We have all seen plenty of negative political ads over the years. We are used to seeing politicians attack each other. But this is the first time I have seen a candidate for office "go negative" on the voters in her own district.
You may have read in the Star Tribune about the controversy over Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's apparent flip-flop on the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment that increased the sales tax by a tiny 3/8% and was overwhelmingly passed by Minnesota voters in 2008. During that election season, she told a gathering of sportsmen at the Game Fair that she supported the measure. Now she says she never did.
Flip-flops are not uncommon in politics, but this one is generating heat because Bachmann's entire campaign is built on her opponent's support of the measure. Her now famous "Jim - The Election Guy" ads, which feature an actor from California telling you that Tarryl Clark loves to tax corn dogs, rely on Clark's support of the Amendment to make all of their claims. If Bachmann also supported it....well, that's like flushing a multi-million dollar ad campaign down the toilet. Given the fact that the amendment's tax increase adds less than 2 cents to the cost of a State Fair Corn Dog, wasting all that ad money would clearly be the tragedy in this equation.
But here is the part I don't get. By going negative on her opponent for supporting the Clean Water Amendment, Bachmann is also going negative on the 53% of her constituents who also voted for the amendment. That's not just a majority, it's 30,000 more voters than supported Bachmann in the same election. I am not an expert, but I have never seen a politician get elected by campaigning against the people in her district. I am sure that "Jim - The Election Guy" will explain it all very soon.
