[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCa8xw9yGY&feature=player_embedded] In this race, Conway is down, but not an insurmountable amount, but time is running out. They can go back and forth or they can try for the big play, swing for the fences, knock out blow, pick your favorite sports analogy here. Well, they sure went for it.
I have to appreciate the fact that they didn't sugar coat, didn't back down, didn't try to hide behind a euphemism, but damned this is an ugly ad, for it's look as much as it's content. The ad is so extreme in it's claim, that it's hard for me to judge how effective it'll be.
To me, it feels like it's trying real hard, almost too hard. Desperate might not be the right word..., I think the word I'm looking for is pandering. Hey Kentucky, you're Christians, well Rand Paul he's not or maybe he's not, see don't you hate him now, huh, please, right? (Eyebrows making exaggerate pleas.)
There's no formula to these things, but I believe that the harder and more outrageous the claim, the softer you ought to sell it. This ad is an 11 on the claim scale, and a 9 on the political negative cliche scale.
Josh Marshall said, "It registered for me as somewhere between a hokey Tea Party ad and an SNL spoof." It's never a good thing when your hard hitting negative looks like a spoof of an ad. In the whole form supporting function, it just doesn't add to the credibility of the ad.
It's one thing to make the decision to air the attack, but the manner it was aired makes it feel clumsy and desperate, a more refined ad, might have overcome that problem.
Paul countered with this ad stating, "He has Christ in his heart," and that Conway is "[bearing] false witness" against him.
The response to Conway's attack makes me wonder if Paul didn't feel vulnerable to it. Seems like overkill to say you both have "Christ in your heart" and he's bearing false witness again you, but I'm from Kentucky, and I'm not the one who's had my christianity questioned. Obviously that last line is a not too subtle attempt to invoke biblical language. Again feels like pandering to me, "See Kentucky, I can say things like bear witness and smite, so I must be Christian...." Ok he doesn't say "smite" but maybe he should have.
The response is pretty cliche (other than false witness which you don't hear very often these days), dark grayed out shots of Conway, his lips flapping hard edged newpaper headlines to accentuate their point (though the script ads the line "gutter politics at its worse," which isn't a quote as far as I can tell). This ad isn't as over the top as the original ad, but if Boris were here he might say, "Rand,... check yourself....."
So who wins this round? Both ads are pretty lame, so as far as form goes, it's a draw. The Conway ad feels a little cheaper, the Paul ad cleaner and slicker, but neither one distinguishes themselves.
So if it comes down to function, I'll give the win to Conway on the technical point that they raised the issue, and it seems that's what folks are talking about with two weeks left in the campaign. Maybe it backfires, maybe it doesn't work, but it's not what Paul wants to be talking about that's for sure.