Best/Worst Political Negative Attack Ad

This is the place where you can vent whatever's on your mind. Feel free to go off on extended rants or brief blurbs about whatever's rocking your world.

Moderators: D. Phillips, Jake

Barabajagal
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:15 am
Location: Not quite close enough to say Chicago

Best/Worst Political Negative Attack Ad

Postby Barabajagal » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:34 pm

I know it's not music but this is worth a wider audience. Keep in mind Ron Kind (D-Wis) eventually won with 65% of the vote.

(Not sure how to post a video so here's the link)

wRONg KIND negative ad

Jake
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 7239
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Jake » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:46 pm

What's she thinking?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HOlvUPBahMc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

I love this. Best 15-second spot ever. The head nod. Best ever.

Sven Killer Robot Spacema
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1616
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:57 pm
Location: Just south of Stankonia

Re: Best/Worst Political Negative Attack Ad

Postby Sven Killer Robot Spacema » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:51 pm

Barabajagal wrote: Keep in mind Ron Kind (D-Wis) eventually won with 65% of the vote.]


Where is this modern day Sodom where a deviate like Ron Kind can get two-thirds of the vote? Does Stone Phillips know about this?
NBC should be alerted so Stone can have the whole county imprisoned!

DJMurphy
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 12:21 am
Location: close enough to say Chicago

Postby DJMurphy » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:59 pm

The thing about that first negative ad that astounds me the most... the fact that the challenger stuck his endorsement at the end of it. I could imagine some rogue GOP dude with deep pockets trying to unseat the Dem. incumbent with a rabid, nasty attack like this. But for the challenger to actually tack on his "I approve this ad" bullcrap?

What was HE thinkin'????[/i]

Jake
GLONO Team Member
Posts: 7239
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Jake » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:24 pm

DJMurphy wrote:The thing about that first negative ad that astounds me the most... the fact that the challenger stuck his endorsement at the end of it.

Apparently, it never aired, but he did post it online.

"Ron Kind has no trouble spending your money, he'd just rather spend it on sex. That's right. Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes. Instead of spending money to study heart disease, Ron Kind spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men," states the 80-second "sex study" ad Nelson has posted on his campaign Web site.

It is an ad, Nelson boasts, that "the mainstream media won't show!"

And for obvious reasons.

"Ron Kind," the ad continues, "even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia. Ron Kind pays for sex but not for soldiers."

Nelson's ad so irked state Republican leaders that it merited a call last week from Wisconsin Republican Party Executive Director Rick Wiley to Kind's campaign manager, Matt Sweeney, in which, Kind said, Wiley took pains to "denounce" it.

Ha. Nothing better than Republicans fighting amongst themselves.

That's a hilarious ad. FactCheck points out what was really in the bill (for NIH research that "uses a system of peer review by scientists to allocate research money, and that the process shouldn't be made political"):

"Vietnamese Prostitutes": This study was an effort to find a way to prevent the spread of AIDS. It was proposed in 2001 by the University of California San Francisco, to “describe drug use and HIV-related behaviors among Asian female commercial sex workers at massage parlors” in the area. The study was awarded $1,726,536 from Fiscal 2002-2004 according to NIH documents.

"Masturbation Habits of Old Men”: Masturbating was included as one part of a much larger study on how declining sexual function affects the quality of life of elderly men. The research would, according to the proposal summary, "provide the most comprehensive picture to date of the sexual behavior of aging men." The project was awarded in August 2001 according to NIH documents and had received $137,378 in funding by Fiscal 2002. It was proposed in response to a recommendation by the NIH to conduct additional research on aging and sexual function.

“Two-Spirited Aleutian Eskimos”: This grant didn't just deal with "Eskimos," it attempted to gain a national picture of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender and "two-spirited" individuals in the American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. The term "two-spirit" refers simply to Native Americans involved in same-sex relationships, according to a definition posted on the North East Two Spirit Society’s website . The proposal envisioned 400 interviews about sexual risk and drug and alcohol use. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2006 the project received $2,368,017. According to the proposal submitted to the NIH the grant ends May 31, 2007.

"Teenage Girls": This grant actually proposed to study sexual arousal in 180 lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual "women," and makes no mention of "teenage girls" as test subjects as the ad claims. The proposal received $147,000 between fiscal years 2001 and 2002 but was not funded in fiscal 2003.

Love it. I love it all. Mud-slinging politics is the BEST.

BloodshotBaby
GLONO Board Mack Daddy
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:30 am
Location: Middle of Nowhere, IL by day...Chicago by night...
Contact:

Postby BloodshotBaby » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:54 pm

Jake wrote:What's she thinking?

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HOlvUPBahMc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

I love this. Best 15-second spot ever. The head nod. Best ever.


i'm a pretty big fan of the one that says she opposes ALL KIDS...if you didn't know that it was a program...you'd think she hated the little children.



on facebook there's a group called 'what IS judy barr topinka thinking?' and features a series of really ridiculous photo ops...with captions of of what she's really thinking. it's quite funny.

Nicolson
GLONO Board Pimp
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Nicolson » Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:21 pm

Actually, I had two favorites:

One against Dem. Michael Arcuri in New York:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DDZ_bPYWjd8

Turns out that the call lasted less than 1 minute and cost $1.25. And public records show that a call made right after was to the same number, different area code--in other words, it was a wrong number, and everybody knew it!

And, of course, the infamous ad against Harold Ford...a Black candidate who lost the race to be the first Black senator from Tennessee since Reconstruction.

The ad plays, in a not-so-subtle way, on fears of "race-mixing," with a bubbly blonde saying she met Harold at the "Playboy Party." Turns out the "Playboy party" was actually a Super Bowl party attended by 3,000 people sponsored by Playboy.

The anti-Ford ad, along with several other "worst of" ads are available on Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/

worpswede
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: (((IOWA)))

Re: Best/Worst Political Negative Attack Ad

Postby worpswede » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:39 pm

Barabajagal wrote:I know it's not music but this is worth a wider audience. Keep in mind Ron Kind (D-Wis) eventually won with 65% of the vote.

(Not sure how to post a video so here's the link)

wRONg KIND negative ad

If this ad were true, I would totally vote for Ron Kind.
Priceless!

Lurker01
Resident troll
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Lurker01 » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:52 pm

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tdAjGXFJw3s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Chris G
Dotman
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:40 am
Location: N.Y.C.

Postby Chris G » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:08 pm

.


DJMurphy wrote:The thing about that first negative ad that astounds me the most... the fact that the challenger stuck his endorsement at the end of it. I could imagine some rogue GOP dude with deep pockets trying to unseat the Dem. incumbent with a rabid, nasty attack like this. But for the challenger to actually tack on his "I approve this ad" bullcrap?

What was HE thinkin'????[/i]


Just for the record, it's required by law. Every ad run by a candidate has to give the name of the candidate who approved airing it.

It is pretty sad what passes for political debate in this country.


.


Return to “Rants and Raves”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests