US election ads - Going Too Far?

[bigfootedfred]

As someone looking at the elections in the united states from across the pond.
Things there seem to be....well, rather insane.
'Political Parties' would not be a fair description, but 'factions' seems to fit perfectly.

The general theme seems to be 'scare the **** out of as many people as possible'
And the ads, are also getting quite far below the waistline.

An example, (and just one at that...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWkrwENN5CQ

No-one expected the fight for control of the US Congress to be a gentlemanly affair,
but as races come down to the wire, even experts are surprised at how vicious some of the advertising has been.

One commercial, in the southern state of Tennessee, has set "a new low in American politics",
according to John Geer, who studies negative campaigning.

The advert is a satirical attack on Harold Ford Jnr, the Democratic candidate for Senate,
and it has been accused of "race-baiting" - or playing the race card -
by the nation's best-known civil rights group, the NAACP, among others.

It shows a series of people offering tongue-in-cheek reasons to vote for Mr Ford -
such as a hunter saying, "Ford's right, I do have too many guns", and a mock-sleazy type asking,
"So he took money from porn producers. Who hasn't?"

But where critics say the advert crosses the line is when a blonde woman -
with no clothes visible - says "I met Harold at the Playboy party".

As the spot ends, she winks and says breathily: "Harold - call me!"

[Last Roman]

our election ads disgust me. they are nothing but petty mudslinging in it's worst form and both sides are guilty of it.

[Evariste]

I don't really see what is the big deal. So a good looking woman wants to talk to Ford, why is that so negative? If anything Ford's ability to attract sexy women makes me more likely to vote for him.

I'm a proponent of negative campaign ads. To attack someone, you at least have to do some research (Candidate B raised your income taxes while he was in office!) instead of positive ads (Candidate A promises to protect your children against predators...honest!)

Isn't going to a playboy party a good thing?

[Fenris]

Isn't going to a playboy party a good thing?

No, anything that is not boring, cold and doesn't produce wealth is a bad thing to republicans.

[k995]

Yes US election ads have gone too far for many many years, I can recall in Bush first campaign some pretty appaling things.

I'm a proponent of negative campaign ads. To attack someone, you at least have to do some research (Candidate B raised your income taxes while he was in office!) instead of positive ads (Candidate A promises to protect your children against predators...honest!)

No you dont, you just claim he did, are you going to check wether or not its true? I doubt it , but yor still going to believe it

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I found that add to be funny.

Perhaps you shouldn't be in politics if you can't take the heat.

Harold....call me

[Caelius]

Things there seem to be....well, rather insane.

No...really?

Outrageous election ads during an important campaign season? I really don't see why people should be so surprised.

[Farnan]

There has never been an ad as dirty as this one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ction+Ad&hl=en

[Fenris]

There has never been an ad as dirty as this one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ction+Ad&hl=en

I don't know, it's just not the same kind of dirtiness. One is simple mud, the other is tar and feathers (the one you posted). But at the same time this one still talks about relevant facts (but using these facts in a stupid way), while the first one, try to bash the president for being attractive and having fun by going to playboy party... I don't see anything relevant in this at all.

But this just shows what politics has become (and this is far from being only in America) where you don't vote for the government you like, you vote against the one you like the least. It's not "who do you prefer as a president/prime minister", it's "who do you think is te worst? Then vote for another...".

I also think that the fact that such ads shows how the party do not care. The average-Joe only knows the parties from the ads, he looks at this ad, if he decides to cote for the republicans, he has no idea what he has voted for, he only knows he has voted against what the republicans said about the democrats... it's not like he even voted against what the democrats said they would do! It's even worse!

[sephodwyrm]

I hear election ads on the radio station and without perusing the propositions and candidate platforms carefully, I would clearly have no idea on who to vote for, for they are clearly mudslinging each other...

[edders]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkiz1_d1GsA

Seeing all the firestorm surrounding this ad, I wondered what people thought of it when they first saw it. Do some of you believe it's playing to racist fears?

Personally, I saw the ad after being told the fake playboy bunny was a reference to Ford attending a playboy party and then making a campaign ad in a church to show how morally driven he was (or something, i can't recall the exact details). I just have to say, when I saw the ad at no point did anything suggest 'racism' to me, despite what Chris Matthews seems to believe. So it's a white, blond ditzy playboy girl. Isn't that the general stereotype of playboy bunnies? It seems a little out of order for people like Matthews to suggest that Republicans are trying to stir up Rednecks with the ad; if I lived in Tenessee I'd be pretty offended by such claims, which basically say: "You're a racist, knuckle-dragging neaderthal - exactly who this ad appeals to". Still, I'm not an American so I don't know if there is some kind of subtext here only Americans can get.

Anyway, discuss.

[leeho730]

I believe this is probably the most intelligent response...

edhesq (3 days ago)
Liberals are incensed by this ad because it humorously portreys them as obtuse, amoral defeatists, tolerant to the point of self-destructiveness. Hence, a racism charge torn from the Dem playbook in response.

Ad may be unfair on the a morality count, but topical and very funny (espec porn guy). Way funnier than Zucker's ads. Effective too because it shows that electing even a moderate Dem like Ford will help ushering in a much more liberal congress.

Politicians are quite amusing to watch, don't you agree?

[edders]

Oops, sorry, didn't realize this had been posted already. What's the thread called?

[Farnan]

The ad I posted though is far worse. What it is basicly saying is that if you voted for Goldwater your family will be killed by nuclear war. The one about Ford just tries to get you to think that Ford doesn't follow the traditional values that that area probably holds dear. Its kind of like comparing Goebels propaganda against the Jewish people with a picture of George Bush with devil horns carrying a red trident.

[danzig]

Nothing wrong with the ad compared to similiar ads, hell Michael Steele (both republicans) have faced far worse attacks on them by various left wing groups. The Ford ad is dumb but its no worse nor is it going too far compared to any other of the crap out there. And yes that LBJ ad is FAR worse, vote for me OR DIE.

[bigfootedfred]

I think there has been some confusion.
This was not a thread about that specific ad...or indeed one party.
If that was my intention, i would have titled it so...

[sephodwyrm]

Is Goldwater the one that is being broadcasted on the radio that allows NK and Iran to develop nuclear power without fear of US military reprisals? And that we have to think about our family etc?

My family is mostly in Taiwan...we only have the PRC to worry about for a few more years before we are regarded as a SAR or a Federal Alliance state...(see both possibilities).

[Farnan]

Goldwater was a politician in 1960s who ran against Lyndon Johnson.

[sephodwyrm]

Anyway, US election ads was rather a cultural shock to me.

I thought I have seen mud slinging in ROC politics, and physical fisticuffs.
But the US election ads are about the same thing minus the bruises,.

[Farnan]

Negative campaigning has existed in America since the first election. The contest was between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. John Adams claimed if Thomas Jefferson won the election Bibles would be burned...