Ed's note: This post was orginally titled "I Buy My Boxers At K-Mart." The name had to be changed though, when an otherwise light-hearted poke at political ads took a turn for the serious when I discovered a new, lying television spot against Prop. 77.
Oh my god, Judge Wapner is urging us to vote no on 77. At the end of the commercial, they loop him saying "no on 77" so fast even Rainman's jaw would slacken in awe.
Wapner says judges like shouldn't make law unsupervised in back rooms.
Judge Wapner has been out of law school too long.
And voters who believe that unsupervised judicial decision making DOESN'T go on far, far from public sight should immediately - oh hell, I don't even know what they should do, but seriously, can we get and stay a tad real here?
I know, I know - It's asking too much.
Dear No on Prop. 77 people: ooh, you had to push it, didn't you. Now it's a draw on who has the dumber commercial. The Yes side narrowly - and I mean narrowly - beats you. But you both suck. And that's my highbrow analysis for today.
WAIT - NEVERMIND! The No Side has just moved ahead for airing the most DECEPTIVE and MISLEADING ad of the election season thus far (or at least the most deceptive and misleading one on a topic I've been following closely). It's also ballsy as all sh*t for calling 77 the "politicians' power grab." (by the way - as I'm watching the quicktime here, I'm seeing that idiotic old woman ad on TV. I'm being double teamed by advocacy organizations I don't even think I can keep straight, and I'm paying attention).
So a proposal that takes power FROM elected politicians is a power grab by . . . politicians?
But wait, the ad says it gives power to unelected judges. Are elected politicians good guys or bad guys, No on 77?
And guess what - though federal judges can toss their hats in the ring, saying that judges - period, with no exception - aren't elected by the people and aren't accountable to the people is a lie. A bald-faced lie. It is wrong. It is misleading and deceptive and you, No on 77 campaign, should be ashamed of yourselves.
We don't even need to reach your inexcusable race baiting.
Shame! Shame on you Californians for Fair Representation. I don't care who funds you or how much I should shut up on the direct attacks of the politics behind the propositions - this is inexcusable.
Thanks to the legally required fine print, there's the added irony that one of the funds paying for this ad is called the "Voter Education & Registration Fund." Voter Education? What are you teaching them?
I haven't seen this air on television yet, but even if it doesn't reach anyone's eyes via the tube, it is still shameful just existing and being available on-line.
Way to go, guys. Really well-played. The No side's tagline reads Don't play political games with the Constitution.
While we're at it, how about we not play fast and loose with the truth, either.
Update: Before I even had a chance to click Publish, the ad aired on television here in a slightly altered form. The visuals may be slightly different, but the narration is word-for-word what you'll find via the above link: just as shameful, but without the slightly clever Texas allusion.
Update 2: When I goof, I cop to it. A commenter below rightly called out my obvious mistake and highlighted yet another reason it is smart to institute a blogger curfew. Prop. 77 judges are retired judges. So no elections for them. I was wrong. However, in the grand tradition of legal opinions that waste your time for 20 pages just to say "but this argument doesn't hold up, nevermind, on to argument 2," I will punt to the next way in which the ad lies: prop. 77 requires voter approval.
Is that requirement still stupid? Yes. But it exists, dammit, so unless you'd rather swap true voter responsiveness for "Accoutability = vengence against judges," don't discount the black letter provisions.
My goof leads nicely back into the idea of judges as representatives, however. The racial overtones of the spot, as well as much commentary, focuses on the inability of old, white judges to represent a diverse state. Judges should represent the law, not any particular person or group of persons. Following that, judges themeselves shouldn't be "accountable," their decisions and plans, however, should be and, in fact, are.
Did I regain any ground with that chutes & ladders backtrack? I think you have to give me a bit of credit. I was wrong on one point, but the other legs still stand, and the problems with the add have more than just 2 or 3 legs. We're talking squid level here. Giant squid even. Of course, so does the proposition.