Skip to main content

NY-26: Corwin's new attack ad and Murphy's three videos

By Howard B. Owens

In the past, when the Jane Corwin campaign released a new commercial, they put out a press release. This new attack ad just appeared.

Ian Murphy, on the other hand, hasn't put out any press releases that I'm aware of, but he does have three videos posted on his Murphy for Congress YouTube page.

They are embedded below.  

Daniel Jones

Ian Murphy is running a joke campaign and it's a really bad joke. Anyone who writes a blog post called "F... the Troops" clearly has no understanding of American history or appreciation for those who defend our country. His presence in this race is only going to continue to make our district fodder for morning radio shows. It's a shame that the Greens wasted their endorsement on him.

http://www.buffalobeast.com/126/Fuck.the.troops.Ian.Murphy.html

(Warning: Very explicit language)

Apr 7, 2011, 12:30pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I don't think he's running a joke campaign at all. He's talking about real issues and he has stated positions on just about everything relevant to the race.

He also doesn't seem to have any interest in pretending he's not the same old Ian Murphy just so he can run a 'serious' campaign for Congress. He's having fun with it and he's addressing issues.

He was on the radio last week with Brad Riter and he performed well.

http://www.weck1230.com/briter/2011/03/riter-radio-33011/

Murphy won't get my vote, but I can't agree with the idea that he's just a goof.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:04pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Chris - This race is not a joke, this is an election for a Congressional seat, I don't want someone who incorporates a video clip from "Planet of the Apes" wasting valuable coverage for serious candidates. Murphy engages in snarky hyperbole but really offers up no practical solutions. I also cannot respect anyone who talks about the troops in the way that he does, it cries of jealousy because of the positive attention that soldiers have earned in conflict and of wanting attention.

It's one thing to have fun with it, elections should always include satire and humor....but it's totally different to base your campaign on satire alone. It's a waste of time. That's what Ian Murphy is doing in this race, wasting everyone's time.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:13pm Permalink
George Richardson

"As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible."
I really thought the United States Gorvernment had learned a lesson from Viet Nam. I was so naive then and I am in total agreement to the paragraph above as written by Ian Murphy. I wish I could vote for him, I know he would come closer to representing my beliefs than anyone else running. I'm glad he's in the race and I hope he wins. I would pray that he wins, if it wasn't such a ludicrous waste of time. But there's still that Hope and Change thing that I truly belive is right on horizon. It's happening to the Supreme Court in Wisconsin right now and the Tsunami hasn't even hit yet.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:44pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

This is another tactic mainstream political types use to marginalize third party and independent candidates -- write them off as jokes.

And typically, the institutional media, which relies on its good relationship with mainstream political types for access, go along to get along.

If you're a candidate who won't play along with the mainstream right/left ideology, if you put forward innovative ideas or thoughts that are out of vogue, then you're not to be taken seriously.

That's one of the problems, one of the big problems, with this country.

It's hardly a waste of time to listen to somebody who doesn't think like everybody else, even if the ideas remain out of vogue and even offensive, at least they challenge conventional thinking.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:24pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - Watch the above videos. He's not running a serious campaign. I'm no Jack Davis fan but he's running a serious campaign, David Bellavia was going to run a serious campaign, Ross Perot ran serious campaigns in '92 and '96. Even Nader has run serious, issue-based campaigns. Ian Murphy is the furthest thing from serious, it's not unconventional, it's just there for laughs. That's the problem.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:28pm Permalink
George Richardson

Texas would be in much better shape than it is if Richard "Kinky" Friedman had been elected the Governor of Texas four years ago. "Kinky" is a very smart and benevolent man, 10 year Governor Rick Perry is not. They spent a million bucks trying to label him as a racist Jew who hates America. He could have won, and he should have won, but people are so damn gullible.
Kinky would have done no harm and if he had played it straight he could have fooled a lot of rightwingers, but that's not Kinky.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:35pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

Dan, I'm going to disagree with you again. Murphy has positions on the issues, he also engages in satire.

He's running for office using a medium that he is familiar with and pretty good at. Just because you don't like the way he does things or the things he says doesn't mean he's not a serious candidate.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:36pm Permalink
George Richardson

Daniel, if he gets elected he'll be funny and at least twice as effective as anyone else running. Like Al Franken, Murphy is smart and if one is relying on stupid they have good reason to be afraid.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:39pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Daniel, there's a serious message to Murphy's videos. Since he has no money for production staff and relies on his own resources, his message isn't watered down by committee-think and they come off less serious because of the lack of professional production tools and experienced editing. I don't know him so can't speak for his personality, but I'd guess it's just his personality coming through in a pretty authentic way. That doesn't make it a joke or unserious in the way you mean.

This is America, man. Everybody has a right to be heard. Being serious is not a precondition to be heard or running for office (though I disagree that Murphy isn't serious).

Our ballot access laws are the real joke. They keep too many candidates who might have off-center views off ballots. It's good for democracy that the Greens weren't afraid to allow somebody like Murphy a chance to be heard.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:43pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

If I say that I'm a nuclear physicist but I just don't fit the traditional university-educated, working in the field mold, of course that would make me not a serious nuclear physicist.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:47pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

No, but the concept is the same. You can walk into a garage but that does not make you a car. Ian Murphy has not campaigned in person (as far as I know), gotten together a team for door-to-door or made videos that highlight his positions on the issues or made comparisons to other candidates. I just cannot take someone like him seriously as a candidate for Congress. His presence in this race also does not speak well for people who want to see legitimate third party political action. It makes them all seem like they are not really focused on governing, just making people laugh and think.

Apr 7, 2011, 1:52pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

He should run whatever kind of campaign he wants. This is America, man.

The concept is not the same at all. This is America, man.

We're the country of freedom, remember?

Apr 7, 2011, 1:57pm Permalink
George Richardson

"just making people laugh and think."
Making people laugh gets them to listen. Making them think spells disaster for the status quo. Think Governor Jesse Ventura and try not to think about Arnold, ever.
And yes Daniel, he is running a true left wing liberal campaign and I'm pretty damn proud of him. Listen to the first hour of the link Chris provided. In fact, you don't need to listen to it but everyone else in the district does. It's very entertaining and extremely informative on where he stands as a very serious threat to the status quo. It can happen and I hope it does.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:05pm Permalink
John Roach

Murphy said he was against the wars, OK, great. He also said "F..K the troops" and made fun of their injuries. Satire or joke? I think he was dead serious.

Where in any of the 3 videos did he say what he would do or how? Answer: Nowhere.

He has the right to run, sure, but he's a joke. He can run his campaign anyway he wants, why not?. But when he jokes about injuries to our troops and says "F" them, then watch who supports him, and don't support them either in the future.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:06pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Daniel, in respect, your comments come across as suggesting he doesn't have a right to run, or that we should all ignore him, that somehow he should be marginalized ... merely because you disagree either with who he is or how he gets his message out, or even what his message is. You're not the government, but should you set yourself up as judge and jury of another candidate's race?

If nothing else, if such ideas are expressed, for the sake of standing up for freedom, I feel obligated to address them.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:10pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

I'd have to agree with Dan, but for different reasons.

Political humor and satire makes for good press and videos. But, I am left wondering if he does have a serious side or if he is just using humor to compensate for his lack of a more serious skill set.

Can he put together a serious legislative package? Does he have the ability to engage in a serious debate on the House floor? Can he negotiate and compromise? Can he put together a plan to get things accomplished?

Unless he shows that he can in his words, writings and videos, I can't take him seriously either.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:16pm Permalink
John Roach

Howard,
The two major parties are trying to marginalize Jack Davis also. Of course, when a guy has his money that's hard to do, but you see it on the blogs.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:18pm Permalink
Brandon Burger

Howard is absolutely correct. Ian Murphy doesn't fit the traditional picture that has been created by the political establishment in this country, so he must be discounted as being not serious and - gasp - a waste of time. Ian Murphy is obviously making a statement about the current state of politics and political culture in this country. Satire and humor is a powerful tool to get your point across, especially when it comes to politics. He has definitely touched on the absurdity and hilarious nature of the race for NY 26.

If you really think this race isn't a joke, you must be a bit deluded. This is a race for the remaining term of a House seat being vacated by a do-nothing tranny-hunting millionair Congressman being contested by another vapid millionaire heiress, a well-to-do career politician who doesn't even live in the district, a nutcase millionaire who buys support in lieu of campaigning for it, and an inflammatory blogger. The race almost included a former soldier trying to achieve political success on the strength of his battlefield exploits, who - after much pomp and circumstance - forgot to sign a letter on time because he most likely accepted a shady deal that involved staying off the ballot. Whew. Serious. Really.

As for Dan's assertion that it takes some manner of technical, university-trained mastery to be a politician, I would offer that you don't need to go to Cornell to be a farmer. But, hey, I'll agree with your Nuclear Physicist analogy when you can show me an apple tree that produces carrots.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:20pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Brandon - That's not what I said. What I said was that calling yourself a candidate and being a serious candidate are two totally different things. Ian Murphy is making funny videos but isn't really putting together a serious set of legislative proposals. Perhaps after the Chris Lee debacle we should try to be a little more serious in our politics. This race has many funny components, and I'm not opposed to satire, but to make satire the entire basis for a campaign is appalling.

I also do not believe that anyone who makes fun of our troops injuries is funny, at all.

Ian Murphy appears to be running a campaign for the sake of personal vanity and notoriety rather than real policy proposals. That's why I don't think he should be viewed as a serious candidate.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:28pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

"________________appears to be running a campaign for the sake of personal vanity and notoriety rather than real policy proposals."

Fill in the blank, man. Look at Howard's poll from this morning. People think the same thing about every politician from here to San Francisco Bay.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:34pm Permalink
George Richardson

"isn't really putting together a serious set of legislative proposals"
Would you please send a link to the serious set of legislative proposals from the other three candidates? I like reading hooey.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:36pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Daniel, if you're part of one of the major political parties, the last thing you will be doing is fighting the status quo. You will be supporting and enabling it.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:36pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Dave - Yes, I agree, people who will be disruptive. People who take politics seriously enough to research the issues and come to sound conclusions and fight for them. I'm not arguing for status-quo constructs, I'm arguing for there to be *some* constructs when selecting a candidate.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:42pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Howard - I support people who oppose the traditional line of thinking, like Rose Mary Christian and Bill Cox. I also oppose people in my own party who I disagree with that are part of the problem, like Speaker Sheldon Silver. (edited to remove unnecessary snark :))

Apr 7, 2011, 2:52pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Unfortunately, most of the sheeple voters in the 26th district as well as every other district in the country just vote for whoever is their party's candidate, or who has the best ad or who someone they think is smart told them to vote for. Not many people actually know what any candidate's platform is anyway. You, I and the other commenters on this site may research, but not most folks.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:48pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

I'd say the proof is in the pudding here. A conversation about Murphy turned in to a conversation about the type of politician we want, why we vote and what we think of the current state of affairs in the 26th. However we arrived there, it sounds serious to me.

Apr 7, 2011, 2:59pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I was thinking the same thing, Chris. Whether it's Murphy's intention or not, his presence does challenge us to think about the current state of affairs in politics. Based on what little I've seen of him so far, I'm betting he would be happy with those results.

Apr 7, 2011, 3:07pm Permalink
Tom Guentner

Ian, if you happen to be reading any of this do yourself a favor & do one serious video telling us what you plan to do & how you'd go about implementing your ideas. Give the people what they want. Show that the common man isn't a joke, but a force to be reckoned with. You've got our attention with the humor, now show us what you can really do. Good Luck Man...........

Apr 8, 2011, 7:38am Permalink

Authentically Local