Adam Schwartzbaum's Blog

The In-Specter

That Specter-Toomey ad: Point by point

In a clear sign of the high stakes of Pat Toomey’s primary challenge to Specter, the Senator launched this campaign ad—which he was later forced to tweak after FactCheck.org pointed out some problems—before Toomey had even thrown his hat in the ring. A frame-by-frame analysis of this ad is quite revealing, because it demonstrates the sharp political acumen – and substantial marketing talent – Specter has riding behind him, as I believe the ad makes a remarkably effective negative attack on Toomey without seeming overly provocative, derisive, or underhanded. Specter, a former prosecutor, does a great job of laying out “the case against Pat Toomey,” in a way reminiscent of his work in the courtroom decades ago.

Let’s start at the top. The ad opens with the typical voice-over from the candidate—“I’m Arlen Specter, and I approve this message”—a ubiquitous rejoinder that the FCC now requires to accompany every political advertisement. I think this has actually been a very positive innovation, because it forces candidate to put their own name and face behind every ad they put out, making them own up to any deceptive or sneaky attack ads that they might rather put out without an “official” endorsement from the candidate. The best ads find a seamless way to work this message into their ads. In the last presidential campaign, Barack Obama often smoothly worked it into his ads, often speaking the line directly into the camera—“I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message because . . .”—and then delivering his message directly to the audience. More often than not, John McCain’s more ineffectual ads ended with a picture of him heroically staring off into the distance, the approval line sounding behind it, often totally disconnected from the ad that came before it. Arlen Specter takes a good approach here. As his voice is heard in the background saying the approval line, we see him in his office, looking Senatorial, serious, and capable, taking a document from a staffer by a light filled window, then writing something seriously in a formidable study that suggests permanence and strength of purpose. The wall of books behind him conveys intelligence and breadth of knowledge. Most importantly, these wide, slightly out of focus glamour shots serve to sharply contrast with the crabbed, petulant looking videos of Toomey’s face about to come.

We quickly move to the opponent. The screen goes harshly white, suggesting that a kind of prosecutorial scrutiny is about to be applied by the lawyerly Specter. Atop the screen comes the name “Pat Toomey,” and we immediately know that this ad is going to be all about the opponent – helping define him in the public eye before he has a chance to define himself. Pay close attention to the very effective visual tools the ad employs throughout this clip. There will never be more than these two boxes in the upper right hand corner to have to look at. This gives the ad an uncluttered, focused feel, that makes the precisely chosen pictures and videos that appear seem like piece of evidence in Specter’s case against the defendant Toomey. We also see the beginning of Specter’s attempt to create a narrative structure to define Toomey’s life. First, he is presented as “Wall Street,” funneling the populist rage currently gripping the country in this economic crisis. Toomey is presented as a creature of this system of gambling and greed.

Next, we’re told that Toomey sold risky derivatives called credit default swaps: most of us don’t know what they really are, but we know they’re bad (these exact swaps actually hadn’t been invented yet when Toomey was on Wall Street, one of the changes Specter’s campaign made to the ad later). A video of money being pushed across the table plays in place of Toomey’s face, connecting him to the culture of easy money changing hands from one wall street trader to another. Moreover, the word “RISKY” splashes onto the screen in red capital letters, with a boom sounding in the background. This visual is strikes an emotional chord with the viewer, and helps cement the idea that Toomey was one of “them” that you can’t trust.

This next part of the ad continues to selectively tell Toomey’s life story by portraying his time in Congress as an extension of his work on behalf of the financial industry. Now the pictures are of the Capitol building and of incompetent looking Wall Street executives testifying before Congress. The words “fought for LESS oversight of Wall Street” blare across the bottom of the screen, with another big bold boom accentuating the most important point: that Toomey is a special-interest-driven Wall Street fat-cat, who is running for Senate in order to enrich himself and his cronies.

Now, Specter makes the sophisticated move of highlighting his moderate economic credentials. He brings attention to Toomey’s support of privatizing Social Security in a glaring light, with the word GAMBLE slamming across the screen in an almost terrifying red. This is the climax of the ad. The boxes on the top right are the most pointed yet, with Wall Street traders worriedly staring at a declining stock ticker while a pair of dice roll across a stack of cash. The implication is that Toomey will gamble away our future for the benefit of the few.

Finally, the ad goes in for the kill. As Toomey’s face comes up once again blabbering in black and white, an empty seat appears beside him, while the voice over says Toomey want a “BONUS.” This unmistakably references the much-reviled bonuses recently awarded to AIG and other Wall Street executives, despite their risky management that has gambled with our country’s economy. Again, the implication is that Toomey is one of them: a self-seeking, underperforming, out-of-touch plutocrat who wants a seat in the US Senate in order to fulfill his own radical agenda.

The final picture ends with a close-up of the empty chair, reminiscent of the one we saw Arlen Specter sitting in at the beginning of the ad. A voice-over continues the question from before, “Now, he wants a BONUS, a seat in the US Senate.” It leaves this question hanging in the air: “Should we let him have it?” Rather than banging the viewer over the head with the message— don’t vote for Toomey—the ad concludes in the same prosecutorial vein by presenting the question to us, the “jury,” who has the liberty to make our own judgment. Like a good prosecutor, Specter leads the jury toward the inevitable conclusion that Toomey is guilty of a radical, narrow agenda that will sacrifice the majority of hard-working Pennsylvanians on the altar of the unstable financial markets. He presents Toomey’s life as a long succession of acts the reinforce one another, leading to this inevitable conclusion. Right or wrong, it’s a remarkably effective attack, and shows once again why Arlen Specter still has the political savvy to surprise us and maybe even beat the odds in this challenging race.