Monday, August 30, 2010

Somebody else probably thought of this first, but

It occurred to me this morning. The key thing about the scurrilous ads that Mark Dayton has subcontracted Alliance for a Better Minnesota is this: the attacks on Emmer have more to do with Dayton's flaws than Emmer's. The two best examples:
  • If you keep hammering Emmer about drunk driving arrests from 20 and 30 years ago, it makes it more difficult for Emmer's campaign to mention that Dayton's problems with the bottle are far more extensive, and far more recent, than anything Emmer has faced.
  • If you hammer Emmer about missing votes in the Legislature (side note: how many votes did Barack Obama miss while he was running for president?), it makes it far more difficult for Emmer's campaign to mention that Dayton shut down his offices in 2004.

You have to give the Dayton people credit for figuring that out.


Anonymous said...

On the literal "tit for tat" I would argue that is easyier to bang on Mark Dayton, for his more recent relapses what meds he takes to control is various mental illnesses, does he often lock his dogs in overheated cars in the hot summer. And the grand champion, the only Senator to close his office due to Fear -- not exibitinng streatgh or power, follow me "I will Lead"

Anonymous said...

Let Dayton go mow Former Senator Chaudhury's lawn, because the Senator is a short on fund this year and may have had to cancel is lawn service.

Bike Bubba said...

So Emmer can't make valid criticism because Dayton makes absurd claims? Huh? Help me out here.

Mr. D said...

Of course he can make valid criticisms, BB. In fact, he'd be remiss if he didn't. What made Dayton's gambit smart is that Emmer will be perceived as saying "yeah, so's your mother" because the electorate will associate Dayton's actual sins with Emmer's imaginary ones.

It doesn't take the criticisms off the table so much as it blunts them in advance. Dayton's goons were smart to recognize that. That's all I'm really saying.