• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What attack ads made you go "what the hell?"

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Now that it's all over I can't help but try to understand an attack ad we had here in California. It was by Carly Fiorina against Barbara Boxer. It shows Boxer telling a testifying military man to stop addressing her as "Ma'am" and to instead call her "Senator" because she worked hard for that job. Then it cuts to Carly stating she approved the message.

What the hell?

What is the point of that? That she can't be addressed as "Senator?" That she doesn't have the right to prefer one honorific over another?

Okay, so that may not matter now that Carly's campaign went down in flames but were there any that made you wonder exactly what the point was?
 
Tom Tancredo accused Denver Mayor Hickenlooper of being responsible for the murder of a child by an illegal immigrant because of policies the Mayor supported.

The scumbag was soundly defeated by the Mayor who ran no attack ads, only ads talking about what he will do as Governor.
 
TBH most of the ads I've seen for American politics make me go WTF?

But then again I'm on the other side of the planet.
 
Travis said:
Now that it's all over I can't help but try to understand an attack ad we had here in California. It was by Carly Fiorina against Barbara Boxer. It shows Boxer telling a testifying military man to stop addressing her as "Ma'am" and to instead call her "Senator" because she worked hard for that job. Then it cuts to Carly stating she approved the message.

What the hell?

What is the point of that? That she can't be addressed as "Senator?" That she doesn't have the right to prefer one honorific over another?
Click to expand...


I think there was a thread about the actual event around the time it took place.

A Brigadier General was testifying in some Senate event, and was addressing Ms. Boxer as “Ma'am” in an entirely appropriate and respectful manner. At some point, Ms. Boxer, in a considerably less polite manner, interrupted the General to ask that he stop addressing her as “Ma'am”, but address her as “Senator”, because she worked very hard to earn that title. She said this to a General. One has to wonder if Ms. Boxer has even the faintest vestige of a clue about what it takes to earn the title of “Brigadier General”.

Whatever you think of her political views aside, I think this incident very clearly shows Ms. Boxer to be someone who has been in political office for far too long, and who has, as a result, developed a greatly exaggerated sense of her own importance, that she thought it her place to talk down so rudely to someone whose importance and achievements are so vastly far beyond anything that she has any faint hope of ever achieving herself.

If she thinks that way about a General, how do you think she views the “little people” that she is supposed to be serving and representing?
 
Travis said:
What is the point of that? That she can't be addressed as "Senator?" That she doesn't have the right to prefer one honorific over another?
Click to expand...
The idea was to paint Boxer as an elitist who is out of touch with her constituents. It was just electoral nonsense...except it wasn't nonsense as exhibited by the above post. Blaylock thinks that a General (make sure you capitalize that word and genuflect when you say it) is VASTLY more accomplished than a long-serving US Senator. Blaylock and the General (make sure you capitalize that word and genuflect when you say it) know that the military is supposed to be at the bidding of the civilian side of the government but then such pesky facts are to be ignored.
 
Wait a second.....people really think that no one has the right to ask a General to address them a certain way?

I'm sorry but that is nuts and if that was the point I'm glad it deservedly backfired.
 
Travis said:
Wait a second.....people really think that no one has the right to ask a General to address them a certain way?

I'm sorry but that is nuts and if that was the point I'm glad it deservedly backfired.
Click to expand...


Anyone has the right to ask anyone else to address them in whatever manner they wish. I have every right to ask you to address me as “All-Powerful Exalted Emperor of the Known Universe”. I rather expect that if I were to make such a request, you would more likely respond with well-deserved scorn and mockery, than with any respectful use of that title.

The manner in which Ms. Boxer interrupted the general, and scolded him for the manner in which he was addressing her, and boasted of how hard she “worked” to earn that title, demonstrated rather serious rudeness, arrogance, and hubris on her part, along with, as I said before, a greatly-exaggerated view of her own importance. It's indicative of someone who, as a result of having occupied her position for so long, has forgotten that her position is that of a servant to the people, and not a master.
 
So Boxer referred to the general as 'bub' then? Or perhaps she got his rank wrong (you try saying that out loud)?

Neither of those things?

So she merely asked an employee of the United States to address her using her correct title?

Boohooo!
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Anyone has the right to ask anyone else to address them in whatever manner they wish. I have every right to ask you to address me as “All-Powerful Exalted Emperor of the Known Universe”. I rather expect that if I were to make such a request, you would more likely respond with well-deserved scorn and mockery, than with any respectful use of that title.
Click to expand...

Indeed you would...but you are not actually All-Powerful Exalted Emperor of the Known Universe, are you? Boxer is actually a Senator, so it is not ridiculous that she be ask to be referred to as such.
 
EvilSmurf nailed it Bob. I hope you have lots of farm animals around to consume all that straw you've strewn about.
 
One in the other direction. Dan Coats was running ads selling, "Brad Ellsworth is evil because he supports Obama and Pelosi. Dan Coats opposes Obama and Pelosi. And abortion. He's a good republican!"

In contrast, Ellsworth runs an ad and says, "Dan Coats says he opposes the government bailouts, Obamacare, and abortion. However, when working as a lobbyist, he lobbied in favor of bailouts, in favor of Obamacare, and took huge sums of money from anti-abortion groups."

It didn't matter, he won in a landslide anyway. See, all people care about is that you SAY you oppose these things, regardless of whether you are willing to sell out.
 
Here in Michigan, Gary Peters (D) ran ads saying that his opponent wanted a 23% increase in taxes, was a corrupt businessman who was being sued by his business partners, and was out to slash social security and medicare.

I have no idea of the truth behind any of these allegations, but I'm willing to bet they are all such severe distortions that any reasonable person would call them "lies". Peters won reelection in a close contest.


ETA: Re: the California elections. I didn't follow them, and I know nothing significant about Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorrina, but I am glad to see that, despite the hype to the contrary, elections cannot be bought just by throwing money at them.
 
Last edited:
"Bill Brady somehow avoided paying income tax for 2 years."

Um, would those be the 2 years where the stock market crashed and everybody lost a buttload of money? Cause I'm thinking having negative income for a couple years sure would explain that. It doesn't take nefarious deeds to not pay income tax when you don't make any money. I don't know if it's what happened, but the explanation seemed so obvious I just couldn't avoid questioning the ad.

I was most amused when they played the attack ads back to back.
Quinn: Brady is a doofus!
Brady: Quinn is a jerkface!
Me: GET A ROOM!
 
Congressman Ed Perlmutter was attacked for doing a cartwheel. It didn't seem to matter to the voters in his district.

After his victory speech, Perlmutter did a couple more cartwheels. :D
 
Well, since I am from West Virginia the one that really attracted my ire was the one made to help Republican Senate Candidate John Raese that showed the three guys were sitting around a table talking about Joe Manchin (who is the current Governor of West Virginia and now he is Senator-elect).

Anyway, these three men were talking about what a great governor Manchin has been, however he will make a poor Senator. That is strange logic, but relatively workable logic in a campaign ad.

And then it turned out, that the three guys were actors in Pennsylvania. So in other words, these people were not very representatives of West Virginia.

And further, it turned out that when the casting call was made, the person in charge of this particular commercial was looking for “hicky type people”. In other words, the Republicans were insulting the very people that they were trying to appeal to.

Eventually, Raese had to disavow the ad that was supposed to help him out, and it made me think of that old joke: “With friends like this, who need enemies?”.

Weird indeed!
 
EvilSmurf said:
Indeed you would...but you are not actually All-Powerful Exalted Emperor of the Known Universe, are you? Boxer is actually a Senator, so it is not ridiculous that she be ask to be referred to as such.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly liberal and the Boxer clip struck me as rude. Yes you are a Senator but to INSIST on being called by that title in public is fairly pompous.

I think it is a character flaw, not a political issue and it alone would not stop me voting for someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom