Mitt, it’s what’s in your ballot
by Jayel Aheram
Philip Rucker has a piece in the Washington Post today on the advertising gurus who are busy rebranding Mitt Romney’s image as a ruthless, heartless financier who shows little emotion into someone more likable:
Now that Mitt Romney has amassed a couple hundred million dollars, it’s largely up to an eclectic crew of self-described “Mad Men” to make good use of it.
A colorful team of advertising gurus — including a onetime “Wheel of Fortune” contestant, a guy nicknamed for a “Super Mario” character and a burly Texan who came up with the “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” slogan — have converged on the campaign’s drab headquarters here to dream up the ads they hope will propel Romney to the White House.
Together, they clock 12-to-14-hour days in their shared offices and try to apply what they’ve learned in careers marketing Colgate toothpaste, Big Macs, BMWs and Nationwide Insurance to help pitch to the American masses a product that lacks a dominant market share: Mitt Romney.
But do presidential candidate have to be likable? Over at the National Journal, Charlie Cook argued, “Voters need to feel comfortable with the person they back.” Cook cited Romney campaign’s advertising as one of the reasons why Romney has failed to connect with voters:
Until his campaign finally began airing biographical ads a few weeks ago, his election effort seemed to studiously avoid trying to establish any bond, any connection, or any level of trust between him and American voters. His campaign seemed to hold the view that any day or dollar spent focusing on anything other than the economy was a day or dollar wasted. Presidential races are not likability contests, but a candidate does need to be “likable enough,” to borrow Obama’s phrase. Voters need to feel comfortable with the person they back.”
While we might not see a “Mitt, it’s what’s in your ballot” advertising campaign any time soon, it is safe to say that people with television sets will soon be bombarded with ads humanizing Romney. Thankfully, people (like this correspondent) who do not have television sets will be spared from what I see as an exercise in futility.
For my part, Romney’s history of perpetuating violence against people who are different from him will forever call into question his character. And character matters, especially if your politics are already problematic. Earlier this year, I wrote:
While the Seamus and Obama-eats-dog stories are silly, this story about Mitt Romney’s aggression towards a gay classmate is pretty serious.
If they turn out to be true, let us be clear here: these are not “harmless” pranks. Romney committed assault against a person—an action that required the use of force on Romney’s part.
But the bigger question here: has Romney outgrown that “prankster” who would use violence against non-conformists?
Judging from his policy positions, he has not.
Mitt, it’s what’s in your ballot, your wallet, your bedroom, your uterus, and it is the hand holding the scissors cutting your gay hair.
“Romney’s history of perpetuating violence against people who are different from him will forever call into question his character” Oh brother. Are your contributions here about the event and your observations or are you just going to push your latest biased talking points? The prankster story didn’t have legs. Why? I’m sure your “team” worked 24/7 to solidify it. Why is it a non-story now?