I'm Dr Unne, and I approved this message

What do you think of TV politcal ads? Obviously they have a huge amount of influence, or else politicians wouldn't spend so much money on them. What does that say about the average voter? Are people so fickle that they can be swayed by 15 seconds of a picture of a guy kissing a baby in front of a huge American flag? Personally I think political TV ads are just pure trash. There are no worthwhile facts presented. They flash up a statistic with a source at the bottom of the screen for a half-second, in fine-print so small you can't read it. They find the ugliest pictures they can find of a guy, doctor them up to look even uglier, play some evil Darth-Vader introduction music of some sort, and that's about it. It's so clearly an appeal to the irrational.

*evil whisper* "George Bush voted to illegalize puppies, and he wants to steal old people's medicine to help power oil-guzzling machines that kill baby dolphins."

*evil music* "John Kerry strangles hobos for fun and his mom is a known international terrorist."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Unne
*evil whisper* "George Bush voted to illegalize puppies, and he wants to steal old people's medicine to help power oil-guzzling machines that kill baby dolphins."

*evil music* "John Kerry strangles hobos for fun and his mom is a known international terrorist."

---

While george bush has done alot to kill as much as possible he forgot to kill people. John Kerry seems to be all about killing people. His mom got him off to a good start I see. With a nucular arsenal just imagine how many hobos he could kill.

I don't watch much TV but hopefully this will make you cringe with hatred. I am voting for democrat Dan Hynes for senete in Illinios because he is a friend of the family. I have no clue what he stands for or anything like that. All I knows is that he is a friend of the family so appearantly it is my obligation to vote for him in the primary tomarrow so I will do just that.

This one is my favorite (it's not real, though).

http://www.edodo.org/2000/10/spoon-bush2.gif

They're terrible. Nevermind for a second that they buy the votes of idiots. What startles me is that the more money you and your campaign have, the more ads you can run and the more your message gets spread. It's unfair. I'll just run some figures by you guys:

A quarter of America's Senators are millionaires, as compared to the less than 1% of America's public who is as rich.(link) A third of the Senate races and more than 95 percent of the House contests were won by the candidate whose campaign cost the most money in the previous elections. (link) 43% of the freshman Congressmen from 2002 were millionaires and in the term before that, a third of them were. (link)

Is that representing the needs of the average person? The biggest campaign and the fattest wallet seem to win out too often.

Kissing babies with the flag in the background?




...



Please, please tell me you are kidding.

Just about every commercial I've ever seen has the good guy standing in front of a huge flag at some point. Standing with a bunch of school children, or giving a speech with all kinds of people cheering, or whatever. Pretty sure politicians still use the "kissing babies" thing in person if not on TV anyways.

I understand why it was such a big deal early on because they were viewed as celebraties and the Amercian people really seemed in to it but . . . I really don't want some old politic kissing my baby. Am I alone on this?

I don't think I'd ever give Bush my baby....if I ever had a baby, something I really don't want...

No, I wouldn't let a stranger kiss my baby if I had one.

By the way, for those who haven't seen them, the title of this thread, "I'm So-and-so, and I approved this message", must be some kind of new catch-phrase for the Republican party. Every single Republican political ad I've seen in the past year has had the candidate use that exact phrase. I don't understand the point of it.

Kerry says the same thing, except he adds on a reason for his approving the message, like, "...because I believe America should be told the truth," or some other phrase.

I usually go for the guy that's already in office, unless he's slippin' in some areas that I care about, which Bush is doin' right now, which is a real shame, because I like him.

I don't think I'd bring my baby with me if I went wherever someone was. It has to be borin' for the kids. I doubt they care about Bush, or Kerry, or Nader, or Sharpton, or Iraq, or NASA.

Quote:

---

By the way, for those who haven't seen them, the title of this thread, "I'm So-and-so, and I approved this message", must be some kind of new catch-phrase for the Republican party. Every single Republican political ad I've seen in the past year has had the candidate use that exact phrase. I don't understand the point of it.

---

Cuase...you know...if you give a message on TV, you have to approve it...like...people could wonder: Woah, OK, so Bush is on TV with his campaign and all, and he allowed people to film him and show him kissing babies but...DOES HE APPROVE THAT? WHAT IF IT'S ILLEGAL AND HE IS NOT NOTICING? What is he is being filmed secretly by commies in his baby-kissing hobby and then being broadcasted? Cause I'm sure he has baby kissing as a hobby, I mean, it's what all normal people do when they need entretainment, go and kiss babies or speak to children about love and peace (And national security!). And I could write pages and pages making fun at political adverts, but I don't think it's necessary: Those advertisments are ridiculous enough.

The whole "I approved this message" thing I think is a new law, required by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. I could, however, be horrible wrong.

As much as they get really annoying after a while, I think politicians need to use many various types of media to get their message out. While much of it all depends on money (buying airtime and whatnot), money has long been a measure of popular support. Anybody can vote for someone, but only if you can back up your words with a campaign donation (even a small one) are you really helping someone to win an election.

Frankly, I don't like that money has become so important, but money is a measure for so many other things in American culture that there's no way around it.

Oh, and the campaign finance reform act actually didn't help matters one bit. A chapter in my political science course dealt directly with campaign finance laws, and what Congress passed a few years ago regarding reform does the reverse of its original intention. If I remember correctly, it reduced "soft money" donations. Soft money, because it could be anonymous and unlimited, was only allowed to be donated to a party as a whole, and the party could only use it to sponsor bland "get-out-the-vote" drives, not anything that would directly help any particular candidate. The reform bill lessened the impact of the already-bland soft money, but in return it increased allowances on "hard money," the real source of any politician's funding.

One final point:
Though diversity in the makeup of Congress and the Senate is desirable, it is not always thought of as absolutely necessary for making minority groups represented. Political Scientists have many theories on what defines representation, and not all of them necessitate representing minorities by being a minority.

Rich white guys have always been in power, but legislation has often favored minorities regardless. You don't have to be a Black person to make sure Black people are treated fairly. You just have to be a good person, regardless of your race.

Well put.

KingAlces, you make many wonderful points. It should be noted that Kerry took time off from his campaign because he wanted a "break", while the real reason was because it seemed he used up most of his funds and was going to attempt to get more cash without spending what was left.

I'd always hoped that the President of the United States American could not be bought, but really, that is exactly how it works. I was taught that you need about 200 million dollars to run a campaign for president... anyone have that kind of dough to throw around?

Essentially, that's why so many decisions seem to sway on big business and why Bush is always in a swirl with oil, because oil helped finance his campaign. It's also a known, but never openly acknowledged point that because you helped pay, you do get some special face time to talk to the president if he is elected. Call me cynical, but I think that some of the callings that oil drives the presidency aren't too far off. Some choices are made to benefit the contributors. The reality is, that's how it's always worked, and until we can think of a way to alter it, if someone donates to a campaign, they will have some sway on policies and decisions made afterwards.

Take care all.