Commercials galore!

Well, we're 30-some hours from Primary Day in Alabama.

My television viewing breaks down to about 80 percent CNN, 10 percent American Idol, House and NASCAR on Fox, 5 percent Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond reruns on TBS and 5 percent ESPN/Speed Channel/random old movies (Major League, anyone?) on Bravo and AMC.

So that should tell you why, until tonight, I had yet to see any of the much-ballyhooed television commercials for any of our state and local races. I guess those candidates don't have the money -- or the need -- to get out on CNN.

But as it turns out, I wasn’t missing much. Here’s a roundup of what I saw during the 11 p.m. news hour on WSFA tonight, along with my take on the spots:

Not surprisingly, CD-2 commercials led the pack, with three candidates of the Republican field on the air.

Dothan doctor Craig Schmidtke, basically a self-funded candidate, is apparently sparing no expense in his unlikely run for the GOP nomination. I saw three separate Schmidtke spots during the 50-or-so minutes I was watching the news (I spent the first 10 desperately trolling for something – anything – else to watch, since Rick Sanchez was on CNN and I avoid him like the plague). One of those spots appeared twice.

First up was an attack on State Sen. Harri Anne Smith for skipping several debates (I think the voiceover said 14) during the campaign. “WASHINGTON CAN’T AFFORD A CONGRESSMAN WHO’S MISSING IN ACTION,” the foreboding narrator growled. “I’ll be there,” Schimidtke goofily pledged, looking about as relaxed as a 2-by-4. This was the spot that appeared twice over the 50 minutes.

Next up was a completely unintelligible spot on national security. I think the idea was to have someone with military cachet lend Schmidtke some credibility on military and national security issues. The endorser, a combat veteran (didn’t catch all of it; I was trying to figure out what he had to do with Schmidtke) said some stuff about national security, they showed a picture of Ronald Reagan (and maybe even said something about Reagan Democrats; I can’t remember) and the candidate was all, “I’ll take care of the terrorists,” or something like that. Um, OK.

The third commercial in the Schmidtke series was the funniest (and by funniest, I mean most bizarre). The uptight doctor was planted behind some random podium, speaking and gesturing like he was giving a speech – which he obviously wasn’t, because at the end, he looked up and delivered the “I’m-Craig-Schmidtke-and-I-approved-this-message” line right into the camera. He was speaking about traditional Republican issues: Basically, what I got from it was that he was trying to convince you that he is the reddest red Republican in the entire red, red state. Did I mention red? And was that Muzak in the background, or the melody from my daughter’s jewelry box in the background?

Having seen all three of those ads, I realized why Schmidtke may be able to make so many of them and run them so often: He couldn’t have paid much for them. And if he did, he got fleeced.

If I had to sum up Schmidtke’s ads in one word, I would call the whole bunch goofy. He came off as more of a cartoon-like character than a credible congressional candidate.

Up next was State Rep. Jay Love, who wanted to tell me all about meeting his wife in his (Subway) sandwich shop. “As soon as I made her a sandwich, I knew …” How? Because she elected to go with the peppers or forego the onions? That hokey, gratuitously gooey piece out of the way, Love’s ad was the closest to standard Republican fare – both in terms of content and quality – of any of the bunch. It looked the most professional and had the best script (and I am speaking strictly from a political, not a personal, perspective). You had all the GOP elements: “I’m a dad first,” we need Christians in Congress, I’m a family guy, I’m a businessperson, etc. Right out of the playbook.

One word to describe Love’s piece, which I saw three times over the 50 minutes: Conventional.

And then we have the piece from State Sen. Harri Anne Smith. Smith seemed to be running more for First Place Immigrant Hater than for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat. Smith’s ad opened with her talking about pressing one for English, etc. “I don’t want to hear this, and neither do you,” she says. She adds something about how English is (or should be? I wasn’t clear on what she said) our national language, then ramped up the anti-immigrant rhetoric. “What part of illegal don’t they understand?” she says. She’s obviously targeting the low-hanging fruit with this one-dimensional ad.

What I found funny about it was that it was the first time I’ve heard Harri Anne Smith speak. Now, don’t be offended by what I’m about to say. My dad is originally from Columbus, Ga., and he still has his distinctive Georgia accent, which I love. But here’s Harri Anne Smith, talking about how English is/should be the national language, and I am having a hard time understanding what she’s saying about English being the national language. I guarantee you that if she gets to Congress and gets put on a committee with members from BAH-sten or Wis-CAHN-sin or Meye-AH-mee, it will become necessary for congressional staff to provide regional translators.

Anyway, Smith’s ad was another one straight out of the RNC playbook: Blame immigrants. Blame immigrants. Fearmonger, and blame immigrants. (And no, I don’t believe in open borders, in case you’re wondering.) I wonder how the poultry producers and ag industries in this state are receiving this spot?

One word to describe Smith’s ad: Yawn.

Democratic congressional candidate Cheryl Sabel got in to the act in one of the truly original ads I have ever seen. It wasn’t original so much in its message as in its tone. Sabel is incontrovertibly and unapologetically LI-BER-AL; beyond not minding if you know it, she wants to tell you all about it. She is the “only candidate in District 2 not offering more of the same," she says.

The war in Iraq, she says right off the bat, “must end, now.” She calls herself “pro-choice, pro-union Democrat” who is “the real Democrat, and the clear choice for positive change.”

Sabel’s insistence that she is the “real Democrat” is obviously a swipe at Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright, who has said that Alabama Republican state officials tried to convince him to run as a Republican. (GOP officials deny Bright’s claim.) But Sabel – who is the president of the Alabama chapter of the National Organization for Women – apparently doesn’t realize that she’s out of the mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat, of the Second Congressional District.

No, scratch that … it’s not that she doesn’t realize it. It’s that she doesn’t care.

But you’ve got to admire her chutzpah, going on the road and telling all those Alabamians that their values are the wrong ones.

One (hyphenated) word for Sabel’s ad: Self-injurious.

And that brings us to what is Tuesday’s second-hottest race: Stephanie Bell vs. Skip Smithwick for State Board of Education.

I saw Stephanie Bell's commercial first. It was straightforward, simple, clean and direct. Whoever produced it had a good mix of script and display words to emphasize that script. “Reform” is what stuck with me through the narrative. I also thought it was a good strategic decision to mention allegations that her opponent is a former Democrat who is in the race as an AEA puppet, sent to unseat Bell as one step toward overturning the double-dipping ban instituted by the SBOE last year.

The spot's producers won't win any campaign advertising awards with this one, but perhaps they should: If Bell can fight off Smithwick in the face of a staggering financial deficit (campaign finance reports last week showed Smithwick to have raised 38 times more money than Bell), she'll owe her victory in at least some measure to this spot.

Bell’s ad in one word: Solid.

Skip Smithwick’s spot followed either right after Bell’s or shortly thereafter, but during the same break. It was the first time I had seen Smithwick. The spot itself had an ominous, almost menacing tone to it, and it attacked Bell and the Board as a whole more than it offered information about Smithwick. That’s always a red flag for me. Politicians like to talk about themselves. A lot. So if you ever find one who has more to say about his opponent than himself, heads up: Something’s awry.

I didn’t really follow all the charges made by the Smithwick ad, but I did pick up something along the lines of an allegation of corruption and mismanagement against some board of education (whether it was the state board or an earlier board on which Bell sat, I don’t know). But whatever the reference, in light of the backstory that AEA seems to be funding Smithwick’s campaign (he denies it), I found it amusing, in an unbelieving sort of way, that Smithwick would bring up anything having to do with corruption and mismanagement.

“Hello, kettle? This is Pot. You’re black.”

Here’s what I don’t understand about this approach: If Smithwick really isn’t an AEA pawn, as he claims he is not, then why would he parrot AEA talking points in his ad? Why not talk about himself – introduce himself, share his ideas – rather than serve as the mouthpiece for an organization you supposedly aren’t affiliated with?

Smithwick wraps the spot with a direct appeal for voters’ support. “We can do better, we have to do better, our kids deserve better,” he says.

One word for Smithwick’s spot: Counterproductive.

I saw two other spots:

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Place 2 candidate Mary Windom had some generic spot that talked about getting tough on crime and showed her walking with her husband and her dog. I learned nothing about her from this plain, vanilla spot.

In a word: Forgettable.

Finally, we have Montgomery County Commission Chairman Reed Ingram, who appears late in a spot mostly starring his friends and colleagues.

I understand the idea behind the spot: Let other people brag on him. (Lieutenant governor candidate Luther Strange used this concept in a good spot in 2006. Remember “Big Luther?” But it wasn’t enough to beat the Folsom name.) But I came away from it feeling that they could have incorporated more people in the spot if they had condensed the talking points a bit. The first guy, speaking with his family at his side, talked for probably 10 to 12 seconds of the 30-second spot. Translated into dollars per second, those are some expensive lines.

The other component was the identification of the “working” designation to Ingram. “Reed Ingram, your working commissioner,” or something like that.

Overall, I thought it was OK. I’ve seen worse – much worse – from spots for local races.

One word: Sufficient.

What do you guys think? Surely you've seen some of these ads. What works? What doesn't? And what would constitute a great political ad, in your estimation?