quote: Reminiscent of Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s Soviet "Bear" ad that was credited with helping frame the 1984 race, the commercial shows a dense forest from above. Scurrying is heard as the camera plunges deeper into the woods and pans sunlight-speckled trees. Shadows move through the brush before animals are seen amid the forest.
Then, the ad reveals the type of animal: A pack of wolves rest on a hill. As the commercial closes, the predators stir, moving toward the camera.
"In an increasingly dangerous world, even after the first terrorist attack on America, John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America's intelligence budget by $6 billion," an ominous voice says in the ad. "Cuts so deep they would have weakened America's defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm."
So I guess this thread is related to "Bush Supporters". Bush supporters, tell me you don't live in this constant state of low level fear?
If you do, you're welcome to move to Canada. We're a bit calmer up here.
posted
Wow, alot of dems are getting desparate. Here's some straws since they've grasped just about every one possible already. EDIT: Not for the poster obviously, but for those thinking this is "newsworthy" or has anything to do with the "boogeyman".
posted
Sometimes the think I hate most about living in a state that is not even remotely considered to be a "swing state" is that I never get to see all these cool ads...
posted
Maybe no one else has realized that every Major Al Quada attack on the US has followed within 1 year of a new president taking office.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's it's an ad like Kerry's about Bush and that your title, seems to not fit on that article. Just my opinion of course.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think that ad is promising the death and destruction of Americans if Kerry wins?
I haven't seen the Kerry ads, not living in a swing state, or even the US. Can you describe a Kerry ad that basically threatens the lives of Americans if they vote for Bush?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I haven't seen the Kerry ads, not living in a swing state, or even the US. Can you describe a Kerry ad that basically threatens the lives of Americans if they vote for Bush?
You mean the "Bush will institute the draft" propaganda that circling? It's all scare tactics on both sides.
I read the article. It doesn't claim that people will Die under Kerry. It claims that he represents weakness and that those who want to harm us want us weak.
I find the "alarmed" response to the ad more comical than the ad itself.
(dang I wish I got to see those ads on both sides.)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not alarmed. I'm not concerned. I'm not roused out of my undecided slumber, ready to open my eyes and make a decisive vote, either.
I do not believe that voting for Kerry will result in big government controlling your medical care, terrorists getting the Lincoln bedroom, or minors being forced to enter into gay marriages right after their mandatory abortions.
I do not believe that voting for Bush will result in a military draft, flu shots restricted to Republican campaign contributors and Saudi nationals, or that the country will collapse after the rest of the world forecloses on our debts and we have to pawn California to make good.
Based solely on hearing political ads, including the ones bearing the "I approved this message" disclaimer, I am highly motivated to write in Mickey Mouse for president. Maybe it's because the debates are past and they won't have to answer for their claims, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that I don't want either man running this country.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... I'm suprised people who'd be that scared would take the risk of going out to polls where terrorists could get them. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmmm... I'm suprised people who'd be that scared would take the risk of going out to polls where terrorists could get them.
You know...now that you mention it....I think the whole ad is racist to begin with and meant to intimidate white people into not voting. Damn those Republicans! We all know wolves want to eat us white people (because we're slow, we're easy pickin's). Those Republicans are playing the race card against us whites. That's it. I'm a democrat now (no moaning dems ok?).
I mean, it's so silly to make an issue out of this ad.
It's like calling a kitten a lion. Similar? yes, but quite a jump.
And I have to say I'm disappointed. I was SOOO hoping the ad actually had a "Boogeyman" in it....
I want my Kerry Boogeyman!
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This add as described has the purpose of instilling fear in people. And not even for any reason connected to the political races, but rather through an association of being hunted by wolves. That's shameful.
The techniques used in this ad do work. It will make people more afraid. It's not quite as certain that it will successfully transfer this fear to John Kerry, but according to the article, focus group studies have shown this effect.
posted
Yep. The ads are used because they work. Just ask Goldwater, who was probably the first victim. The basic techniques has raised fears about nuclear war, a draft, the end of social security, the end of medicare, the establishment of a national medical system, the end of people being allowed to pray, the establishment of a federal church, the end of marriage as we know it, the end of unions, the attack of trial lawyers, the end of the right to sue for damages.
The problem I see is how to stop it. We have a finance system that limits non-candidates to attack ads, since they can't advocate voting for someone. We have the clear evidence the ads work. We have a political process that doesn't punish candidates (or groups who support the candidates) who use the ads.
In short, I'm at a loss as to how to improve the situation.
posted
Elimination of all outside campaigning and no "direct to candidate" financing (hardline stance, yes).
Basically, you want to contribute to a particular candidate? Too bad. There's one Presidential election fund that all donations go to and are divided up equally amongst the candidates on all state ballots.
No special interest group donations or interference.
I know...It couldn't work, it's unconstitutional, etc. but it sure is broken as it sits.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gutting the first amendment is certainly not the answer, either with Xap's methodology or Chad's. It's not a big leap from there to banning blogs, or scanning newspapers everyday filing official complaints about bias. Such a system is utterly unworkable.
posted
Except you are forgetting that current campaign finance laws have already gutted the first amendment when it comes to TV ads.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a bigger problem with this ad that no one has mentioned yet -- it perpetuates the negative stereotype of wolves as evil and dangerous killers. This is just not right.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some time ago, I suggested having a public television station devoted to political purposes and restricting all political stuff to this station. People would still pay their production costs, but the broadcasting would be taken care of by the gov'ment with a panel of people deciding what gets aired. The big problem there is the checks on this panel, but, I don't know, I think the basic idea is worth considering.
The two biggest problems I see with political advertising is 1)it costs a heck of a lot of money and 2) the limited time allowed necessitates the sound bite and makes the manipulative practices of commercials probably the most effective tactic.
---
All of which shouldn't take away from the fact that the people who designed this ad are metaphoricly pissing all over the American flag.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap, I'm not forgetting it - I abhor it. Doesn't mean we should make it worse.
I'm not sure banning all ads is violating the amendment any more than banning ads from everyone but certain groups. If anything, I'd say that is a clearer and more fair line.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the First Amendment means anything it's that people can advocate for the public policies and officials they want to see enacted and elected. Banning more people may be "fairer," but that's an equal protection issue. It certainly results in a lower level of free speech.
posted
The problem I've always had with that rationale is that I'm some guy who doesn't have a mountain of money to pay the networks to run my political ad. If the ability to run a political ad is protected by the First Amendment, I should be able to run an ad. The thing being prevented here isn't my speech. I can still make whatever ad I want. The thing being prevented is access to a specific medium.
In my case, I am prevented acces to this medium because they want money from me. In the wider case, access to that medium is restricted because, as it is a public resource, it's use should be towards the public interest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if anyone has given a thought to the issue of the large amounts of money spent in the political arena by multinational corporations.
Seems to me that corporations whose operations are spread out across the world have interests that aren't always necessarily the same as the best interests of the country itself.
I'm just playing here - I guess it's one thing when claims are made that "what's good for American business is good for America" - what about the other companies that aren't really "American" anymore but still very influential in our political and policy arenas?
Is there a difference? Is it something to be concerned about? If so, is there even anything to do about it?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem I've always had with that rationale is that I'm some guy who doesn't have a mountain of money to pay the networks to run my political ad. If the ability to run a political ad is protected by the First Amendment, I should be able to run an ad. The thing being prevented here isn't my speech. I can still make whatever ad I want. The thing being prevented is access to a specific medium.
In my case, I am prevented acces to this medium because they want money from me. In the wider case, access to that medium is restricted because, as it is a public resource, it's use should be towards the public interest.
That's why I stressed that the first amendment is not about fairness. It's about not using the coercive power of the law to restrict what someone can say.
Time on television is restricted to those who pay for it, and to those things which induce people to pay for the time. I have no real problem with that.
Also, less and less television (as a percentage) is viewed over that public resource, so I don't find that a particularly compelling theory.
There's nothing to stop people with common goals from pooling resources. This is easier than ever these days. Corporations and unions happen to be large collections of resources controlled by people with relatively common interests.
posted
And I'm saying that restricting television ads are not keeping people from saying whatever they want; it's merely denying them a medium in which to distribute what they are saying (although I think that the non-public resource markets pretty much have the right to do whatever the heck they want).
All that aside, Dag, do you think my idea of a restricting ads to a public station unprejudicially devoted to political advocacy would be in violation of the First Amendment?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm saying that restricting television ads are not keeping people from saying whatever they want; it's merely denying them a medium in which to distribute what they are saying (although I think that the non-public resource markets pretty much have the right to do whatever the heck they want).
Speech includes the composition of the message and the delivery of that message to the listener. It can be restricted either at the content or the delivery stage, and both have been protected by SCOTUS. Obviously, not all delivery forms are acceptable (using a loudspeaker in a neighborhood at midnight). But traditional forums for speech (which TV undoubtedly is) are restricted the least.
quote:All that aside, Dag, do you think my idea of a restricting ads to a public station unprejudicially devoted to political advocacy would be in violation of the First Amendment?
Yes, especially with a screening committee of any kind.
The mere act of describing something as political or not will require invasive government inspection of many different instances of expressive behavior to determine which speech has to get relegated to this channel. There will be multiple chilling effects on speech, with people making adjustments both to avoid being sent to the political channel, and to avoid being screened out.
posted
The answer's easy. Let the FCC enforce Truth in Advertising laws over these commercials.
No more "John Kerry want to do this" or "If you re-elect George Bush, he'll do that" statements allowed from opposing campaigns, you can't tell me what the other guy is thinking. No more misrepresentation of the opposing views. No more taking clips and statements out of context to prove an erroneous point.
And, probably, disclaimers at the end at least as long as, say, the average prescription drug commercial.
Any reason why they shouldn't have to tell the accurate truth and not just spread supposition (at the best of times) and outright lies (at the worst)?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of reasons. First, SCOTUS has weakened the ability to regulate even non-truthful speech (witness the restrictions on defamation of public persons). Second, this enforcement in and of itself is almost impossible to carry out fairly, and certainly impossible to carry out in a way such that credible charges if unfairness can't be made.
People are spreading rumors pretty heavily that if Bush is elected we'll have a draft. I think it's BS, but who am I to say they can't say that Bush's election makes a draft more likely?
posted
You can't truthfully say that Bush will bring back the draft. The most anyone can truthfully say is that based on current military strengths, a draft is likely, according to these sources.
I'm tired of hearing Bush's repetitive statement that Kerry's medical plan will put government in charge of your health care. That's inaccurate. If he were to say that Kerry's medical plan is more expensive and covers fewer people, and here's the figures proving that, I'd have no beef.
See the difference? It's the same standards we try to stick to here. Only say what can be proven, and be ready to prove it.
I want the scare aspect gone. I'm tired of people screaming at me with sound bites that offer outright lies. The Truth in Advertising laws prevent companies from making claims they can't back up and promises they can't deliver. That's what I want in the political ads as well.
[ October 22, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want it gone, too. But imagine the articles criticizing every single decision about whether an ad is telling the truth or not. Right now we have arguments about whether ad X is truthful or not. Do we really want a government agency ruling on each and every one of these arguments?
posted
I'd like the FCC -- the people who already decide what can go on the air and what can't -- to decide on the most offensive examples in the most public way possible, in the hopes that future campaigns will police themselves.
There are a hell of a lot more product commercials on the air than there are political commercials. They aren't all vetted by any agency but they know that if they go too far, they'll pay a penalty for it.
Why is it that a bleach commercial is not allowed to tell me their competition sucks and will give my children hives, but any PAC that feels the urge can tell me that my choice for president will result in widespread death or collapsing economies?
[ October 22, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But commercial products don't have legions of people who like them so much that they dedicate free time to vetting and sending in formal complaints about every single word in every single one of their commercials.
Imagine if the people spending so much energy bloggin about these ads could complain to the FCC about every single one.
Chaos, I tell you. Chaos.
quote:Why is it that a bleach commercial is not allowed to tell me their competition sucks and will give my children hives, but any PAC that feels the urge can tell me that my choice for president will result in widespread death or collapsing economies?
When a company does that, their competitor sues them. If candidates sued the worst violators under current legal standards, maybe it would change. But the public would probably be more put off by the filing of a law suit than not.
posted
But the ad in question (first post), doesn't flat out say anything that the Truth in Advertising clause would prevent. That's the problem.
If a Politcal Ad, like the SBV ads which were based on those guys opinions, basically puts their opinions out there, you can't really tell them sorry.
Truth in Advertising would only affect most of the "numbers" claims ads and then, only those that are outright lying.
Insinuations, etc. are still protected.
Example: Where I live there's a guy who owns a Computer Sales Chain called "Totally Awesome Computers". Aside from being annoying, he flat out claims that Gateways, Dells, etc. are "pieces of junk".
The Truth in Advertising laws don't restrict him from making those claims.
Short of blatant censorship, there's no way to stop it.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the public will rise up and refuse to vote for any of the candidates out of sheer disgust.
A friend of mine said he'd love to see the winner get maybe 25% of the vote, with the loser getting 20% or so. The rest he would like to see go to third-party and write-in votes, enough to make both major parties pay attention to the fact that an awful lot of people are getting annoyed with them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Don't know if I buy entirely Chris's solution - the rigor of the FCC varies from administration to administration - but the status quo really sucks.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: posted October 22, 2004 02:16 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes the think I hate most about living in a state that is not even remotely considered to be a "swing state" is that I never get to see all these cool ads...
FG
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FG, I'm SO glad you said that. Here I was feeling guilty for thinking the very same thing. We live in Texas. The worst we get are the local Dems trying to get into congress...
About as "restriction free" campaigning as there's ever been.
Good in some ways, bad in others. I guess you can't have that extreme "freedom" without allowing those who choose to exercise it in a different way...to do so.
You would have to give up freedoms currently allowed, in order to gain a change.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A friend of mine said he'd love to see the winner get maybe 25% of the vote, with the loser getting 20% or so. The rest he would like to see go to third-party and write-in votes, enough to make both major parties pay attention to the fact that an awful lot of people are getting annoyed with them.
Chris,
I'm afraid your friend is probably dead on in terms of what it would take. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote and it didn't disrupt "business as usual" one bit.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm unclear as to how the FCC could operate or even exist under the situation as you described it. Wouldn't they be constantly violating people's Freedom of Speech?
If they aren't, how would regulating political ads differ from the other forms of regulation that they engage in?
(I'm not trying to be snarky here. I really don't know and I'd be grateful if you could explain it to me.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I got a chance to see this ad just a little bit after this dicussion on Friday. It really is a piece of deceptive garbage. The message boils down to, if you vote for Kerry, wolves'll get ya.
If they were going to respond, I'd love to see a pro-Kerry adwith about 5 seconds of a potential shark attack and the having John Kerry stop the commercial, liken it to the wolves one, and then talk about why commercials like these have no place in responsible politics. Never going to happen though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
