Mike Huckabee flips … but gets back on course
December 31, 2007 — wickleLook at it how you will.
This afternoon, Mike Huckabee held a press conference to unveil his new negative ad against Mitt Romney — in which he was going to defend both himself and John McCain, and counter-attack.
The ad would have been a change of course in the campaign, moving to more of an attack focus. However, he decided just before the press conference not to release it.
Yes, he showed the ad to the assembled reporters. It will therefore get some play on news programs.
But it’s not going to be run on TV in general. The reporters discussing the story, of course, ask if that means he isn’t just getting it out without paying for it.
Not a bad question, but let’s look at it …
The way he did this, the commercial will only be seen by people who watch the news or who seek it out (I’m sure it’s on YouTube by now …). Few of those people are undecided — they’re either Huckabee supporters who are curious, or Huckabee foes who will use it to show how he’s gone negative, too.
The commercial won’t be seen, though, by people who are watching their sit coms, reality shows, or whatever else. It’s not going to have the kind of airtime or influence that it might have had were it actually shown.
For my own part, I wish that Gov. Huckabee and his campaign had never even considered going into the negative approach, but I applaud this kind of a flip-flop. He decided to keep his message positive, and talk about why he should be President, not why Mitt Romney shouldn’t.
As Gov. Huckabee said:
“I just decided that’s not the way we want to run it,” the former pastor said. “It’s never too late to do the right thing.”
The world didn’t need another attack ad. It could use a politician who’s willing to admit that he made a mistake and changes course.
December 31, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Sorry, but I see this as an “have his cake and eat it too” type of thing. He has a press conference to announce he was going to go negative, but decided against it… and then shows the ad he decided not to run?
Why not just not discuss he plans he “abandoned”?
December 31, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I can see why you’d think that … it does look a lot like that.
I buy the explanation. And, ultimately, I think that it’s worth considering that relatively few people are going to see, hear, or think about the commercial now — and virtually none of them will be people who might be swayed.
While it might work as a “cake/eat” thing to a very limited extent, the ad isn’t on TV. I haven’t seen it and don’t plan to. But I’m sure that you’re not alone in that opinion.
But that’s what makes life interesting … reasonable people can disagree.
December 31, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Or a candidate who never got into the attack ad game in the first place, Fred Thompson…
December 31, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Did you see the Fred Thompson “apology”?
Not only was that an attack ad, it was a passive-aggressive bit of childishness …
For that matter, did you see the ad Thompson had for the YouTube debate? What was that, if not negative?
There are places in which Thompson can claim the high ground — running a positive campaign isn’t one of them.
January 1, 2008 at 8:34 am
I have to admit I found it a bit suspect. The way he managed it, he was able to look like a great guy not airing an ad his advisors had told him not to, and he was able to show what it was he was rejecting. I don’t know. I would have preferred he simply say to the press. We thought we were going to do it, but thought better of it. When asked what was in it, simply defer and say, “I’m not going to play that game.”
January 1, 2008 at 11:27 am
Huckabee made a serious sacrifice in what he did. He has been in politics long enough to know that. For every person who thought it was heartwarming that he stayed positive to the masses there will be more common idiots who think showing an ad to a very limited audience of journalists who would have asked for proof of its existence otherwise.
Those seeing it on youtube will be a very limited number.
The effect of the ad would have seriously worked in Huckabee’s favor as the ad would have put Romney on the defensive were he can now unfairly remain positive while keeping Huckabee on the defensive with his continued showing of the extremely dishonest “Comparison” ads.
January 1, 2008 at 11:34 am
The more I think about it, the more I wish he hadn’t shown the commercial, but that’s more to keep the cynics from the issue.
I still think that since it won’t be playing on regular broadcasts, it’s not going to have the visibility that it would have. Sure, reporters saw it, and people who want to see it will see it. But it won’t be pushed on anyone else. So, I still generally trust the motivation as he presented it … but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
(In that respect, it’s sort of like making my tea with Splenda … it’s still sweet tea, but it’s just not the same … sigh … dang New Years’ resolutions …)
Maybe you and Tam are right … he is certainly vulnerable to that charge, since he showed it.
It was probably an unwise thing to do, considering the controversy brought about by the “floating cross” issue. There is something to be said for treading carefully.
Oh, well … ultimately, I think that this will be a non-issue by the time Iowans are in caucus.
It would be best if the ad had never been made. Okay if it was made and never shown. I think that this current situation is far from ideal, but I’m more or less okay with it.
I can, though, understand those who disagree. This was probably the biggest mistake to date in the Huckabee campaign. (Edging out not having read about the infamous National Intelligence Estimate within 24 hours …)
January 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm
This was, frankly, a blatant ploy to get free attack add without “getting your hands dirty”, which almost all reasonable Huckabee supporters agree with. After the debate performances, I could have voted for Huckabee. I think he is an excellent communicator — but this really went too far. He is not ready for the prime-time spotlight of being president.
January 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I don’t think he did it as a calculated political manuever. I just think he genuinely wants to be both electable and likeable and this was one of those cases where he had to choose between the two. Rather than choose, he split the baby in half.
January 1, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Frankly, if the ad gets any airtime, it’s hardly free … it comes with the suspicion, which is probably a lot more costly than any amount of money that running it conventionally would have cost.
Make no mistake — if you’re going to accuse him of shrewdly calculating this, then you’re going to have to consider that he (and certainly Ed Rollins) had to be smart enough to know what a backlash is. Do please consider that in your formula.
I find it profoundly unlikely that this was done completely as a stunt.
By the way … how much is the commercial actually being aired? I heard only one sentence on the radio. Since I don’t have cable, I don’t know how it’s running on TV, but I suspect that no one is seeing the whole commercial this way.
Makes it a bit unlikely that the plan was to get it aired this way, ignoring the negatives. Just working through the logic …
January 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think it was necessarily a “stunt,” but was a shrewd move to buy free air time for himself in Iowa and nationally, while not having to spend his campaign cash. He doesn’t have nearly as much as the other guys, and there probably isn’t even airtime available in the early 3 states right now.
January 2, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Wickle - so far I haven’t heard too much talk about it… I really don’t think it will have too much of an impact on the caucus tommorrow.
The people that have mentioned it are about split between the cynics and those who are not botthered… and even the cynics aren’t too bothered.
And without sugar, it doesn’t count as sweet! ;)