Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Phil Kurzner’s use of “Dr. Phil” in his campaign missives makes him sound less like a highly-qualified M.D. running for Insurance Commissioner than a daytime TV personality made famous by dishing out touchy-feely psycho-babble on the Oprah Winfrey Show? I know…this must have been gauged by some consultant (what, to reach out to the Oprah voting bloc?), but no one is actually gonna think he’s that Dr. Phil, are they?
Actually, looking at the two Dr. Phils, there is a striking resemblance.
Note to voters: Vote for the one with the hair.
Realistically, though, there may be strand of brilliance here. In the Republican primary, how many voters will actually know the difference between Phil Kurzner and Steve Poizner? Kurzner, Poizner. Poizner, Kurzner. Whatever. Candidate Dr. Phil is much more fearful of being confused with his actual opponent than he is a daytime TV star. And, if you’ve read the background on Poizner, as well as Kurzner’s statement about his opponent’s impressive Democratic background, you’ll understand there may be a difference between the two.
Monikers mean something, and "Dr. Phil" Kurzner knows it. A few years ago a last minute cash infusion was the only thing to give Mark Wyland a primary victory over the guy-with-the-cool-name. Otherwise, James Bond would be in the Assembly today. An Encinitas councilman, Bond had little money, but he was nearly 007 in the eyes of the electorate.
My guess is that Dr. Phil Kurzner probably doesn’t watch TV star Dr. Phil, but he does understand the power of a name, no matter how gimmicky.
Additional note to voters: Vote for the one that sounds like the TV guy. It’s much easier than remembering which one is the real Republican.