Um... OK. It's a clever idea. In 1996.
Two problems, first is that political ads are repeated ad nauseum. How many times before this gets old? I'm guessing twice.
Because, while the idea had some merit, the production values - from the camera work to the "acting" - scream public access cable show.
Mitt Romney has more money on hand than he knows what to do with. Yet he can't advertise in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania and he can't film a creative spot with competent production values?
Between Clint Eastwood and the overall competency of the Romney campaign, I'm increasingly worried that the entire country is being punked.
UPDATE: More deep thoughts:
I wonder, too, about the basic idea behind a media "blitz". Remember how in 2008, Obama's campaign understood the lay of the land better than Hillary and better than McCain. Hillary had a strategy that relied on big states and downplayed caucuses. Obama's strategy was clearly better.
The Obama campaign puts a ton of resources into GOTV. McCain did not. Obamanauts HATED requests for signs, they wanted people working voter registration drives, not plopping a sign in their yard and going back to watching TV.
No one really watches ads anymore. With DVR and Netflix and Hulu, with the blessed, blessed mute button, there is just no way to reach people with an ad "carpet bombing" - to use Sununu's phrase. Obama has again worked to create a GOTV machine. Romney is tossing a bunch of money at TV ads, kind of like Hillary did.
I'm skeptical it will work. I'm VERY skeptical negative ads will win Romney votes. Negative ads usually are about depressing voter turnout. But if no one watches them...