Ads may be over the top

A new ad attacking Rep. Marilyn Musgrave features a pink-suited woman flitting into a fiery battle and taking money out of a soldier's wallet.

"Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave claims nobody supports our troops more than she does, but she voted to slash veterans' benefits by $14 billion," the narrator of the ad says.

The television ad, which started Sunday, is second in a series in which a pink-clad actress portrays Musgrave. Political science professors observing the race warn that the ads may be so over the top that they harm Musgrave's Democratic opponent, Stan Matsunaka.

The new ad also says Musgrave voted against a $1,500 bonus for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ad was sponsored by Colorado Families First, headed by former Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Tim Knaus.

Guy Short, Musgrave's volunteer campaign spokesman, said that she did vote against the $1,500 bonus, but supported a $2,700 pay raise for all troops in combat zones.

"Only funny math from the Democrats could take a 15 percent increase and turn it into a cut," said Short.

Knaus said voters in the 4th Congressional District were polled in advance of the ad on the two votes and "people in the district are furious. The response on the $1,500 bonus was off the charts."

The vote on the bonus contributed to a 213-213 deadlock on House Resolution 3289, so soldiers serving where most casualties have occurred didn't get a bonus, said Knaus.

He said that while the veterans' benefits did increase, they now have to pay more to enroll for health benefits and pay twice as much on drug co-payments.

Knaus said another anti-Musgrave ad, funded by Colorado Families First, will run in October. He declined to discuss the ad.

A previous ad showed the pink-suited woman snatching a watch off a corpse. That spot was critical of Musgrave's voting record on nursing homes while she was a state senator.

Matsunaka said he wasn't involved in either TV spot, didn't contribute to them and wasn't notified.

"I only had one e-mail on the coffin ad. It was from a man in Colorado Springs," said Matsunaka. "He said he wasn't going to vote for me. I said that was fine."

But Matsunaka is concerned about a backlash from voters who assume he backed the ads.

"You always worry about it when people run an ad you don't know about and how it will affect your campaign," he said. "So far it hasn't, but you worry."

Political science professors Steve Mazurana at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley and John Straayer at Colorado State University in Fort Collins said the ads could cause problems.

"Polls show Matsunaka running close and those kind of ads are not helpful to his campaign," said Mazurana.

"The ads portray a hawk as a hawk who wants to do it on the stingy side and put soldiers' lives at risk," he said. "It's not helpful for him, even though he had nothing to do with it."

"Most of the time when candidates put an ad together, they are sure what the effect will be," he said. "It backfires when the ad is extreme or over the top in terms of taste."

"Only funny math from the Democrats could take a 15 percent increase and turn it into a cut," said Short."

LOL! Afterall, they are the ones who years ago invented the new math.

The article could certainly be more clear and up front (first paragraph) about who is attacking who. Usual protocol is to identify party affiliation the first time the name is used in the article. They left party affiliation off until later in the article, and even then it was somewhat convaluted, especially given that it is typically R's attacking D's for being weak on military matters.

3 posted on 09/29/2004 4:05:21 PM PDT by blanknoone ("New Media? Is that somewhere in Jersey?" Dan Rather aka Dem Blather)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.