"'We are going for a ‘Hicky’ Blue Collar look,' read the casting call for the ad, being aired by the National Republican Senatorial Committee."

“These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks. 'Clothing Suggestions' included jeans, work boots, flannel shirt, denim shirt, 'Dickie’s type jacket with t-shirt underneath,' down-filled vest, John Deer [sic] hats (not brand new, preferably beat up),' 'trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up).'"

Here are those actors in action:



It's not quite Red State Update.

ADDED: Why don't we see the text of more casting calls for political ads? This can't be the most embarrassing one, can it? Was it "leaked" to hurt the GOP? [Yes: "The casting material was provided to POLITICO by Democrats.] Doesn't the leakage with the intent to hurt the GOP embody the belief that the people of West Virginia are so backward that they think commercials like this are made with real people and will be offended to find out that slick ad men concoct these things to persuade them? Think about it. What is more offensive: the GOP using an ad agency that blatantly presents "hick" stereotypes when trying to persuade West Virginians or GOP opponents who think that West Virginians are so simple and naive that they'll be wounded to learn how ads are made?

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo said:

I call bullshit.

I don't believe it, not without a copy from the casting folks. They had a pdf of the script. Where's the pdf of the casting call?

Yeah, well, maybe it's fake but accurate. Ever considered that? You know how much the GOP has been wanting to appeal to these people in these small towns, people who've lost their jobs and think that somehow their communities are going to regenerate, people who've gotten bitter — it's not surprising — and cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Read Elena Kagan's college thesis and decide if she's "an open and avowed socialist"...

... which is what Erick Erickson has concluded.

ADDED: I've read the last few pages of the thesis, and a key sentence, at page 130, is: "The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Does that sentence imply that its author is included in the "those who... still wish to change America"? Does it imply that socialism is required in order to "change America"?

However you answer those questions, remember that the paper was written 20 30 years ago, when Kagan was a college student. Not only is it likely that she has changed since she was in her early 20s, but it is also nearly a certainty that she wrote to obtain the favor of her teachers in the Princeton University History Department. I think there is a lot more evidence that Kagan knows how to please and win the favor of those with the power to advance her career than that Kagan is a socialist. I'm just going to guess — correct me if I'm wrong — that in 1981, Princeton students were able to discern that their history professors liked socialism.

"Let me ask you a question, Geneva Convention. What's your problem?"