|
The Candidate: Senator Susan Collins (R), incumbent U.S. Senator running for a third term against First District Congressman Tom Allen (D).
Ad title: "A Time for Bipartisanship"
Length: 30 Seconds
Produced by: McCarthy, Marcus, and Hennings, LTD, based in Washington, D.C. |
Narrator: |
It’s a time for bipartisanship. America faces a grave threat to our financial system. |
On the Screen: |
“Wall Street Drops at Open”
“Can We Avert Financial Crisis?”
|
Narrator: |
In dealing with this crisis, Susan Collins has been guided by three principals: strong protections for taxpayers and homeowners, curbs on excessive executive pay, and tough oversight. While Susan works for a bipartisan solution, Tom Allen launched a new attack ad against her. That’s not leadership. Susan Collins, an independent voice for Maine. |
Collins: |
I’m Susan Collins and I approve this message
|
 |
|
MPBN's Barbara Cariddi researched the claims made in this political advertisement by incumbent U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R) in her campaign for a third term against First District Congressman Tom Allen (D). |
“It’s a time for bipartisanship. America faces a grave threat to our financial system.” |
At a time when polls show Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the country is at an all-time low, Senator Susan Collins is wise to attempt to distance herself from the Republican administration at the helm. The overwhelming concern of Americans is the economy, so it makes sense for Collins to try to convince Maine voters that she won’t necessarily go along with the Bush administration when it comes to solving the nation’s economic crisis.
But this poses challenges for Collins, considering that she voted in favor of the Bush administration’s three major tax cut packages in 2001, 2003 and 2006. Whether the tax cuts have led to the current crisis is debatable, but Collins’ support for them down the line makes it difficult for her to distance herself from the Bush administration’s fiscal policies and cast herself as bipartisan on economic issues. By contrast, her Republican Senate colleague Olympia Snowe voted against the last two of the three major Bush tax cut plans.
Collins also supported two Republican-sponsored measures many economic analysts cite as major factors behind the current crisis, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (more on those below) both sponsored by former Republican Senator Phil Gramm. But so did her Democratic opponent Tom Allen.
|
| “Susan Collins has been guided by three principals: strong protections for taxpayers and homeowners, curbs on excessive executive pay, and tough oversight.” |
|
| "While Susan works for a bipartisan solution, Tom Allen launched a new attack ad against her." |
The "attack" ad in question, examined in detail here earlier, alleges that "Susan Collins supported 100% of the Bush economic policies that hurt Maine and created a national crisis." This is a vague assertion, but whether it constitutes an "attack" is questionable. The ad doesn't clarify what's meant by "Bush economic policies," let alone which of these policies might have hurt Maine. The Allen campaign cites Collins' support for President Bush's tax cut measures enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2006. While many economists agree that the Bush administration's tax cuts have contributed to the federal budget deficit and the gargantuan national debt, few believe they are the main cause of the current financial crisis.
Instead, many analysts blame lax financial regulation and a lack of oversight of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Allen voted in favor of a measure introduced in 2005 to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it's not known how Susan Collins would have voted on a Senate version of the bill because it died in the Senate Banking Committee. Collins and Allen both voted for two measures often cited as major contributors to the current crisis: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which removed barriers between investment and commercial banks, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (included in a federal appropriations bill) that allowed stocks to be traded like commodiites. Both were signed into law by President Clinton. |
“Susan Collins, an independent voice for Maine.”
|
The Collins campaign is using the word “independent” in a deliberate effort to distance the Republican candidate from her own party. In fact, the ad avoids any mention of the word "Republican." That's no surprise. This is a tough year for GOP candidates. President George Bush has achieved a polling milestone, winning the lowest approval ratings of his Presidency and nearly the lowest presidential performance ratings that Gallup has ever recorded. Moreover, Collins is a Republican in a state that hasn't voted for a GOP Presidential candidate since 1988. And with the economy now in tatters under Bush's stewardship, Collins' attempt to distance herself from her party is a reasonable strategy.
But how "independent" is Collins when it comes to her voting record? She’s often worked across party lines on legislation, but the Allen campaign claims that Collins has voted with the Bush administration 81 percent of the time. Allen's campaign spokeswoman Carol Andrews attributes that figure to the Congressional Quarterly. But in its so-called “party loyalty” ratings, CQ claims that Collins went along with the GOP only 50 percent of the time in 2007, and 66 percent of the time in 2006. |
 |
Ron Schmidt
University of Southern Maine
- Associate Professor of Political Science
- Specialties: Political Theory, Racial and Ethnic Politics and Urban Politics.
|
The narrator of Susan Collins' new ad, "A Time for Bipartisanship, states that challenger Tom Allen has "launched a new attack ad against Collins." The spot seems to be an explicit rejoinder to Allen's ad, "Worst." The content of the spot suggests that Allen's challenge to Collins' profile as an apolitical public servant is being taken very seriously by the incumbent.
"Bipartisanship," from its title to the images of Collins leading an intense discussion at a roundtable, suggests that she is a coalition builder and problem-solver, and works to distance her from the current "grave threat to our financial system," and the party and administration associated with it. Images of Collins in meetings with the same circle of relatively elderly people are juxtaposed to slow-motion images of a (literally finger-pointing) Allen as well as to what appear to be financial executives, whispering in each other's ears as the narrator speaks of the Senator's commitment to restraining "excessive executive pay." The footage of her opponent is thus framed with images of the sort of unregulated Wall Street businessmen that Allen associates with Collins in his recent ad. The narrator sums up the spot's argument by referring to the senator as "an independent voice for Maine," reiterating the positioning of her as someone who is not, as Allen's ad suggests, a reliable member of the Bush Administration's governing coalition. In fact, the senator's membership in the Republican Party itself is not mentioned.
"A Time for Bipartisanship" is extremely clear in the presentation of its message: that the senator is a non-ideological advocate for Maine, and not, as her opponent claims, a partisan legislator who would,therefore, bear some responsibility for the nation's current financial crisis. Collins' website is less responsive to Allen's charges, and is less clear than her ad, however. No sources are given for the claims made in the ad, nor is there any production information about it. Indeed, during the ad itself, no specific bipartisan legislation is cited. This is a problem for a spot that seeks to highlight the incumbent's record.
|
 |
Amy Fried
University of Maine
- Associate Professor of Political Science
- Associate Dean for Research in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
|
This ad from the Collins campaign focuses on the financial crisis, an important issue about which voters are concerned. It attempts to do three things in a very short period of time. Two messages are about Senator Collins and her stance and positions, while the third is a criticism of her opponent, Representative Allen. One of the positive messages is a statement of commitment to bipartisanship. The other positive message is a presentation of three principles that guided Senator Collins in her support of legislation to deal with the crisis. These comments offer valuable information about Senator Collins's views. Allen is criticized for launching “a new attack ad” against Collins during the crisis. When the ad turns from presenting information about Collins to criticizing Allen, the color palette becomes less vibrant and the images are more washed out and carry a visual message of concern and even threat.
It is not at all unusual to combine an attack and a positive message in one advertisement. However, the particular mixture here does not work as an argument. Allen is not criticized for his policy positions and, in fact, since he voted the same way as Collins on the bailout bill, that criticism cannot be offered. Instead, Allen is criticized simply for having run an ad taking issue with her positions during this time of crisis. If this were the criteria governing acceptable political advertisements, no candidate could criticize another during rough times. Yet it is precisely during times of crisis when Americans must think hard and well about policy differences. The ad would have been more effective a tool for civic decision-making if it had simply focused on the views of Senator Collins or, better yet, identified a distinction between the policy stances of Collins and Allen.
|
|
Support for Your Vote 2008 has been provided, in part, by:
|
|
