I was chatting with a Penny Kotterman supporter the other day about their candidate’s campaign signs.  I was mocking, in a good natured way, the fact Kotterman’s signs list “Parent” as her #1 qualification for Superintendent of Public Instruction.  I commented that it hardly seemed like a selling point worth top billing, given that almost everyone has kids at some point, with some parents obviously doing a better job of it than others.

“Don’t you get it?  Penny is a parent,” the Kotterman supporter explained, with emphasis on the word “parent” as if I might not be getting the point.  Which I wasn’t.

“Um, and that’s a selling point?”

“Because… her opponent…is not a parent.”

I’m guessing my face showed I was still a bit puzzled about what the point was.  So the Kotterman supporter explained.

“Penny’s opponent is not a parent…Penny’s opponent is gay.”

My eyebrows lifted.  Comprehension dawned on me.  What had seemed like a random choice of wording for a campaign sign had turned out to have a grand strategy behind it.

“Who said Republicans are the only ones who can talk in code?” the Kotterman supporter asked rhetorically with a smile.

Kotterman’s supporter went on to explain that a candidate being gay wasn’t an issue, but that some general election voters might think it is, so Kotterman was just going to stress what she is:  Parent!  (And apparently this involves a bit of of whispering about her opponent being gay.)

I was a bit flat footed and didn’t have a good reply.  I think I was just surprised at how I had missed something in plain sight.  Penny is a parent!  Not like the gay guy!  Yep, a pretty clever marketing strategy, in an underhanded sort of way.

There are a few things thought that I wish I would have said at the time.

I wish I would have taken issue with the suggestion that Republicans are a party that talks in code.  Ok, maybe Republicans use to be such a party.  Back in the civil rights era, Republicans who talked about “states rights” sometimes were really just dissing the idea of protecting the rights of African-Americans.   But that was a long time ago.  And, as I’m sure RNC Chairman Michael Steele would explain, racism absolutely isn’t what the modern Republican Party is about.

For the most part, Republicans today don’t talk in code.  In fact, we usually lack any kind of subtly whatsoever.  If a Republican candidate has something to say about their opponent, it’s usually going to be printed in very large all-caps letters across the top of their campaign mailer.  “THE OTHER GUY IS A LIBERAL WHO WANTS TO RAISE TAXES AND KICKS THEIR DOG!”

Republicans don’t talk in code…because we don’t have too.  Our ideas are generally popular with the electorate.  That’s why Republicans will put the words “Conservative” on their campaign signs.  When was the last time a Democratic candidate put “Liberal” on their sign?

Democrats though have had to get good at talking in code as a matter of political survival.  So it’s no surprise that, having become dependent on talking in code in general, Democrat candidates know how to turn that skill on each other to win primaries.

Back to Kotterman… if she wants voters to know her opponent is gay and that she isn’t, that’s her prerogative.  It’s a free country, free speech, yada yada yada.  This strategy will probably win Kotterman some votes in the fast-growing Hispanic community, which polls show tend to be pretty traditional in their views on family life and not so supportive of same-sex couples.  It’s probably good politics going into a general election too.

It would be better though if Kotterman were not just straight, but also straight-forward.  If she views her opponent’s homosexuality is a deal breaker for an education position, she should just say so.  If she thinks gay-is-ok but that voters are unenlightened Neanderthals, and that therefore a gay man shouldn’t be the Democratic nominee, she should have the courage to say so publicly in plain language and not just on coded campaign signs and though whisper campaigns.

I also wish I would have had the presence of mine at the time to say that I don’t think a candidate’s sexual orientation should matter.  This doesn’t mean I think much of Kotterman’s opponent, because I don’t.  His liberal policy positions are just as bad as Kotterman’s.  (I’m a conservative and would vote for the Republican nominee regardless.)  I just don’t like the idea of disqualifying candidates from consideration because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  It strikes me as un-American.

Postscript -

Kotterman shows a remarkable degree of message discipline.  I’m looking at page after page on her website, and the first sentence of regular text on nearly every page says something to the effect of “Penny is a parent…” or “As a parent, Penny…”