CA-04: Corrupt or Ineffective?

It's very exciting when you see Congressional campaigns using frames that have been floating around the blogosphere for some time. I have read so many posts that paint the picture of Republicanism in the age of Bush as a bipolar question: they're either completely incompetent or they're making it LOOK like they're incompetent so they can steal. It's the "stupid or lying" argument.

Now, Fighting Dem Charlie Brown has internalized this central critique of the entire Republican Party, focused it on his opponent John Doolittle, and manifested it in the new website Corruptorineffective.com.

The site has two columns and basically poses a central question: is John Doolittle corrupt? Or is he ineffective? And there are several examples to bolster either argument.

For example, Doolittle took a hundred grand from Jack Abramoff, who he still considers a "good friend". Corrupt. But Doolittle also has stood by idly while the national debt surged, port and border security has not improved from its disastrous state and dependence on foreign oil remains troublingly the same. Ineffective.

Every argument in the election, every reason not to return John Doolittle to Congress, can be neatly tossed into these two boxes. Many bloggers have discussed the value of narrative in these political races. With this site, Brown completely defines his opponent, and tells a little story about him that gives two concrete narrative frames through which to view the campaign.

There's even a little poll where you can vote for "corrupt" or "ineffective." This site comes with a companion radio spot, the second time the Brown campaign has done this (they released Doolittle Facts along with a spot about Doolittle's CNMI connections earlier).

I don't think there's another campaign that I've seen that is as innovative with using the Web to set the narrative as the Brown campaign. That's why, in a very gerrymandered state, Charlie Brown has the best opportunity to flip a seat in California. And with more touches like "Corrupt or Ineffective," I think he's going to do it.

Other campaigns need to learn by example. Essentially, corrupt or ineffective could be applied to HUNDREDS of Republican candidates. It works great for someone so tied to Abramoff like Doolittle, but there are plenty more like him in Congress. It's a powerful argument that gives your opponent nowhere to turn. You're either corrupt, or ineffective. No answer can be satisfactory. Both answers demand the call for new leadership. It's absolutely brilliant.

Call your local race and ask them to come up with something like "Corrupt or Ineffective."