Maybe looking askance at two sincere efforts speaks ill of me, but as The Tick famously responded to the query, “Where the is that jerk who calls himself The Tick?”, “I am that jerk.”
Republican nominee Karyn Polito has the luxury of watching the men piddle away their funds. She faces no primary opposition.
Murphy seems oddly proud of starting his ad campaign 24 hours before Grossman. He tweeted that several times. Perhaps that's defensive, as his campaign website required a change of developers and was a couple of months late out of the gate.
That Steve's effort is certainly memorable, possibly negatively so. It flashes three big, almost meaningless, out-of-contest factoids one after another. It's the $71 billion in state debt, the per-capital allotment, and the $2 billion MA borrows annually. Each gets the red NO circle and slash with a super-annoying buzz. The coda is Steve standing stiffly saying that when he's treasurer, all this will stop. He ends with, “I'm not afraid to say no.”
Note to Murphy: Don't leave your target voters with ringing ears.
Of course, all states float bonds and do other borrowing and while on paper you could assign various debt per citizen. Ergo?
Then more to the point, the treasurer has duties and powers, but usurping the decisions of the governor and legislator are not among them. Who here believes this Steve could arrive and clear the debt used for cash flow?
For Grossman, the oddity is not the content but the presentation. First, he's a ghost. This Steve comes across in person and at stump speeches as smart, sincere and competent — the grown Eagle Scout he is.
Both this Respect vid and the Restore one on his website seem overly humble. A voice-over (not Steve) speaks of him in the third person. One vid speaks of his generosity and compassion in keeping an employee with cancer on at full pay during treatment. The other talks about what a savvy business guy he was in expanding the family company (with the implication that he can do the same for a certain New England commonwealth).
The punchlines are more believable than Murphy's. Grossman will put the state checkbook online and in two related policies, provide transparency and require full disclosure of operations. Those are important and things a treasurer can do.
However, his real campaign is that he would use the billions under the treasurer's purview to lend to MA businesses, growing jobs and companies, and speeding us out of this recession. Likewise, Murphy has said repeatedly that he'd do a timid version of that and help small businesses with cash problems. Neither has ads that get to this real substance.
Moreover for Grossman's, he is certainly his own best advocate. Yet, his pair of ads leave him a silent, black-and-white wisp. Instead of where's the beef, it's where's the Steve?
Certainly in the initial salvo, Grossman wins. Then again, he is a professional communicator. How odd though that his lackeys apparently didn't have the nerve to say, “You need to speak to the voters in these.” He does need to.
My endorsement is here on the Grossman website! He has what it takes to beat Polito in November and I can’t wait to work on his behalf
But both ads play on how bad the economic/political climate are, which is understandable. But that negative reinforcement is like free advertising for Baker and/or so-called “outsiders”
The economy is not doing well, but nationally that’s because the Democrats aimed too low in trying to get a stimulus bill through and responded too timidly to the banking crisis. And now the Obama Administration is running a reality-denying Happy Face Campaign. Instead, they could be painting Republicans as obstructionists standing in the way of recovery.
<
p>But no.
<
p>Miserable side-effect of the Happy Face Campaign: Democrats break the message discipline by acknowledging reality.
I have spoken to both candidates several times during the camapaign. Murphy offered only generalities and left me with the impression that he will be tied at the hip to Menino (who’s endorsement he relied on heavily at the convention to get on the ballot). Grossman, on the other hand, offered specifics (investing state funds in local non-bailout banks instead of the megabanks, personal finance education in high schools, making loans available to small business to promote real jobs).
<
p>Grossman’s message will resonate with unenrolled voters because he is not a politician, he’s a successful businessman who knows how to operate in good economies and bad.
<
p>Lastly, Murphy’s ad is confusing. By the annoying buzzer and red cross out circle, it gives impression that the facts his is pointing out are not true.
While I agree that Steve needs to speak to the voters…I assume that will come in the general. Against a weak Murphy, Grossman saved some money on production costs–although that is a widely known (and I assume expensive) voice over guy (which if you play over, you’ll recognize).
Just listened to it again… who’s the voice over guy I’m supposed to be able to recognize?
…who also does the BNW ads…but it is a very familiar voice that does lots of national commercials…it’s always tough pegging voiceovers…but this is a “top shelf” voiceover talent…
implying that he could veto debt authorized by the Legislature, but I thought both spots were pretty solid.
<
p>Murphy’s message probably more coherent than Grossman’s, actually, if you don’t care about the truth.
<
p>I do care, of course, but I think both campaign can feel pretty good about these media buys.
Wow, that Murphy ad convinces me he’s horrible. It’s both dishonest and misleading. For me the worst part of it is his use of the slimy Republican equivalence of personal spending/debt with government spending, when reality is that a recession is exactly the time Government needs to spend in order to help people – the very people who “didn’t get a bailout” in his words, but actually, state spending is part of that “bailout” people aren’t getting enough of.
His ad talks about how when an employee had cancer and was unable to work, ‘Steve’ kept him on at full pay.
<
p>DeNucci was just criticized for doing exactly this for his cousin.
<
p>So what is the lesson here? Grossman enjoys being a paterfamilias in his own company, but he won’t continue to do so with tax money?
There’s a slim toothpick of a point there. However, note first that in decades of fund raising at local, state and national level, Grossman seemed to be the super-clean Eagle Scout he is. No one accused him to directing money or jobs to cronies, kin or himself. He understands fiduciary duty.
<
p>As for his employee, that was not only on his dime, but it was smart business. He long-term worker was an investment, a well trained on, which he protected. Unlike too many modern managers, he wasn’t willing to let the smarts leave the company at the first serious excuse. He took a measured chance, which paid off. The worker with all his expertise is still there, and I bet the other employees’ loyalty and enthusiasm increased.