Now that Newt Gingrich is the apparent front-runner, I thought y’all might want to marvel with me at his new ad.
I think it just might be the most generic political ad (generic for a Republican, anyway) I have ever seen.
A little “Morning in America.” A little “America the Beautiful.” Breathtakingly lacking in controversy.
Maybe its natural that the most idiosyncratic “front-runner” I can remember in many a day would seek to be as ordinary as possible. As generic as he can be, totally friction-free.
Or maybe Newt’s overdoing it a little…
Ben Smith at Politico calls it “literal.” I call it “Extreme Vanilla.”
Related Posts
So you don’t like it, I watched it and I’d rather see this than mudslinging.
Looks like Newt stole the video from Rick Perry. I think in an earlier blog post that you linked to a Rick Perry “Feel Good America” video.
Gag me with a spoon. Or his hokey books I bought my whole family one Christmas (even the Dems).
I didn’t say I didn’t like it, Steven. There’s nothing to dislike. It’s just interesting that someone as INTERESTING as Newt is trying so hard to be UNinteresting. Which is what I was saying.
I guess he’s got to do that.
There’s one kinda black guy–the military shot is even all white. Vanilla indeed. it looks like a parody of a “clean” political ad.
I like that it’s Newt 2012, like we’ve had 2011 iterations before this.
I get it, you think it’d be better suited for Obama.
Newt is obviously trying to smooth out his perception of a rough personna. Not sure it makes much difference in the primaries but it could be helpful in the general. Given Newt’s heavy load of baggage and little support from the elites, I’m not sure I’m quite ready to call it a toss up but Romney is sure bungling along with little sign of support from the masses. (Do they still have super delegates? That’s Romney’s best hope right now.)
As for the others, there is now speculation that Rick Santorum is about to make a run. With Cain gone the second tier now becomes wide open and anyone could potentially emerge as a legitimate challenger. At this point I’m reluctant to given anyone extremely long odds. Donald Trump is even considering a run. We can only hope:
Romney 7-3
Newt 5-2
Paul 5-1
Perry 6-1
Santorum 6-1
Bachmann 6-1
Huntsman 8-1
Trump 20-1
Weird. He talks about returning power to the states so everyone has more freedom. Is he sure that’s going to happen with blacks? Or Latinos? Or American Indians? He talks about removing regulations? Which regulations? The ones that have ensured that we haven’t had a river catch fire in recent memory? Those designed to keep Wall Street from collapsing again? It sounds vanilla, but I hear gibberish.
@Kathryn – So what are you saying? Are grasping at your race card?
The Race Card was played and continues to be played by the Republican Party ever since they devised the Southern Strategy.
Did someone forget to inform Herman Cain?
I just find it interesting that someone watching a video would immediately look at the racial make up of the clip. Its like watching an NBA game and keeping track of how many minutes the white guy gets to play rather than enjoy the entire game.
Steven has no idea of the Southern Strategy nor Lee Atwater based on his comments.
I love how j repeatedly posts comments like that about me… it’s as if he/she/it thinks he/she/it actually knows anything about me.
So there was Southern Strategy involved in the making of this ad? Where did you get that information?
The GOP candidates could each have their own the villian from one of the popular Christmas movies. Mitt Romney is Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. How can anyone forget Potter’s discussion with Pa Bailey when he suggested the Building and Loan forclose rather than try to keep folks in their home.
Rick Perry with his proud claim that he has executed more people than any recent governor is of course our favorite villian Ebenezer Scrooge. Who can forget Scrooge pointing out to the charity workers that it would be practical to reduce the surplus population.
Newt Gingrich is of course the Grinch. His vile plans to reform the economy can only serve to steal Christmas from us all.
What a better time of year to screw those in need than Christmas. And the GOP candidates for POTUS serve the needs of the Mr. Potters, Scrooges and Grinches of the world very nicely.
I see it less as a coded race message (for a variety of reasons I don’t really think of Gingrich as really racist, rather just a vicious class warrior like most of the GOP) and more as an echo of the anti-urbanism baloney Palin chucked around last campaign, you remember…”real America” found in the small towns, etc., implication being that urban America is not the “real” America.
There is a little nod in the ad to industry, blue-collarism (factory scene), and interesting that the one dark-skinned person I saw was also in the only vaguely urban scene, the brief office building clip. Otherwise, all wheat fields, New England fall colors, small town America. But remember the early states this is aimed at: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. The “Saving Private Ryan”-ish movie music does a good job rounding off Newt’s rough edges.
Okay, prove J wrong: what is/was the Southern Strategy?
One token (Herman Cain) doesn’t disprove a 40 year strategy.
How do you know that I “immediately look[ed] at the racial makeup of the clip”? I chose to comment on it, since it added to the vanilla comment already made….
And Phillip…
I issue this appeal to you, because you are always so careful and thoughtful, and therefore I expect you’ll take it in the spirit intended…
Why do you have to say “vicious”? As in, “just a vicious class warrior like most of the GOP.”
Why is that necessary to making your point?
I say this because, in my many years of intemperate written words, that one stands out as one that is almost never uncalled-for. And yet it crops up a LOT when partisans seek to delegitimize each other.
Maybe it’s me. Perhaps my notion of the connotation of the word is off. You say “vicious” to me, and it implies something that is far, far beyond the bounds of civil life. It’s more “out there” than the word “savage.” A mad dog is vicious. A creature with no human feeling is vicious. The word conjures to my mind a creature that, without compunction, would rip another creature’s throat out — blood, guts and veins in the teeth. Like zombies. No higher brain functions, just bloodlust.
And isn’t it possible, just possible, that Republicans are civilized people who just have different ideas about what good policy looks like? Isn’t it possible that both Democrats and Republicans want the best for their fellow Americans, but see different policies as being better for accomplishing such good things as a thriving economy, full employment, peace and happiness? That, for instance, when they resist higher taxes on the rich, they really, truly believe that such taxes would retard reinvestment in the economy?
You’re letting Gingrich off the hook on “racist” (rightly, I think), but do you really think that being “vicious” is any better?
I don’t know, Bud. Gingrich looks more like Uncle Billy to me.
Brad, I might have agreed with you that Republicans are not “vicious” class warriors, if I hadn’t been sitting in Rotary meetings since July at witnessed some of the faces of my fellow members when certain topics, unions chief among them, are brought up. “Rabid” does come to mind.
Newt suggested removing (I nixed “ripping”) children from their mothers if the mothers required state assistance. This doesn’t strike you as “vicious”?
and just because someone is not personally racist–doesn’t actually believe one race is better than another, if that person permits the promulgation of stereotypes (a rural America that is all white–been to the Peedee recently?), an appeal to the racist sentiments of others, doesn’t that person become worse than racist? A true believer is less odious than a knowing manipulator.
I just watched a clip of Obama’s speech today to the people in Osawatomie, KS, not one black person to be seen except for one of his staff members. Pure vanilla with just one chocolate chip in the mix.
And isn’t it possible, just possible, that Republicans are civilized people who just have different ideas about what good policy looks like?
-Brad
Possible but not likely. Most of the uppity ups in the GOP are not interested in good policy but only policies that favor the very rich. I don’t think they give a damn about working class people.
More than the idealization of America, this ad is the idealization of Newt’s likely voters.
Other than the factory workers – anonymous in their welding helmets as they are – is there anyone in this ad who would realistically be pegged as a Newt supporter? Is he really trying to suggest to his core base that these idealized Americans are also on board with Newt’s campaign for a romantic America?
Actually, I’m not sure who his likely base is…but it isn’t these people in the ad. Maybe it’s just part of his fund-raising appeal to those who have retained him as an “historical” consultant over the past 15 years? Maybe the glossy pastiche is just to get them to open their wallets and give with conviction this time around?
“Vicious” is hip and happening.
Without a doubt, there are many Republicans with whom I profoundly disagree but who are clearly “civilized people who just have different ideas” about policy, who “want the best for their fellow Americans” including Americans of all races, all economic classes, all sexual orientation, and so on. David Frum, who just wrote a brilliant piece pleading with his party to return from the abyss, would be one such. Jon Huntsman is another, and even Mitt Romney (though a completely insincere political opportunist) may be one. Lindsay Graham is probably another, most of the time. But it seems they have lost control of their party.
Newt Gingrich does not belong in the company I mentioned, in the sense that all the evidence he has provided us in terms of his actions and especially his written/spoken record, adds up to a portrait of a man who is motivated by factors other than concern for the well being “of all Americans.” His recent comments about replacing school janitors with kids is just the latest. I can only speculate what makes him tick. His interest is in “some Americans,” at most.
The dictionary definition of “vicious” includes the following: “dangerously aggressive,” “malicious” and “spiteful.” The extreme radicals that dominate the GOP debate at the current time share a common, cruel belief: that economic status equals moral worth, that the man who makes $20,000 a year is morally inferior to the man who makes half a million a year, and that policy should reflect that moral judgment. My only error in applying “vicious” to Gingrich is that I shouldn’t have limited it to the area of GOP economic policy AKA class warfare against the middle and lower classes. “Malicious” and “spiteful” apply perfectly to a man who also rails against the spectre of “gay and secular fascism,” or who tries to portray the President as motivated somehow by “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
We write opinions quickly here, and perhaps with further reflection I might have chosen “incendiary” instead of “vicious,” but I think in Gingrich’s case the latter word works pretty well. And it is because I try to be “careful and thoughtful” (I hope) that I mean for that word to have impact.
I would love for a Huntsman-Obama race to occur and to really have a rational debate about these sincere “different ideas about what good policy looks like.” But somebody like Newt Gingrich has different motivations than just sincere policy differences: that’s the only conclusion I can make from observing his career for the past 17 years or so and hearing his words. He of all people is unworthy of being shielded from strong rhetoric. I pray for the good of the country and the good health of both liberal and conservative ideas, that the GOP reclaims its soul from its radical extremist wing, exactly the plea Frum made in this extraordinary piece recently.
Phillip, please don’t back off from the use of the word “vicious”. The dictionary definition certainly gives enough latitude of meaning to include folks like Gingrich, Perry and Romney who clearly see lower income Americans as inferior. They also see folks who come to America from south of the border as sub-human in some sense. Perry even gloats about his crass use of the death penalty, even in cases where there is considerable doubt as to guilt. I know Brad is a man of words and to overstate one’s case by hyperbolic insertion of an overly hostile word is anathema to a good political discussion. But in this case I don’t think “vicious” is too strong. The folks in the GOP are just not interested in the welfare of many Americans and mose foreigners. Vicious sums it up pretty well.
@ Steven Davis– President Obama is President of the United States of America, some of which states are very white. Everyone (subject to security constraints) is welcome at his speeches.
In contrast, when a political ad is made, people are *chosen* to appear, and it is naive at best to say that a random selection was made, without any regard to demographics.
@ Phillip, Mark and Burl: <3
Steven the percentage of blacks in the town of Osawatomie, Ks is 3.1%. I guess you saw that one on the clip.
Is this the same Huntsman who is receiving the same ratings as Sarah Palin in the latest polls?
@Phillip
“I would love for a Huntsman-Obama race to occur and to really have a rational debate about these sincere “different ideas about what good policy looks like.” ”
Do you seriously believe that if Huntsman somehow managed to run against Obama that we would not see the Democratic Party machine churn out “vicious” negative ads about him? And that the Republican political operatives would back off on Obama? No chance. There would be plenty of ads about him.
It’s a war over who gets control over spending other people’s money. Obama’s people will go just as far down into the sewer as the Republicans will.
@bud – “Possible but not likely. Most of the uppity ups in the GOP are not interested in good policy but only policies that favor the very rich. I don’t think they give a damn about working class people.”
But aren’t those same working class people you speak of also Republicans”?
That’s the problem with Democrats, they can’t define the typical Republican voter. Is it the rich tycoon? Is it the redneck tow truck driver? How can someone who’s living paycheck to paycheck have the same political views as someone who buys $600,000 umbrella stands for their guest house?
The best solution to our political nastiness would be to prohibit negative ads against a candidate. Imagine that world… what would all the slime who develop political ads do? Sell used cars?
OK, I’ve got to ask: If “vicious” doesn’t go too far — if you don’t think that takes up beyond the point at which people with differing views can sit and hash things out in a civil, non-insulting manner — then what does?
I really have trouble thinking of a word that takes it to a level beyond “vicious.”
Back to what Doug said earlier: “It’s a war over who gets control over spending other people’s money.”
If you’re talking about campaign contributions, you’re right. That IS what it’s about. That’s what all the superheated rhetoric — rhetoric DESIGNED to make sure people don’t converse, but merely shout at each other — is indeed about.
Doug does the political campaigns too much credit when he suggests — and I’m assuming that’s what he means — that they’re concerned with how tax money (I’m translating from the Doug here; Doug likes to assume that politicians don’t pay taxes, thereby making it “other people’s” money) will be spent.
The campaign is about the campaign. It’s about keeping one’s own base perpetually angry at the other side, so that the money keeps coming in, because the money pays the people who are sending the stuff out. It is a perpetual motion machine. It exists to promote its own existence.
That’s why a word like “vicious” is so important. You don’t have to engage with, or listen to, “vicious” opponents. Such opponents are fortunate you don’t shoot them down like mad dogs, because they are no better. Their function is to be hated by you and right-thinking people like you, so that the campaign finance machine continues to roll.
Orwell envisioned “Hate Week” and other periodic rituals that existed purely to whip up the faithful and remind them that the Eastasians, or Eurasians, were the embodiment of all that was horrible and evil, and renew determination to destroy them. And I am reminded of that imaginary construct when I receive those multiple “whip-’em-up” emails from the DCCC daily. (I assume there’s an RCCC or the like, but it hasn’t found me yet — nevertheless, I get more than I need from Republican sources as well.)
@Kathyryn, “In contrast, when a political ad is made, people are *chosen* to appear, and it is naive at best to say that a random selection was made, without any regard to demographics.”
So you’re suggesting quotas.
@ Doug– campaign ads, like most ads, are not where much meaningful happens. People who decide their vote based solely on campaign ads are regrettable, but what can you do? It’s that if Huntsman or some other reasonable candidate were on the right, we might get some reasonable, useful discussion, outside of ads, around the middle, instead of the laughable sorts of things brought up by Bachmann, Cain, Palin, and the bizarro stuff Gingrich has proposed in the past.
@kathryn
If ads aren’t meaningful, why do they represent such a large portion of the campaign budget (and I am including direct mail garbage in the same category)?
The majority of voters have no idea what the issues are. They are apathetic sheep.
I’ll bet that somewhere on Newt’s briefing book, there’s a sticky note that says: “Note to self: Don’t call people ‘apathetic sheep.'”
Because of all of them out there, he seems the most likely to let the secret slip…
Brad, and Doug, if the GOP were to nominate somebody who, perhaps like Huntsman, could articulate some of what Frum was talking about in that article (“America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost…”), who could take on progressive economic ideology without engaging in the moralistic class-warfare against the middle and lower classes, without engaging in the culture-war politics of exclusion, well then it would be considerably harder if not impossible to paint that person as either a radical, and certainly not as a divisive, demagogic, and yes even “vicious” class-warrior.
But if you want to stop that cycle of demonization, then you still have to call out and condemn those who thrive on it, whose very candidacy is based on it.
@Phillip – one would almost come away with the idea that Republicans are the bad guy.
Why all this talk about Huntsman? He has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as does Al Sharpton.
Meaningful in terms of substantive argument, not significant in terms of swaying sheeplike voters. Does anyone really know if campaign ads work?
I thought the Freakonomics guys proved they really don’t–that campaign funding doesn’t matter; being an incumbent does.