Whenever an incumbent feels the need to release an ad saying “I’m very sorry” a few weeks from Election Day, you can be sure that his internal polls show him in big trouble.
In the 2006 midterms, Pennsylvania Rep. Sherwood (PA-10) was an entrenched incumbent in a very conservative district. But as he found himself plagued by an adultery scandal and by allegations that he tried to strangle his mistress, Sherwood found himself fighting for his political life and aired a soon-to-be-famous ad apologizing for his conduct. Sherwood lost that election to current Democratic Rep. Carney.
Now, it is Rep. Tom Feeney’s turn to attempt a similar maneuver in FL-24. Ever since lobbyist Jack Abramoff has been under the spotlight, Feeney has faced ethics questions over a 2003 golfing trip he took to Scotland and that was paid by Abramoff. Democrats have been looking to use that story to attack Feeney, who has been on their target list ever since they recruited top-tier challenger Suzanne Kosmas.
Feeney was apparently feeling the heat - and his internal polling was surely showing voters having questions about his ethics (the only poll we have seen of late was an internal Democratic poll showing a 1% race) - as he has taken the dramatic (and rather desperate) move of airing a 30-second ad directly addressing this story and apologizing for the “rookie mistake” and for having “embarrassed” himself and his constituents:
[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na-xa_9yU1I"]
For obvious reasons, it is very dangerous for a politician to air an ad like this, and the fact that Feeney (and Sherwood before him) chose to take that step is a testament to how much danger his campaign thought he was in because of his Abramoff ties. For one, it forces an issue at the center of the political discussion. Feeney should now expect a whole round of stories on local news and on local newspapers devoted to this 2003 trip.
Second, Feeney is blowing a significant amount of his cash on hand for this ad. He was already being outraised by Kosmas, and FL-24 is in the costly Orlando market. Feeney has bought 10-days worth of rotation for this spot, which means that he will spend much of his money addressing his ties to Abramoff, leaving with little money to go after his opponent. Given that the NRCC has little money to come to Feeney’s rescue, this could create quite an unbalance in ad spending.
Of course, the ad could pay dividends if voters come to accept Feeney’s version of events and sympathize with his apology; if Feeney connects with his constituents thanks to these 30 seconds, future Democratic attack ads could seem petty to voters and backfire. That said, Feeney does not actually acknowledge that he had any idea that his behavior was wrong when he engaged in it. “I found out later,” he says, “that [the trip] was paid for by a corrupt lobbyist. It was a rookie mistake and I did everything I could to make it right. I reported it to the ethics committee and I paid the money back.” That leaves quite an opening for the DCCC to go after Feeney.
This is ultimately why these ads are so problematic for those who air them. If a politician spends hundreds of thousands of dollars saying he is “very sorry” even though there are huge risks associated with such a maneuver, it means that he really felt like he had to in order to survive politically. It is the ultimate defensive ad, and it is never good for a politician to be on the defensive.
Meanwhile, in Mississippi’s Senate race, we got some resolution today as the Board of Elections released a new sample ballot that places the Musgrove-Wicker contest near the top, right after the presidential race and Sen. Ted Cochran’s re-election contest. And the sample also confirms that Musgrove and Wicker’s party affiliation will not appear, making for a very curious ballot that is worth taking a look at.
Keep in mind, however, that the exact layout and the order in which candidates will appear will differ from county to county, so there is no way of knowing whether some counties will choose to make party affiliation more explicit by aligning Wicker’s name with those of McCain and Cochran, for instance, or whether it will really be up to the voters’ to remember the candidates’ parties. (If party affiliation is in any way clearer in counties that are predominantly white or those that are predominantly black, it could obviously impact the results.)
According to Mississippi Code, in a special election, parties are not put next to the candidates’ names. Each county board of election decides the order in which candidates are placed. My guess is that big Republican counties like DeSoto, Rankin, and Madison will place Wicker above Musgrove. The same can be said for Democratic-leaning counties like Hinds and Lafayette.