A massive amount of flak is fired indiscriminately into the air in an attempt to create an impenetrable wall that can bring down an airborne enemy. Even when the often-off-the-mark pieces do manage to strike the target, an individual piece is usually so insignificant that the damage is hardly noticeable.
The trick with flak, of course, is to throw up so much that it keeps the enemy on the defensive. And the cumulative effect of repeated small strikes can ultimately bring a plane down. That's the theory, anyway.
You can probably figure out how the "flak" analogy applies to political campaigns.
To that end, WMD is launching a new regular feature wherein I scour the political blogosphere to highlight the most egregious and silly examples of the past week's flak.
To get the ball rolling, it's probably best to start with some low-hanging fruit, and that means Oregon's hotly contested U.S. Senate Democratic primary.
The Merkley campaign, and even Jeff himself, really, really, really worked hard to launch the silliest flak of the week. First came the attempt to dirty Novick with the trumped-up accusation that Novick's creative campaigning had run afoul the OLCC. Turns out it hadn't. Novick has been working with the OLCC throughout the entire process of using Left Hook Lager to raise funds, according to the OLCC. Apparently the Merkley camp never bothered to ask before firing. Flak doesn't have to be accurate. It just has to fill the air.
Then Merkley went on Portland's KPOJ and falsely accused Novick of "recently" favoring Ralph Nader over this year's Democratic presidential candidates. Whoops! That one didn't stand up to professional scrutiny very long.
It was a good effort at ineptitude by the Merkley campaign. But Team M's competition for Flak Attack heroes of the week had an unfair advantage.
News that Novick outflanked Merkley and overwhelmingly won the prized endorsement of the Oregon Education Association really unhinged the silly season barrage against him:
Did you know that it's a bad idea to use new and creative ways to get voters' attention in the early stages of a campaign? I know that's kind of counter-intuitive, but flak doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to fill the air.
Also, I always thought that a campaign was the sum of a complex assembly of many moving parts, but according to this week's Flak Attack grand-prize winners, a single ad or fund-raiser should be viewed as if it were the entire sum of the campaign's effort. Behold:
"...I don't see a funny video ad motivating many to vote for Novick in a general election match-up. If a meaningful percentage of voters were so easily swayed, then the Dems would be running comedians instead of experienced politicians."Great idea, maybe someone should contact Al Franken and see if he wants to run for the Senate.
"Yes, I know Novick supporters are fans of the beer ad and Left Hook Lager. But there are Democratic voters who don't drink alcohol... why would they vote for the Left Hook Lager candidate?"That previous comment is especially funny, because it was followed shortly by this one from the same person:
"But then, of course, I insist on being serious. Maybe some of the people here are bothered by that because they just want to have fun."Oh, really, that's odd, because (and I say this sincerely and without a hint of sarcasm) while skimming this person's comments, I found myself wondering if I should take them at face value or if I was being duped by a very talented satirist.
COMING UP NEXT WEEK: less introduction and more flak!
No comments:
Post a Comment