I wonder if this spot by George Allen savaging Jim Webb's health care plan will actually work? here's how it goes:
Jim Webb sure has some interesting plans: Like raising taxes $2000 on the average Virginian family. Giving amnesty to those here illegally. And on health care? The Wall Street Journal says a plan like Webb's is a recipe for higher taxes and more government intervention. It limits doctor choice and invades patient privacy. Jim Webb: Ideas Virginia can't afford.
Can this sort of thing really be effective? Surely no one will watch this ad and think: "Huh, Jim Webb believes in higher taxes, amnesty, and death to doctor choice! Now that I know, I'm voting for Allen!" And given the number of ads like this flitting around at any moment, it's hard to believe voters don't just tune this stuff out. I remember watching the ads for the Kilgore/Kaine race, where Kilgore was running attacks just like this, and Kaine outperformed expectations on election day -- partly, analysts thought, because of Kilgore's over-the-top attacks.
This cycle has spotlighted some truly innovative political advertising that didn't look like political advertising. Michael Steele, Ned Lamont, the RNC, and others have hired serious firms that didn't proffer the same grainy, humorless, apocalyptic attacks. None of this is to doubt the unquestionable potency of negative attacks, but there's got to be some level at which the attack ads look like a parody of themselves, and just become wasted media dollars.
