Is It Funny If It's True?

Next time you have the opportunity, ask an average person you encounter what they think of the election these days. Don't ask about a candidate or any specific subject matter. Just "the election".

Some may bash a specific candidate if they think your beliefs may be similar to theirs. A few may say they are not paying attention to any of it. But my guess is that in polite conversation, their thoughts will go to the political advertising they encounter each evening when they have gotten home and are trying to sink into the couch while the local news or Dancing With The Stars takes their minds off of work. And this being the case, most folks in that conversation will groan and complain about what a bunch of crap it all is.

This sort of advertising is easy to dismiss, though in a perfect world we would pay attention because it would highlight differences between candidates and help us make a more informed decision at the polls...alright, stop laughing. Seriously, stop laughing right now. It's not that funny and you look like you might hurt yourself. Seriously, stop now.

We laugh because the idea of political advertising being genuinely informative is indeed comedic. Political ads are serious examinations of important issues the way that Frank Caliendo's impersonations of George W. Bush are serious commentaries on the last eight years in America.

Now, in the strictest sense, there are two kinds of political ads:

1.) The "what kind of guy/girl I am" ads. These show a montage of images meant to convince you that the candidate is a nice guy, is capable of reproducing with a person of the opposite sex, and has semi-specific virtues such as being "tough on crime".

2.) "The other guy/girl is an asshole" ads. These make wild, often exaggerated claims about the opposing candidate and their actions, proclivities or aquaintances.

Fortunately for all of us, since we are so tired of this advertising, people go to work at television news networks each day and check out the accuracy of such ads when they pertain to candidates on the big stage. So when John McCain runs an ad that claims Barak Obama and a bigwig from Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae have been getting naked and rolling around together in a big pile of money, a person like Rachael Maddow takes it upon herself to say that it is a lie. Likewise, if any of the "nice guy" claims in ads make a candidate out to be more of a model citizen than they actually are, we hear about that as well.

But we'll never be so fortunate on a local or state level. Local news either doesn't have the inclination to debunk such claims, or doesn't want to anger candidates and eliminate potential advertising revenue in the process. And as a result, local political ads make those of the presidential candidates seem positively demure. I'm convinced that these local ads do more to turn people against politics than the national ads ever do.

There are probably a million examples here, but I'll use two from races in Alabama. One from each of the two types of political ads I have previously mentioned.

1. So what kind of guy or girl will the public elect to the supreme court in the state of Alabama?. Well, one thing is for certain; whoever the state elects can blow your damn head off. Republican candidate Greg Shaw and democrat Deborah Bell Paseur have both run type 1 commercials showing them posing with guns. Yep, Paseur and Bell want you to consider their proficiency with a firearm when making your decision. b ut two things occur to me here. First, a supreme court justice in Alabama will presumably not need to shoot anyone at work. And second, the candidates have only so much time and money available for their use in helping voters to form opinions.

The that fact that the gun image is important enough to include in expensive commercial air time for both candidates brings up questions. Would we see two national candidates do something like this? Of course not. You likely wouldn't see either candidate with a gun, unless it had something to do with previous military service. There is too much possibility of being portrayed as pro-violence. And a democrat would have way too much to explain to their own party over such a matter in a national election. All of this makes the case of Paseur seem even more bizarre. A democrat who appears in a commercial with a gun while "Amazing Grace" plays in the background apparently only makes sense in Alabama.

2. Curious portrayals of yourself in state ads is one thing. But it is when the attacks on the opposition begin that things get offensive and downright weird. I offer for example the case of Mike Rogers, a republican running for re-election to congress in Alabama. I could tell you about his claims against his opposition, Joshua Segall, but then you would miss the...well, I'm not even sure what to call the content that makes up a Mike Rogers ad. So just take a look:

http://www.mikerogersforcongress.com/multimedia.html

The two hillbillies leaning against the pickup truck utter "Hollywood" and "New York City" as if they are talking about a gay bath house that opened across the street from their church. They say that Segall is "pro-abortion" rather than pro-choice, because everybody likes choice but nobody in Alabama likes a guy who can be misrepresented as liking the actual medical procedure of abortion. And the word "liberal" in this ad is said with a reaction that people usually reserve for describing animal excrement they discover on their front porch.

There are almost too many things to say in response to Mike Rogers. You could attempt to remind him and his constituents that it was once a liberal belief in this country to think that women and minorities should have equal rights and be able to vote. You might say a guy like Rogers actually practiced restraint when, in an ad that so negatively equates a man named Segall with money from Hollywood and New York, he didn't call his opponent a kike.

But what does all of this matter? Shaw and Paseur are playing on the fears of gun nuts. Rogers and those who vote for him are doing their unintentional best to reinforce negative stereotypes about dirty politics and the closed minded South. And candidates like Rogers are running ads that are just as bad or worse all over the country in pursuit of votes. What's more, since this sort of thing is done on a local level, it goes largely unchecked. The best you can say is that it creates funny content for YouTube. But every time I laugh, I have to remind myself that the candidate responsible for the absurd material may have won. And that's not funny.