Do Advertisements Such As This Motivate You To Learn More and To Act On What You’ve Learned

This is a well done political advertisement, but how effective is it? Which political party does it help? What impact will it have on the upcoming elections? What impact will this ad have on reducing pork spending by members of congress? How will it work with respect to persuading citizens to vote out big spenders and members who carve out a slice of pork to send home?

I think the advertisement is well done as a vehicle for sending a message. It is entertaining. It captures one’s attention for a few seconds and it may even provoke thought among some who pay only occasional attention to politics.

It will certainly fire up those who are already angry about wasteful spending – but most of those people have already made up their minds and chosen their candidates. For the most part, those candidates will be from the Republican party, a party that joined with President Bush to approve spending what was then a historic amount of money. True, the Dems have outdone the Republicans lately, but both sides have engaged in mindless, egregious and wasteful spending and neither side has shown any sign of reversing or curtailing their habit.

Citizens against Government Waste does a great job of tracking spending and big spenders. It also rates spending by member votes. A vote score of 80% up to 99% is considered “hero” status in limiting the waste of taxpayer dollars. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a 0% up to 19% vote rating is considered “hostile” to taxpayers and a record of utter waste.

Using this scale, every member of congress from Massachusetts earned a “hostile” rating for the year 2009. Only Senator Kerry has a lifetime rating above the “hostile” class with a score of 21%. Senator Tierney is listed as having a 125% rating, but since the scale is from 0% to 100%, his rating is more likely 1.25% or 12.5% which would round out to 2% or 13% – both below the 19% hostile range. Whatever the case, Congressman Tierney’s score is obviously incorrect.

How many people are aware of Citizens Against Government Waste or the statistical information that they give about tax dollars, wasteful spending and individual member restraint? How many people care about waste when they read about their congressional member “bringing home the bacon”?

In the end, this is an entertaining ad for most people. It is a somewhat effective ad for open-minded, thoughtful people interested in making their vote count. However, for most people, the ad means very little and will do very little to get them to the polls or to vote for the more tight-fisted politician. As long as this last (the largest group) are getting the goodies they want, some will vote for the things as they are; most will simply stay home.

The effectiveness of the ad will be determined only by the number of voters who oppose wasteful spending that get off of their complacent butts and vote. If these voters stay home; then the advertisement will do nothing more than giving some a few chuckles and others a brief shock of an unwelcome dose of reality soon to be brushed aside. To make anything more of this advertisement (or any other political advertisement) is absolutely ludicrous.

Facts should be used to decide the outcome of a political race. Advertisements cannot fully offer a complete set of facts that fully describe what a candidate stands for or how honest and reliable a candidate may be. Facts can only be found by searching each candidates record of achievement, votes, or public statements or facts on the record. Allegations, unproven accusations, and character assassination are usually indicators that the person tossing them feels weak enough to fear a head to head comparison of ability, position, or the record. Allegations are nothing more than just that.