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.