Not having paid much attention to the 42A campaign, I nonetheless have an armchair analysis:
The rightish national mood turned out to have a pronounced local manifestation, beefed up with an intense anti-Ruud drumbeat on the local paper's letters page.
From the perspective of the Ruud campaign strategist--putting oneself back into the frame of mind of some months ago: 'What are our options?'
A) We can respond to the various charges and tar our opponent as 'being negative'; or
B) We can speak persuasively about our candidate's identity, record and program and/or decide upon an analysis of our opponent and attack him relentlessly for the shortcomings we identify.
Team Ruud made the error of relying excessively on A. Even this morning--four days after the election--Ruud's website says:
"My opposition [OMG!] has chosen to run a negative campaign and distort my record. The direct mail pieces and robo-calls you may have received and the television ads you may have seen are filled with half-truths, information taken out of context and errors of omission."
The paragraph above reveals a rattled psychic state: If I am the opponent, I cannot help but note that I have succeeded in getting under the incumbent's skin--and (as any devoted chess player will admit) that doesn't make me feel one bit guilty.
A portion of the liberal public has been under a dumb misapprehension, lately--that 'negative campaigning' is categorically immoral. It's a pat, prudish viewpoint, designed to convince its adherent of his own ethical purity--but the stance is not in fact philosophically convincing.
When in politics you make sincere, credible, rational attacks against the character, party or program of your opponent, the public is unfazed. Among many 42A citizens, Kirk Stensrud was perceived to be lobbing reasonable, fair attacks against the incumbent.
The incumbent responded with petulance, as can be observed in the quotation above. On the central 'taxation' and 'big-spending' charges--Ruud failed to take the focus back onto her opponent's shortcomings, or persuade people that economic growth was uppermost among her priorities.
When attacked we too often seek justification for classifying the challenge as below-the-belt. In day-to-day living, we observe most people's default response to any personal or ideological challenge: to play the scandalized traditionalist.
But if in private life one can extricate one's arse from challenges (even legitimate ones) with a tilted neck and the back of one's hand on one's forehead--one can't get away with such conduct in the political world, in which a gallery is keeping score.
The reactive, 'hurt' response to the Stansrud challenge harmed Ruud's prospects further. Ruud had to articulate hard-hitting, persuasive slams against Stensrud while projecting self-confidence and equanimity. Instead, she appeared hurt as she implied she should be considered above criticism.
**
I offer the views above in good faith and with this caveat: I have myself sought political office on several occasions--and have achieved electoral results considerably worse than anything Maria Ruud has ever feared.**
I just noticed Jill Clayburgh's passing--and so pulled up the actress' New York Times' obituary. And I was surprised to see the article's jarringly clichéd lede:Jill Clayburgh, an Oscar-nominated actress known for portraying strong, independent women, died on Friday at her home in Lakeville, Conn. She was 66.The assumption that a satifactorily 'progressive' actress must seek out roles as strong, independent women is getting quite old, isn't it? I mean, the notion is simply stupid, isn't it?
