I’m writing this on the Monday, the day before the elections, so
the usual bashers can’t accuse me of either taking victory laps or
harboring sour grapes. My reaction to the campaign can be summed up
in four words
– thank God, it’s over. Political campaigns just get more
demeaning and inane as time goes on. Every time I think they can’t
get any worse, the next election just proves me wrong.
I’m writing this on the Monday, the day before the elections, so the usual bashers can’t accuse me of either taking victory laps or harboring sour grapes. My reaction to the campaign can be summed up in four words – thank God, it’s over. Political campaigns just get more demeaning and inane as time goes on. Every time I think they can’t get any worse, the next election just proves me wrong.
I wonder if the postal service ever calculated the financial effects of all the useless campaign literature they deliver. It would be interesting to know if they are making or losing money on the deal. They must also consider the added worker’s comp claims for bad backs incurred by the overloaded letter carriers.
While we’re on the subject, isn’t it funny how everyone claims they will get the budget under control and reduce spending – then they try to prove it by distributing their messages in multiple mailings of expensive giant-sized six-colored fliers printed on the best bond paper and composed by professional consultants. Is it any wonder that political honeymoons are getting shorter all the time?
The award for most consistently misleading advertising goes to the various “voter’s guides.” The so-called guides sell space just like ads for laundry soap. They are the ultimate non-partisans – except for money that is – they are very partisan about money.
The voter’s guides are good for one thing, though; they are perfect hypocrisy barometers. Most candidates, independent groups and even major parties run false or misleading ads, but boy, do they get upset when someone tricks them. “How dare they,” cry the “victims” who have been so busy victimizing everyone else. Fake outrage is a favorite political tactic among the big boys.
There is one thing I would change in those are the “picture rules.” Campaigns always use these great pictures of their candidates. They are seen standing in muddy fields in immaculately clean outfits or under tree with their handsome families or in behind a desk in perfectly tailored business attire. How do they do it? If I go within 500 yards of a muddy field in a clean shirt, my shirt is soon muddier than the field and my family almost never sits under a tree smiling.
Meanwhile, the pictures of their opponents in the negative ads are always gray and out of focus, looking like they just crawled out a bar. From now on each candidate should be required submit real family pictures including those of their crazy uncle Harry walking around with a beer cooler top on his head. They should also be required to prepare an official “bad photo” that can be used by their opponents in negative ads – they may not like it, but at least they won’t be surprised when they see it. No more shouts of, “that’s not me!”
In the old days, candidates lost their voices from making speeches at outdoor rallies and in gyms with terrible acoustics; at least that shut up them up for a while. Not anymore. Now the recorded messages on the telephone do the talking and the robots even treat you like a friend. I’m especially fond of recorded “push-polls.”
In a push-poll, the question is more important than the answer, for example, “Did you know that Marty Richman wrote the best political column in California? For yes press 1, for no press 2.”      Â
Can it get worse? Sure. Soon you’ll have your new 3D life-like TV installed. Then the virtual candidate will step right out of the screen and into your living room in the middle of the football game, perhaps they will even sit down with your family for dinner and talk politics. I just can’t wait, can you?
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
