Anatomy of a dishonest political mailer from this week’s election

By David McElroy · November 9, 2012

I still remember the first political mailer I did that made me feel completely slimy. In 1998, I was doing work for an incumbent Alabama governor. I had played a minor role in the campaign, but I’d handled a few mail pieces and had made some nice money. At the last moment, the state party came to me and wanted one more mail piece to go out to a lot of households, something like 300,000 or so.

The guy I had done the work for was about to lose. This mail piece was to be an attack to try to hurt the challenger at the last second, after it was too late for him to respond. The pitch was simple. The Democratic challenger had somehow been vaguely and briefly associated with somebody who was a ’60s radical. So I was supposed to tie the challenger to a collection of something like five or six anti-war protesters from the ’60s, even though there was no connection in real life.

I don’t remember how I worded the piece, exactly. I remember that it looked nice and it was clever in the way it implied the challenger was one of those people — people such as “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, whose picture was included, of course. If you just looked at the card briefly, you would assume that the fine print must surely have exposed the challenger as an awful, evil radical who was a danger to us all. But it did nothing of the kind, because that wasn’t true. It never quite said anything inaccurate. The copy and photos just implied it.

I don’t remember too much more about that piece, but I do recall that I pocketed $10,000 in profit from that last-second job. It’s the kind of slimy, unethical thing that’s done every election — by people in both major parties — but it was the beginning of the end for my ability to stick around. The money helped, but it wasn’t enough to keep me from feeling that I’d done something very, very wrong.

It’s 14 years later, and someone else here in the state did something that was similarly very, very wrong this week. I don’t know who was paid to produce this piece. All I know is that it’s a lie. You might be interested in looking at how such lies work.

Alabama voted overwhelmingly for Romney this week. Everybody knew going in that would be the case, because Barack Obama is very unpopular with Republicans and whites. (The two groups overlap a lot, but they’re not the same.) So anyone tied to Obama would be viewed unfavorably by a lot of people here.

The Republican nominee for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is very unpopular, and the state GOP knew that. His name is Roy Moore, and he’s the one you might have heard referred to as “the 10 Commandments judge.” He was an obscure county judge in a small town until a controversy over a plaque of the 10 Commandments in his courtroom propelled him to fame and then won him the job of chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

In the middle of the night, he secretly installed a huge 10 Commandments statue in the Supreme Court building. It created instant controversy and was quickly in federal court. When Moore refused to obey a federal court order to remove the statue, he was thrown out of office.

In the next few years, he tried to run for governor a couple of times, but never generated any support outside of the most conservative of the Religious Right. His political career appeared dead.

This year, though, he managed to get the GOP nomination for chief justice of the Supreme Court again. It wasn’t a controversial primary. I don’t even remember who his opponent was. In the meantime, the Democrats suddenly realized that they had a prime opportunity to win a statewide office if they ran a decent candidate. They guy who had won their nomination was a nut case who’s run for office many times over the years on both parties. Nobody thought he had any real credibility. So after that guy said some things which sounded nutty and unprofessional, a panel of the state Democratic Party threw him off the ballot and replaced him with a qualified judicial candidate, Bob Vance.

Many Republicans didn’t want to vote for the nut case Roy Moore, so Vance had a bit of a chance, even though he was a late entry to the race and didn’t have much name recognition. Polls showed that it would be close. The unknown Vance (even though he was a Democrat) might beat the well-known (and widely disliked) Moore.

The state Republican Party sent out this last-minute mailing. Even though there was absolutely no real connection between Bob Vance and Barack Obama, this 8.5×11 card that uses “Godfather” imagery leads you to believe that Obama made an offer to Vance — and that Obama is going to secretly control Vance by pulling his strings. Remember, Obama had nothing to do with Vance being selected for this nomination. (You can click on either the front of the card — above — or the back — below — and see a much bigger copy.)

On the back, ominous phrases imply that there’s something crooked afoot. “Backroom deals” really just refers to the fact that Vance was chosen by a committee. “A Money Trail” simply refers to the fact that Vance and his wife (who was appointed a U.S. attorney by Obama) have given money to the Obama campaign, but it implies there’s something sinister. And the phrase “A Political Appointment” is meaningless. They couldn’t come up with something to accuse Vance of here, but they just threw out a vague charge and slapped a question mark on it, ending with “You be the judge.”

Last, the graphic on the back appears to show Obama and Vance together, but that’s a composite that’s made up to look like a shadowy deal between the two. It’s a visual lie.

There’s absolutely nothing about this piece that is honest. It never directly states anything that’s untrue, but it’s carefully crafted to make people make assumptions which aren’t true.

What difference did it make? Well, Moore won with 52 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney won 61 percent of the Alabama vote, which makes it stunning that any Republican on the statewide ballot got as little as 52 percent. Polls showed that the Moore-Vance race was close. If just 2 percent of voters were swayed by this dishonest piece tying Vance to Obama, that would have been enough to swing a 50-50 race into a 52-48 race.

Do I think this dishonest piece won the election for Moore? Yes, I think there’s a good chance. A negative piece can generally sway just a very small slice of the voters, but in a tight race, that’s all it takes. You just have to put doubt into the minds of a very small percentage — “Is Obama really involved in this race?” — and you can change who wins.

There’s a very good chance that it happened here.

Moore might have won anyway. We’ll never know. But if he had, it would have been a lot closer.

This is how campaigns lie to you. They can state the facts while telling a lie. There’s nothing that’s technically non-factual here. But the entire thing is a lie — and the people who produced it and paid for it know that it’s a lie. They don’t care, though. They simply care about winning elections.

If you can look at lies such as this — and know that they can swing races for offices such as chief justice of a state Supreme Court — how can you still support the system that puts power into the hands of idiots who will fall for this kind of lie?

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts