Friday, November 07, 2008

Dirty but done: Cochran, Clere and DeNiro ... as young Vito Corleone.

Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies. In the broadest sense, the term covers any rhetoric which refers to an opponent, if only by way of contrast, but can also include attacks meant to destroy an opponent's character, which may veer into ad hominem.

--Wikipedia

By a razor-thin margin on Tuesday, Republican political newcomer Ed Clere bested incumbent Democrat Bill Cochran, a 34-year veteran of the Indiana House of Representatives (District 72).

Speaking personally, I have nothing against Cochran. I’ve voted for him many times previously, and in the end, I voted for him again in 2008 – although not because his candidacy gave me the warm fuzzies.

Far from it. My intention had been to vote for Clere. On the morning of the election, I still had a Clere sign in my yard in spite of a weekend’s worth of discussion and handwringing in the Confidential household (see below). I had considered removing the sign, but had neither the time nor the inclination to do so.

No sense admitting that I’d allowed myself to be duped. I ceased giving a damn either way, and just wanted it to be over so the bad taste might begin to be washed away.

It wasn’t until early Tuesday afternoon, when I was leaving the house to go to work after an early visit to the polls, that I noticed someone had uprooted the sign, turned it upside down, and replanted it in the same spot.

Imagine that. Overt symbolism, not petty vandalism … and in irony-free New Albany, no less.

----

There’s little need to feel sorrow over Cochran’s departure from the political scene. He undoubtedly accomplished much of merit during his seeming lifetime in power, and while he may have been no better than dozens of other Hoosiers to have held a state legislative office, he surely was no worse. Unfortunately, his sense of timing finally betrayed him, because apart from the case in favor of Clere, there were a handful of legitimate reasons to be wary about what proved to be Cochran’s final re-election campaign.

One was the sheer longevity of Cochran’s incumbency, and the way that such hoary tenures tend to sap the lifeblood of creativity and fresh thinking from the seat’s holder. In the end, Cochran was reduced to making the very worst argument in favor of continuing in his position (paraphrased): I’ve been there forever and am so well connected that you might as well keep me.

A trace of idealism and a smidgen of excitement would have been appreciated. Instead, we got the functionary’s rote repetition: I can fix things for you. The fatigue and the disconnection were sadly palpable, and as a result, Cochran was politically vulnerable.

There also were related questions pertaining to Cochran’s age and health, and while these weren’t openly raised, they were quietly discussed. I heard them often. Cochran seems well liked, and it’s understandable that folks didn’t want to embarrass him. That’s commendable. Like I’ve already noted, in spite of my doubts, I eventually voted for the man again.

----

Why did I?

Because my state’s centralized Rovepublicans took an "interest" in the match, disgracefully swiftboated Cochran with two barrages of nasty postcard mailings and a final pre-election weekend of attack television ads cut from the same cloth … and the latter, shockingly, proved to have been financed by the local campaign committee of the winning candidate, Clere, who originally disavowed a connection with the monied, autonomous cash dispenser whose ads he apparently ended up paying to air.

He disavowed it here, right in this very space. Wow.

I was left to ponder two pertinent questions.

Am I now annoyed because Clere was (treading ever so carefully through the thesaurus) disingenuous with us -- and, by extension, I was too much of a rube to do anything except take his earnest denials at face value?

Or, do I actually feel a grudging admiration for Clere’s clarity of ruthlessness in deploying an ends-justify-the-means strategy to topple the wobbly kingpin and seize the reins?

Right now, I’m leaning toward ignoring the first and answering the second of these questions in the affirmative, acknowledging that what’s done is done, and moving on. All indications are that Clere will be a responsive representative (why am I being nagged by the words "One Southern Indiana?), but future challengers should take note.

This new kid doesn’t fool around. He cooed sweet nothings ever so gently to the progressives, effectively silenced us, and then swung one damned fat stick against the old guy – who didn’t see it coming, and as a result, was decapitated in political terms.

Consequently, fairly or unfairly, and notwithstanding the other factors leading to Cochran’s defeat, the incumbent’s ouster will forever be remembered hereabouts as owing to the spate of disgusting, negative ads unleashed against him.

Yes, in most significant ways, that’s politics. Always has been, probably always will be, but as Mr. Clere Goes to Indianapolis with a garrot secreted in his pocket, there’s a palpable sense of Hamlet’s ghost floating somewhere nearby. I'm straining to hear what he has to say.

----

As a coda, the Courier-Journal offered these observations.

Republicans targeted the race but did not reveal their plans until the closing weeks when they and pro-GOP groups dumped more than $143,000 in cash and in-kind contributions into Clere's campaign …

… "(Voters) are looking for change at all levels, and this is no exception," Clere said. "I think they're ready for a new voice and fresh ideas."


All of which leaves one final question unanswered.

If Clere’s victory owes in any way to these eleventh-hour slimings, how does any of it constitute “fresh ideas”?

Now that it's finished, I suppose we’ll see.

14 comments:

Daniel Short said...

Hey, New Albany, the time has passed where we let a man stay in office for three decades just because. If Ed Clere does not do his job, fire him and find someone that will. If Ed does his job, keep him, but don't keep him just because he is the rep. We have to move to a more proactive approach to representation. Watch this "new kid" and give him a fair shake. Then vote to keep him or replace him. Partisan politics be damned, we need leadership.

Christopher D said...

Seeking fresh ideas bankrolled by a disgraced and fractured party is like seeking an air freshener in a bin of soiled diapers.
I can only hope the man, not the political affiliation, will win out in this instance.
I am supportive of Mr. Clere with gaurded optimism, and hope the eleventh hour tactics either deployed, or not publicly denounced are not indicative of the term to come.

The New Albanian said...

I echo both Chris and Daniel. "Guarded optimism" seems appropriate in this case.

Iamhoosier said...

From Mr. Clere's letter to NAC on October 3, 2008:

"I have been trying to run a positive campaign. Anyone who has heard me talk will agree that my focus is on what I would do, not on what Bill Cochran has or hasn’t done."

I guess, "has" is the operative word here. His TV ad was in no way about what Mr. Clere would do.

Also from the same letter:

"I was a reader of this blog long before I was a candidate for state representative, and I can guarantee that I will continue to read it and to weigh and value the opinions of all. I am interested in substance, and no postcard can change that."

Substance? Yeah, right. Mr. Clere is reader of this blog and yet failed to answer any of the follow up questions. I know that he was busy campaigning but he wasn't too busy to write his "disingenuous" letter to NAC.

Speaking of letters...

Mr. Clere, did your wife actually write that letter, addressed to my wife? If so, were you actually baking a soccer ball cake at the time? There should be time to answer questions now.

Call him disingenuous if you want. I have a 4 letter for him and it is worse than any obscene 4 letter word.

I really hope that I have to eat these words. There are a couple of years to make me do it.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Eventually, local thinkers are going to realize that both our regional and state chambers of commerce are little more than the media friendly political wings of the Bush-inspired Republican party in our state.

They've now helped, by their own reckoning, put one more member of Mitch's team in power and done so in such a way that should render moot any trepidation born of personal relationships, including my own, that may factor into what would normally be outspoken criticism of political maneuvering.

Much like the local politicians who already bend for their approval, they've yet to proffer much beyond a recycling of disproved trickle down, bridges building, landlord placating bunk.

To that end, a new face means little, even if it's a familiar one. What it suggests about "supporter" expectations, though, is potentially very damaging to our community.

Guarded optimism based on friendly familiarity with Ed? Sure.

Willingness to overlook the obvious because of that familiarity? No thanks.

Unknown said...

Count me among the the dissenters as well. I had much the same feelings as Roger. I was also leaning towards voting for Mr. Clere but was dissuaded by the flurry of negativity at the end. It seems there were fewer of us changing in that direction than in the direction the smear campaign intended.

John Gonder said...

The old, old saying applies,:"You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

Daniel Short said...

Ouch, John, a little harsh. I don't agree with running that last commercial, but I chalk it up to Ed's inexperience as a candidate. It may not be much of an excuse, but if the outcome is superior representation to what we were recieving, I can put it in the water under the bridge category...for now.

The New Albanian said...

There are two issues here, and for the sake of over-simplification, one is tactical electoral politics and the other strategic regional reality.

In the narrower tactical sense, I'm actually more comfortable with the notion of Ed himself designing the attack campaign, because if true, it would imply that he didn't merely accept the Rovepublican largesse naively or randomly -- that he's ruthless and not a dupe.

In the larger strategic sense, and as usual, Bluegill clearly articulates the point.

Eventually, local thinkers are going to realize that both our regional and state chambers of commerce are little more than the media friendly political wings of the Bush-inspired Republican party in our state ...

... To that end, a new face means little, even if it's a familiar one. What it suggests about "supporter" expectations, though, is potentially very damaging to our community.


It will be remembered as a dirty campaign, but people have short attention spans, and soon the memory will be distant.

Meanwhile, as pertains to the issues Bluegill raises, they're the stuff of everyday impact.

Iamhoosier said...

I'm not sure that telling the truth should be considered in the "narrower" sense.

The New Albanian said...

IAH, I'm just the point guard tossing alley oop passes in front of the rim.

You sure got all of that one.

Now, if only we could get everyone into the game (winking toward DePauw Avenue).

John Gonder said...

Daniel:
I don't agree with the negative connotation my quoted adage applies to dogs. Nor do I mean to imply that Republicans are the dogs.

The dogs are the local/state practitioners of Slime Boat politics that held aloft the Bush administration on the national level. They must have seen something they liked about that model and tried to offer a homegrown variety for us.

The collateral damage affects Ed Clere. It matters little who threw the grenade. It was thrown. Some may move past it, some may file it away. It is the stuff of reputations.

Daniel Short said...

John, my bad in taking you the wrong way. I believe the same thing has happened in the Sodrel camp. Once you let that national or in Ed's case state money seep in, you are at the mercy it seems of their tactics. I feel that Mike's campaign was successful when it was local and failed when others were involved that had never been to the district. I sincerely hope that Ed and all other candidates will in the future tell these organizations thanks, but no thanks, I can handle this myself. I don't hold out much hope for it, but it would be better for all involved if New Albany elected the person we thought best based on THEIR talk and not the thoughts of suits in a room somewhere in Indy or D.C.

John Gonder said...

Daniel:

Ageed.