...and more dirty tricks

[lederhosen]

Via turnberryknkn, dirty tricks from the National Republican Congressional Committee:

My God, the phone calls! Just as I'd begin to drift off to sleep, the phone would ring and it would be YET ANOTHER DAMN COMPUTERIZED MESSAGE ABOUT LOIS MURPHY. One, two, three, four times a day it seemed, the phone rang with "robocalls" about the Democratic challenger to incumbent GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach in one of the nastiest races in the country. I never listened to one word of it, just slammed the phone down and seethed with resentment. Now, there's an effective campaign strategy, I thought: Infuriate the voters so much that they won't vote. What part of "Do Not Call" don't campaign advisers get?

Sure, "political speech" is exempt from FCC regulations prohibiting unwanted phone solicitations. But since most Americans consider unsolicited calls an invasion of privacy, why would any campaign flood voters with prefab rhetoric? Yes, the tactic is cheap - in many cases, pennies a phone call, compared with the $15 to $30 an hour pols used to have to pay for telemarketers to call the old-fashioned way. There are dozens of online computerized-call firms available to do the dirty work. And it's much cheaper in a costly media market such as Philadelphia to use robocalls than to pay for TV ads.

But if they annoy voters rather than enlighten them, what's the point? That's what I asked Lois Murphy's campaign yesterday. The answer was simple:

"It's not us!"

Only three recorded calls have been made on behalf of Murphy's campaign, including one from Gov. Rendell, which were sponsored by the Democratic State Committee. The rest? A "dirty trick" by the Republicans, said communications director Amy Bonitatibus. The calls, which begin by offering "important information about Lois Murphy," are designed to mislead voters into thinking the message is from her. Most recipients slam down the phone before finding out otherwise - and then call to complain. "We've got a ton of complaints, starting about two weeks ago," Bonitatibus said. "Some of our biggest supporters have said, 'If you call me again, I'm not voting for Lois.' "

Ah, a great tactic on behalf of Gerlach's campaign, then? Not so, said John Gentzel, communications director. "We've only done a handful - maybe five - in the last couple of months." Gentzel said they use admittedly unpopular robocalls only to respond quickly to misinformation in a political mailer about Gerlach's voting record. "This is not us. We're sorry. We're not making these calls."

The culprit in this race is the National Republican Congressional Committee, an organization that's used such scurrilous campaign tactics this season that it has been disavowed in some instances by the candidates it is supporting. In the past week alone, FCC records reflect $22,119 for anti-Murphy phone-bank expenses, said NRCC spokesman Ed Petru. If the robocalls cost a dime, which is a high estimate, that would be 220,000 calls right there.

They're also doing it in Nevada, New Hampshire, and Kansas. So if you get an obnoxious robot caller, you know who to blame...

Comments

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

See I am liking the political adds in my state at the moment.

"Remember Kennet! You do like those schools and hospitals we have don’t you?

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

As someone with basic political activist training, I'm still shaking my head in grim admiration of how brilliant this strategy is. Running the numbers, five million dollars and twenty-four hours are more than sufficient to throw five successive calls at ten million home phone numbers. I'll bet, with the economies of scale, you could do a hell of a lot better than that. Five million dollars nationwide is *nothing* in absolute terms to a campaign season which has easily cost *billions*; but if you've even convinced one out of every four of those voters attacked five times to mistakenly attack the Democrats, you've swung fifty-thousand votes in fifty battleground districts.

With House races likely to be decided by margins of thousands or even hundreds of votes, you just have to stand back and give the architects of this strategy their due.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

As per my response to your post, I think you're mistaking lack of principles for brilliance. Both of those things are effective, and both can produce results that surprise the principled man, but only one of them is worthy of admiration and this ain't it.

After all, there are doctors out there who make far more money than you ever will, either because (to quote Tom Lehrer) they've chosen to specialise in 'diseases of the rich', or because they're outright crooked. (From what Google tells me, a 100-tablet bottle of oxycontin costs around $400 with a prescription and sells for 5-10x that on the street.) Does that make them worthy of congratulation?

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

Rather than the example of doctors you bring up, I think a better example would be, for example, the dueling Soviet and German snipers who battled each other across the hellscape of Stalingrad, a la War of the Rats, facing off against each other with every tactic and trick they could think of in a winner-take-all contest waged with long-barreled rifles.

And I would imagine that there were not a few snipers who, in that split second between the moment they recognized that they'd been tricked and the moment the bullet arrived, had a fleeting moment of grim admiration for the enemy who had outwitted them. It wasn't in any way an admiration for their opponent's principles, or their opponent's leaders, or their opponent's goals. Strictly and solely the skill with which their enemies played the same winner-take-all game, outthought and outmanuvered oneself, and won.

In medicine, the sum measure of victory is not money. But in politics, the Alpha and the Omega *is* victory. Because if you win, you have power with which to defend and advance your principles... and if you *don't* win, if you *don't* have power, your principles mean nothing. In politics, winning isn't everything -- it's the *only* thing. The elections of 2000 and 2004 are ample proof of that.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

Politics are a lot like Jack Sparrow said: The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. As I see it, we liberals didn't foresee this tactic far enough in advance to put up enough laws and blockades to prevent it's use. The other side *did* see this tactic and appear to be taking merciless advantage of it. The only limit I see to it's effectiveness is just how much and how hard they chose to pursue it, with the hopes that they held back. If they didn't, if they really went for it, I think the results could be positively devastating.

Principles are fine and dandy if you're strong enough and smart enough to protect yourself. If you leave yourself vulnerable, all the principles in the world won't stop a single sharp knife. And we sure as hell didn't see this one coming, sure didn't plan a way to defend ourselves against it. In this contest of fighters, this dance of duelists, we sure as hell didn't see this blade hidden up our opponent's sleeve, not before they sank it into our torsos. We're still waiting to see if it missed everything vital or went straight home into the aorta. You can despise what your opponent stands for. You can despise what your opponent fights for. But from the professional standpoint, I have to at least give my enemy credit for the skill with which they outwitted and outfought us, and not complain about their "lack of principles" in a contest which we all understood from the beginning only had one principle: win. Me complaining otherwise is like a soldier in Staligrad complaining of the passing of "gentlemanly" war.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Mostly responded to over in your journal, but in summary: sniper duels are dramatic, but a poor analogy for a political contest. In the former, you don't choice have a tradeoff between the likelihood of victory and the quality of that potential victory. Marksmanship, cover, equipment... the things that make you more likely to come away with your life also make you more likely to come away healthy and whole. This is very often not the case in politics.

Ask yourself this: if polls convinced you the Republicans had a better than even chance of winning this election and succeeding ones, would you change your political allegiances and join them? If not, then you're acknowledging that winning is not the only thing.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

As I see it, we liberals didn't foresee this tactic far enough in advance to put up enough laws and blockades to prevent it's use.

Foresee?

IMHO, it's more likely than not that Democrats already used this tactic, back in 2004. (I don't think a culprit for the Joe-job on Nader was ever identified, but cui bono and the widespread Democrat anger at Nader post-2000, coupled with demographic considerations, make it the most plausible explanation.)

And I would not be at all surprised if that's where the RNCC got the idea; they have certainly put it to far more effective use than the 2004 anti-Nader Joe-ing, but then that's the danger of suggesting dirty tactics to people who are far more proficient than oneself in using such things.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

Then our failure is even greater. If you're right and the Democrats didn't develop a strategy to defend themselves against the same tactic -- and the NRCC recognized that failure and took advantage of it -- then that only further illustrates their success and our failure.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Assuming that one way or another the Democrats were aware of the tactic, and yet didn't take action to prevent it... why do you suppose that would have been?

One possible explanation that occurs to me - by no means the only one - is that they were hoping to get a little more mileage out of it themselves before they plugged that hole, maybe just before the 2008 elections. (Or alternately that they didn't want anybody looking too closely at the 2004 attack on Nader until a little more time had gone past.) Which is part of the problem with seeking to emulate the Republicans' ruthlessness, really.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

Ask yourself this: if polls convinced you the Republicans had a better than even chance of winning this election and succeeding ones, would you change your political allegiances and join them?

Or, perhaps as a better example: should doctor's political action groups help fund politicians from Tobacco states which consistently vote *against* tobacco control if those same politicians also reliably vote *for* increased health insurance for the poor? Or should doctor's political action groups hold out for the perfect candidate?

That's the kind of practical dilemma we face all the time.

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Their due, of course, being a single bullet in the head.
I'm beginning to think that any tactic that has as its main goal the reduction of voter participation should be outlawed. Parties these days don't want democracy -- they want pluralities of the smallest group with which they can win. And to get that they do everything possible to prevent or dissuade the public from voting.
It makes me ill.

[mdsteele47.livejournal.com]

The New Hampshire example is particularly insidious... the Attorney General has told them to knock it off, it's illegal, and the NRCC has said they have no intention of doing so.

I'm in DC today (Arlington, VA actually) and have had to fight off at least 2 George Allen streetwalkers. I asked one why they campaign for a senator whose staff assaults people trying to ask legitimate questions of their Senator. Needless to say, I didn't get much of a response.

I feel dirty being in DC today. I just hope that come tomorrow evening, I can feel better about my next visit.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

"Parties these days don't want democracy -- they want pluralities of the smallest group with which they can win."
Sadly well put. I hope this is a new thing. I'd be really depressed if I thought it was inherent thoughout the history of the system.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I'm beginning to think that any tactic that has as its main goal the reduction of voter participation should be outlawed.

Yeah, I'd buy that. I have mixed feelings about Australia's compulsory voting, but on the whole I think it's a good thing because of crap like this; there's really nothing to stop people from dropping in a blank ballot, but at least they have to show up.