Republicans diss West Virginia

Nova Land said:
Where was this noted?

There is an ambiguous statement, quoted earlier in this thread, by Brian Walsh of the NRSC in which he denies that the NRSC had anything to do with the casting call. That's obviously incorrect:

The NRSC is the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- a Republican group with the purpose of getting Republicans elected to the senate.

1. The ad in question was made at the request of the NRSC.
2. The ad in question was made by an agency hired by the NRSC.
3. The ad in question was paid for by the NRSC.
4. The casting call was done as part of the process of making the ad.

So obviously the NRSC did have something to do with the casting call. The casting call would not have taken place if the NRSC hadn't hired the agency to make the ad in the first place. When the NRSC, through it's spokesperson, says it had "nothing" to do with the casting call, the word "nothing" immediately leaps out as needing clarification.

(1) It's possible that Walsh is saying that no one connected to the NRSC had any involvement at all with the ad agency in between the time that the agency was hired to make and ad and the time that the agency delivered the ad for airing; that no one from NRSC looked over the work on the ad, such as reading the proposed script for the ad, or had any say at all in the work, other than accepting the ad when it was finished and paying the agency for their work.

(2) It's also possible Walsh is speaking much more narrowly, and is only denying that someone from the NRSC wrote the casting instruction. That would not preclude people from the NRSC having been aware of the casting call instructions. It would not preclude their having read the casting call copy and having seen no problems with it.

I think Walsh is trying to imply he means the former. But the quoted statement doesn't actually say that. Of the two interpretations, I find the second to be more reasonable. I find it hard to believe that either the Democrats or the Republicans would simply hire an agency to make an expensive ad without giving being somewhat involved in overseeing what is being produced.

Nor can we know without more information whether the ad agency people involved in writing the casting call were Republicans. (That is, after all, what the thread title and the OP claim: that Republicans dissed West Virginians.)

We do know that the ad agency people who wrote the casting call copy were hired by Republicans. They wrote that copy in the service of Republicans. They were paid by Republicans for writing that copy. Trying to completely deny Republican involvement in this is ridiculous.

The ad agency people were trying to do what they thought the NRSC wanted them to do; and they seem to have been successful in that. Until the text of the casting call copy was brought to light, the NRSC does not seem to have had any complaint about that copy and appears to have been quite satisfied with the work the agency did. So the obvious questions are: (1) At what point did someone from the NRSC first see the casting call copy?, and (2) At what point did someone from the NRSC first realize there was a problem with the casting call copy? Those are points Walsh could easily clear up if he chose to.

One can make the statement (if one chooses to accept Walsh as a reliable source) that the offending passage was not specifically written by a member of the NRSC. But if one wishes to go beyond that to a broader claim that "the Republican Party had nothing to do with the casting call", one needs some evidence to support that. Walsh's statement does not provide that evidence.
Click to expand...


Of course, there's the minor detail of making an ad about how "regular" West Virginians feel using out of state actors who don't, actually, know a thing about how West Virginians feel about anything.

Look at us. We didn't even know they had TV!

:boxedin:
 
Nova Land said:
Where was this noted?

There is an ambiguous statement, quoted earlier in this thread, by Brian Walsh of the NRSC in which he denies that the NRSC had anything to do with the casting call. That's obviously incorrect:

The NRSC is the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- a Republican group with the purpose of getting Republicans elected to the senate.

1. The ad in question was made at the request of the NRSC.
2. The ad in question was made by an agency hired by the NRSC.
3. The ad in question was paid for by the NRSC.
4. The casting call was done as part of the process of making the ad.

So obviously the NRSC did have something to do with the casting call. The casting call would not have taken place if the NRSC hadn't hired the agency to make the ad in the first place. When the NRSC, through it's spokesperson, says it had "nothing" to do with the casting call, the word "nothing" immediately leaps out as needing clarification.

(1) It's possible that Walsh is saying that no one connected to the NRSC had any involvement at all with the ad agency in between the time that the agency was hired to make and ad and the time that the agency delivered the ad for airing; that no one from NRSC looked over the work on the ad, such as reading the proposed script for the ad, or had any say at all in the work, other than accepting the ad when it was finished and paying the agency for their work.

(2) It's also possible Walsh is speaking much more narrowly, and is only denying that someone from the NRSC wrote the casting instruction. That would not preclude people from the NRSC having been aware of the casting call instructions. It would not preclude their having read the casting call copy and having seen no problems with it.

I think Walsh is trying to imply he means the former. But the quoted statement doesn't actually say that. Of the two interpretations, I find the second to be more reasonable. I find it hard to believe that either the Democrats or the Republicans would simply hire an agency to make an expensive ad without giving being somewhat involved in overseeing what is being produced.

Nor can we know without more information whether the ad agency people involved in writing the casting call were Republicans. (That is, after all, what the thread title and the OP claim: that Republicans dissed West Virginians.)

We do know that the ad agency people who wrote the casting call copy were hired by Republicans. They wrote that copy in the service of Republicans. They were paid by Republicans for writing that copy. Trying to completely deny Republican involvement in this is ridiculous.

The ad agency people were trying to do what they thought the NRSC wanted them to do; and they seem to have been successful in that. Until the text of the casting call copy was brought to light, the NRSC does not seem to have had any complaint about that copy and appears to have been quite satisfied with the work the agency did. So the obvious questions are: (1) At what point did someone from the NRSC first see the casting call copy?, and (2) At what point did someone from the NRSC first realize there was a problem with the casting call copy? Those are points Walsh could easily clear up if he chose to.

One can make the statement (if one chooses to accept Walsh as a reliable source) that the offending passage was not specifically written by a member of the NRSC. But if one wishes to go beyond that to a broader claim that "the Republican Party had nothing to do with the casting call", one needs some evidence to support that. Walsh's statement does not provide that evidence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That the NRSC hired under contract an Ad Agency does not make the NRSC remotely responsible for the manner the Ad Agency employed to produce an ad. Your argument is identical to one holding that, because I contract for Hyundai to produce a car for me, I am responsible for the manner Hyundai uses to manufacture the car.

In order to show that the NRSC is responsible for the nature of the casting call, you must demonstrate that the NRSC participated in structuring the casting call. It has been shown that the RNSC did not participate, and that demonstrates that the RNSC is not responsible for the nature of the casting call.
 
I don't understand why they didn't just go around with a camera and a mic. They could have gotten real WV-ians to say the things they paid the actors to say and it would've come off as genuine instead of fake.

According to a TV show last night (I forget which) one of the actors in the ad was an extra in SNL and was also on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
 
Number Six said:
I don't understand why they didn't just go around with a camera and a mic. They could have gotten real WV-ians to say the things they paid the actors to say and it would've come off as genuine instead of fake.

According to a TV show last night (I forget which) one of the actors in the ad was an extra in SNL and was also on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
Click to expand...

Takes too much time. You'd have to interview a lot of people and they still might not say exactly what you want, at least coherently.

Much easier to write a script and hire some actors.
 
Nova Land said:
Where was this noted?

There is an ambiguous statement, quoted earlier in this thread, by Brian Walsh of the NRSC in which he denies that the NRSC had anything to do with the casting call. That's obviously incorrect:

The NRSC is the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- a Republican group with the purpose of getting Republicans elected to the senate.

1. The ad in question was made at the request of the NRSC.
2. The ad in question was made by an agency hired by the NRSC.
3. The ad in question was paid for by the NRSC.
4. The casting call was done as part of the process of making the ad.

So obviously the NRSC did have something to do with the casting call. The casting call would not have taken place if the NRSC hadn't hired the agency to make the ad in the first place. When the NRSC, through it's spokesperson, says it had "nothing" to do with the casting call, the word "nothing" immediately leaps out as needing clarification.

(1) It's possible that Walsh is saying that no one connected to the NRSC had any involvement at all with the ad agency in between the time that the agency was hired to make and ad and the time that the agency delivered the ad for airing; that no one from NRSC looked over the work on the ad, such as reading the proposed script for the ad, or had any say at all in the work, other than accepting the ad when it was finished and paying the agency for their work.

(2) It's also possible Walsh is speaking much more narrowly, and is only denying that someone from the NRSC wrote the casting instruction. That would not preclude people from the NRSC having been aware of the casting call instructions. It would not preclude their having read the casting call copy and having seen no problems with it.

I think Walsh is trying to imply he means the former. But the quoted statement doesn't actually say that. Of the two interpretations, I find the second to be more reasonable. I find it hard to believe that either the Democrats or the Republicans would simply hire an agency to make an expensive ad without giving being somewhat involved in overseeing what is being produced.

Nor can we know without more information whether the ad agency people involved in writing the casting call were Republicans. (That is, after all, what the thread title and the OP claim: that Republicans dissed West Virginians.)

We do know that the ad agency people who wrote the casting call copy were hired by Republicans. They wrote that copy in the service of Republicans. They were paid by Republicans for writing that copy. Trying to completely deny Republican involvement in this is ridiculous.

The ad agency people were trying to do what they thought the NRSC wanted them to do; and they seem to have been successful in that. Until the text of the casting call copy was brought to light, the NRSC does not seem to have had any complaint about that copy and appears to have been quite satisfied with the work the agency did. So the obvious questions are: (1) At what point did someone from the NRSC first see the casting call copy?, and (2) At what point did someone from the NRSC first realize there was a problem with the casting call copy? Those are points Walsh could easily clear up if he chose to.

One can make the statement (if one chooses to accept Walsh as a reliable source) that the offending passage was not specifically written by a member of the NRSC. But if one wishes to go beyond that to a broader claim that "the Republican Party had nothing to do with the casting call", one needs some evidence to support that. Walsh's statement does not provide that evidence.
Click to expand...

This is from the article

An official said the Republican committee's independent expenditure unit contracted with GOP consulting firm Jamestown Associates, which used an outside talent agency in Philadelphia to scour for the cast of the ad. The official noted that the consulting firm's original e-mail to the talent agency did not use the word "hicky" in describing the kind of characters it was looking for.

In the e-mail, obtained by Fox News, Jamestown Associates said it was looking for two males to play the lead parts. The characters were described as "middle class" and "someone to represent the middle of the country ... Ohio, Pittsburgh, West Virginia area."


This is much ado about nothing.
 
sarge said:
Nonsense. That the NRSC hired under contract an Ad Agency does not make the NRSC remotely responsible for the manner the Ad Agency employed to produce an ad. Your argument is identical to one holding that, because I contract for Hyundai to produce a car for me, I am responsible for the manner Hyundai uses to manufacture the car.

In order to show that the NRSC is responsible for the nature of the casting call, you must demonstrate that the NRSC participated in structuring the casting call. It has been shown that the RNSC did not participate, and that demonstrates that the RNSC is not responsible for the nature of the casting call.
Click to expand...
If they show the ad, that makes them responsible by way of condoning the action.
 
sarge said:
Nonsense. That the NRSC hired under contract an Ad Agency does not make the NRSC remotely responsible for the manner the Ad Agency employed to produce an ad.
Click to expand...


The thread title, and the OP, say that Republicans dissed West Virginians. That's based on the Republicans running an ad in which people were deliberately cast to look like hicks.

There is no serious question that West Virginians were dissed. Republican spokespeople have said as much. I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that the casting copy wasn't a diss.

There is also no serious question the ad was produced at the behest of Republicans. So -- whether intentionally or not -- Republican actions led to the dissing of West Virginians. When one's actions lead to something happening, in common parlance that means one is responsible.

That leaves a number of questions open for exploration. That's what skeptics do: explore things, examine the evidence, weigh the evidence, and try to discern what is true and what isn't. In contrast, you and theprestige jumped in immediately with over-broad attempts to dismiss the matter out of hand.

My post was a response to your claim that "The Republican Party had nothing to do with the casting call". That's silly. Obviously they had something to do with the casting call. That something is: they hired the agency which put out the casting call.

A valid question is whether they had more to do with the casting call than simply hiring the agency which did it. That's worth exploring -- which, I assume, is why Thunder opened this thread.

This is something the NRSC can clear up easily by providing details. If they wish to say that they simply hired an agency, turned them loose, and had no further contact with the agency until the agency turned in a finished product -- which the GOP then paid for and aired -- fine. Let them say that, if that's the case.

Or they can say that they did oversee the production of the ad, but failed to notice the casting call information. If they identify the NRSC people who were in charge of overseeing the ad production, these people can confirm they failed to read the pages this casting call information was on -- if that's what happened. (Or they can confirm they read the pages, saw the casting call copy, and didn't recognize it as a diss -- if that's what happened.)

From the published reports, we don't how or why the diss happened. But we do know it happened, and we do know it happened as part of an ad which the Republicans commisssioned.

In order to show that the NRSC is responsible for the nature of the casting call, you must demonstrate that the NRSC participated in structuring the casting call.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.

Responsibility is a fairly large umbrella. If I, an adult, buy minors alcoholic beverages, and they get drunk, go driving, and have an accident, I'm responsible. It doesn't matter whether I sat down with them and discussed whether or not they should go out driving. If I did sit down with them, and was aware they planned to go driving, that would make me even more responsible for the outcome. But even without that, I'd still be morally and legally responsible.

The NRSC is responsible for the ad, and the making of the ad, because they paid for it. There's no serious question about that -- or, at least, there shouldn't be, if the phrase the buck stops here still has any meaning.

Where there is a serious question is (a) whether they were aware of the wording of the casting call and (b) whether they approved of the wording of the casting call. It's embarrassing that an ad they were responsible for included a casting call which dissed West Virginians; but it's shameful if they were fully aware that the casting call dissed West Virginians. One is simply a matter of being a bit negligent in not noticing the prejudices of the people one has hired and is working with; the other is a matter of being prejudiced oneself.

I have no idea whether this is a case of negligence (not noticing the ad agency was engaged in stereotyping West Virginians) or active prejudice (noticing the ad agency was engaged in stereotyping, but not doing anything about it because the NRSC saw nothing wrong with the stereotype).

You are right that, to show active prejudice on the part of the NRSC in this incident, we would need to show they actively participated in writing or approving the casting call copy. But that's a separate question from whether the Republicans dissed West Virginians.

It has been shown that the RNSC did not participate...
Click to expand...


When?

It has been asserted that the RNSC did not participate. If this has been shown, please specify where and how it was shown.

(The statement by Walsh, if that's what you're referring to, does no such thing. It simply provides a vague, non-detailed, denial.)
 
Nova Land said:
There is no serious question that West Virginians were dissed. Republican spokespeople have said as much. I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that the casting copy wasn't a diss.
Click to expand...


I was wrong. Eeyore1954 is seriously arguing that the casting copy wasn't a diss.

eeyore1954 said:
This is from the article

The official noted that the consulting firm's original e-mail to the talent agency did not use the word "hicky" in describing the kind of characters it was looking for.

In the e-mail, obtained by Fox News, Jamestown Associates said it was looking for two males to play the lead parts. The characters were described as "middle class" and "someone to represent the middle of the country ... Ohio, Pittsburgh, West Virginia area."

This is much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...


Let's talk about the wording of the casting call copy first. Eeyore cites an e-mail from the casting agency which does not describe West Virginians as hicks. But other sources, such as Politico, have quoted directly (or claimed to be quoting directly) from casting call copy which describes how West Virginians in the ad should look with the adjective "hicky"

Politico said:
GOP ad casting call: 'hicky' W.Va. look

... “We are going for a ‘Hicky’ Blue Collar look,” read the casting call for the ad. “These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks.”
Click to expand...


May I suggest there may be more than one communication from the casting agency regarding their vision of what West Virginians look like? In which case, the question is not whether there is a letter, e-mail, or memo which doesn't refer to West Virginians as hicks but rather whether there is one that does.

Has anyone claimed that the casting call quoted by Politico is a fake?
 
eeyore1954 said:
In the e-mail, obtained by Fox News, Jamestown Associates said it was looking for two males to play the lead parts. The characters were described as "middle class" and "someone to represent the middle of the country ... Ohio, Pittsburgh, West Virginia area."
Click to expand...


Aha! From the Politico item I just cited:


The casting language did not come from the NRSC. An NRSC vendor told the talent agency, in an e-mail provided to POLITICO: "So here’s what we need for casting ... 2 featured characters that will be talking to each other at a diner, conversation back and forth. ... One male- Age about 55.- Looking for someone to represent the middle of the country… Ohio, Pittsburgh, West Virginia area- Middle class ... One male- Age about 45- Middle class- Again, should represent the Ohio, Pittsburgh, West Virginia area of the country."
Click to expand...


As I suspected, there was more than one communication. The NRSC originally requested an ad using people from the Ohio, Pittsburgh, or West Virginia area. This request did not describe West Virginians as hicks (because West Virginians had not been settled on as the feature characters of the ad yet). The agency decided on West Virginians, and sent out the casting call describing West Virginians as hicks.

So it's not much ado about nothing. The reference to West Virginians as hicks is genuine.

Whether anyone from the NRSC saw the casting copy, and whether if they did see it they let it pass without any objection, has still been neither confirmed nor denied.
 
My theory is that the NRSC opened the yellow pages to the "advertising agencies" section, and after being blindfolded and spun around three times, they randomly selected one. Then they mailed that agency a blank check and a note that read "Please make us a campaign commercial". Five weeks later, they were shocked and appalled as to how it turned out.
 
Here, from Politico, is what appears to be the complete text of the casting call. (It's from page 2 of the item I cited previously. Sorry; I didn't realize there was a second page to it, until I Googled to find the complete text and saw where it was).

Below please find booking information for your actor(s) for the Political Spot. Please ask them to read over copy (it is confidential). Please confirm this email.

Call Time: 2pm
Location: The Oregon Diner
3rd & Oregon Sts
Phila PA 19148

Wardrobe:
- We are going for a ‘Hicky’ Blue Collar look. These characters are from West Virginia so think coal miner/trucker looks

- Each character should bring a several options and stay away from all black or all white or thin stripes (thicker stripes and plaid are good)

- Clothing Suggestions:
• Jeans
• Work boots
• Flannel shirt
• Denim shirt
• Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath
• Down filled vest
• John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• No Thin Stripes

- As far as the script goes, the dialect should be very plain – no accent, but animated actions. These guys are upset about these politics.

- SCRIPT is confidential, but please make sure everyone is willing to read it before agreeing to the part.
Click to expand...


Politico say this comes from:

... a copy of the script from Jamestown Associates, a Republican consulting firm.
Click to expand...


Elsewhere, in efforts to distance themselves from the script, Republicans have said that the job was subcontracted out to an outside firm. Quite possibly. But that still leaves the question of whether the outside firm was left entirely on their own, completely unsupervised by anyone in the Republican Party.

That seems highly unlikely. Even if they were using a Republican firm, I would think the NRSC would want to check on what they were paying for. But if they were sub-contracting to a non-Republican firm, I find it astounding to think that they weren't doing any oversight.

And now we have evidence that the agency which produced the casting call was not operating on its own, and that its actions were not totally unknown to and unapproved by Republicans.

Politico attributes the copy of the script to "Jamestown Associates, a Republican consulting firm." So while the job may have been sub-contracted out to an outside casting agency, it appears that the Republican firm which hired them had a copy of the script they were using and should have been fully aware that the agency they had employed thought of West Virginians as hicks and intended to use that stereotype in the NRSC ad.

Sarge: do you still want to maintain that Republicans had no knowledge of the hicks stereotype being used in the casting call for their ad, prior to the story being broken this week in the media?
 
Dorian Gray said:
If they show the ad, that makes them responsible by way of condoning the action.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the ad? (I have not)Was the ad offensive or was the ad agencies calling for hicks offensive. What the party requested was not offensive.

I spent some of my young life as a country bumpkin and I would not have been offended by the call. I prefer hicky to stuffy.
 
Clothing Suggestions:
• Jeans
• Work boots
• Flannel shirt
• Denim shirt
• Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath
• Down filled vest
• John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• No Thin Stripes

sounds like the wardrobe for "Deliverence". Boy does he got a perty mouth!!!

:)
 
Thunder said:
Clothing Suggestions:
• Jeans
• Work boots
• Flannel shirt
• Denim shirt
• Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath
• Down filled vest
• John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• No Thin Stripes

sounds like the wardrobe for "Deliverence". Boy does he got a perty mouth!!!

:)
Click to expand...

First of all that request was not from the party and secondly jeans , work boots , flannel shirts and John Deere hats are not uncommon apparel at a small farm town restaurant. And there is nothing wrong with wearing them.
 
Thunder said:
Clothing Suggestions:
• Jeans
• Work boots
• Flannel shirt
• Denim shirt
• Dickie's type jacket with t-shirt underneath
• Down filled vest
• John Deer hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• Trucker hats (not brand new, preferably beat up)
• No Thin Stripes

sounds like the wardrobe for "Deliverence". Boy does he got a perty mouth!!!
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like a wardrobe for just about any real man that does real work, as opposed to a thunderous “public servant” who just gets paid out of taxpayer money to take up space in an office, while posting derogatory remarks such as this about real men.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Sounds to me like a wardrobe for just about any real man that does real work, as opposed to a thunderous “public servant” who just gets paid out of taxpayer money to take up space in an office, while posting derogatory remarks such as this about real men.
Click to expand...

How about doctors? Teachers? Engineers? Scientists? Are they doing "real work" or does all that fancy book learnin' and their soft, city hands preclude them from being "real men"?
 
johnny karate said:
Bob Blaylock said:
Sounds to me like a wardrobe for just about any real man that does real work, as opposed to a thunderous “public servant” who just gets paid out of taxpayer money to take up space in an office, while posting derogatory remarks such as this about real men.
Click to expand...

How about doctors? Teachers? Engineers? Scientists? Are they doing "real work" or does all that fancy book learnin' and their soft, city hands preclude them from being "real men"?
Click to expand...

I'll tell you this much: I have been a white-collar professional, a computer programmer/data analyst, a scientist. In that time of my life, I had no clue what real work was. Now I am a blue-collar worker; working in a factory/warehouse at a job that often involves heavy physical work.

In any event, it was not my intention to denigrate legitimate white-collar workers. Even if they never get their hands dirty, the vast majority of them to provide useful services.

I was specifically referring to a government bureaucrat, who has probably never done an honest day's work in his life, and probably never will; who has made, in this case, a series of remarks that to me indicate a considerably degree of contempt on his part toward those of us who do work at honest jobs. The clothing of an honest worker is, in his view, the uniform of “hicks” and “hillbillies”.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I was specifically referring to a government bureaucrat, who has probably never done an honest day's work in his life, and probably never will; who has made, in this case, a series of remarks that to me indicate a considerably degree of contempt on his part toward those of us who do work at honest jobs.
Click to expand...
What's an "honest" job? Do you have to take shower after work? Those who shower before work are dishonest? Why is government work dishonest? Is the water quality inspector who works to make sure your tap water is clean dishonest?

If you want to see a considerable degree of contempt, please see the post quoted above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom