Dems should be happy that Ted Nugent is on the Republicans' side

The goal of a campaign is to win an election.  Truth and honesty can be a part of the campaign, but only in measured doses.  Facts can help, but sometimes they hurt, and oftentimes they are misunderstood and misspoken, so their use in a political campaign must be done with great care.  For its greater part, the campaign is about communicating a message that will cause those people who agree with the message to come out and vote for the candidate who is promoting that message.

There are lots of ways of communicating messages, and some work better than others.  Some messages are better than others, too.

One of the best lessons I learned as a corporate sales manager was that success in getting our business message out to our customers and clients would depend upon hiring the best people, putting them to work, and then doing everything within my power to help them be successful in doing their jobs.  A side-effect of this was that people would judge my character by the character of those people surrounding me.  The strengths and flaws of those with whom I associated myself became to some extent my strengths and flaws.

It all flows uphill (yes, that seems odd)

It's the same way in politics.  Which is why Democrats should be all a-quiver with joy over Republican candidates who welcome Ted Nugent into their campaigns.  If Nugent is the best message service that they can find--and if he is communicating their best messages--then the Republicans who use him have one big problem ahead of them.

GOP candidates have taken to using Nugent as a message-speaker so as to get their backers all lathered-up.  Sometimes (often?) he says some pretty odd things.  His latest foot-in-mouth experience is describing President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel," which--in an amazing verbal contortion--he managed to combine with the further description of "community organizer gangster."  There was more, but you probably get the drift by now.

The man's got opinions, and yes, of course he is free to share them.

Let's be clear, though, that these opinions of his are disrespectfully vile displays of ignorance and racism.  That is a statement of fact, not of opinion.  Possibly, somebody could make a case for saying that it's my opinion that my statement is factual, but it would be a paper-thin case.

What's remarkable is not Nugent's opinions, but the fact that prominent Republican candidates--including, and notably, Greg Abbott, GOP candidate for Texas governor--continue to welcome Nugent to be associated with their campaigns.  When asked about this, Mr. Abbott's campaign machinery commented that their candidate might agree or disagree with things that people say, but Mr. Abbott always appreciates support from people who "protect our Constitution."

What leap of logic can possibly equate dishonorable public behavior with protecting the Constitution?  There's none that comes to mind.  In fact, the thought that filters up to the top here is that this linkage is offensive.  This sounds like we are hearing an accredited message.  Let's look forward to finding out how offended are the Texas voters.

Democrats aren't perfect, either.  There have been some unsavory messages and associations in their campaigns, too.  Fortunately for the Democrats, Ted Nugent is doing such a bang-up job at getting people lathered for Republican candidates that there isn't much oxygen left for anybody else to do the same sort of thing.

And then also there's no getting around the fact that the right-hand side of the Republican Party has always had a racist view of Barack Obama and of the Democratic initiatives championed by the President.  Communicating that message in public is so far off any mark of perfection that it leaves Democratic failings in the dust.  Such a message does dishonor to the Republican brand -- in the past, now in the present, and into the future if past practices are allowed to continue. 

For the candidates who maintain an association with him, Nugent is merely a tool for promoting a 2014 incarnation of that message.  Republican stalwarts might object to these comments and say that such behavior is of the past--if it ever existed at all--but such objection is not convincing when exposed to the reality of the images and written rantings that are passed around by endlessly-forwarded emails (yes, I get them, too, many of them multiple times at intervals of multiple years; unfortunately, those that are truly amusing commentary instead of mere invective seem to arrive only once).

Beware the thinking voter

The American voting public knows that those who aspire to positions of political and governmental leadership have choices in the personal associations that they make.  They understand strengths and flaws, too, and also that a person's character is at the very least shaped by those with whom that person chooses to be surrounded and who are part of a campaign's message-delivery mechanism.

Call me an incurable optimist if you will, but my guess is that voters are more likely to connect with political campaigns containing positive messages about reasoned and reasonable positions, and less likely to connect with campaigns whose messages are negative, chaotic and prejudiced.  Another guess is that the voters are more likely to connect with a candidate whose message-speakers behave honorably rather than dishonorably.

Here's a Democrat who might be the next Texas governor

In Texas, will Mr. Abbott feel enough pressure from Wendy Davis, his Democratic opponent, to cause him to change his campaign messages, or at least change his message delivery service?  My guess is that the answer to that question is "no."  If he goes on to win, then he might even invite Nugent to a barbeque party.

But in the long run, Republicans will probably paint themselves into some tight corners with the voters if they fail to evolve their campaign messaging beyond its current primitive state.