I love puppies.” The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee had an equally clever response, ending one of their ads with a picture of Steele next to George Bush, the picture of a heart surrounding them. And then the voiceover: “Michael Steele: He likes puppies, but he loves George Bush.”