Add This Guy To The Payroll
Whoever came up with this flash promo in favor of President Bush should be added to the Bush-Cheney 2004 payroll.
Immediately.
Found it at TFG.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/31/04 22:02 | Other | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
That's a nice April fools joke, man.
Comparing % change between the third year of two different administrations is almost blatantly hiding the fact that the actual numbers are widely different. The ad didn't mention that more jobs have been lost under Bush than any other president, ever; or that the new jobs that are being created are significantly lower paying (with fewer benefits) than the ones that were lost. Didn't mention that pesky little defecit, either, that our children's children will be paying off.
You can put a happy face on it, but the reality is pretty nasty. Stop trying to convince yourself that black is white, stand up for real fiscal conservatism, and get that free-spending crony out of the white house. :)
Posted by Me @ 09:03 on 04/01/04
Dude (or Dudette, as the case may be), the point of advertising is to SELL something. That's a nice advertisement from an amateur, without regard to ideology.
No need to get all worked up over a silly amateur ad. Relax, breathe deep, and try and get a little more joy out of life! :)
Posted by Kevin @ 09:10 on 04/01/04
Nice ad, but the scene with the hammer reminds me of Habitat for Humanity.
Posted by Mr. Hutchison @ 09:15 on 04/01/04
Nice ad, but the scene with the hammer reminds me of Habitat for Humanity.
Is that a negative to you?
Kevin,
Granted, "Me" got a little worked up, but he/she has a point. Your suggestion that the ad-creator be added to the B/C payroll strongly implies that you think this is the kind of ad B/C should be running. And after all, once one gets paid, one is no longer an "amateur".
I realize you were being humorous, but sometime one's humor is revealing. Do you really think that all's fair in political advertising?
Posted by Zarate @ 10:28 on 04/01/04
Zarate: You're analyzing this WAY too seriously. But since two people seem to want to draw what is a non-political blog (outside of state and local issues) into something more than a whimsical discussion of national politics, fine.
1) Prove to me that there are false figures in the ads, and I'll condemn them. What has been asserted so far by one person is that he/she doesn't like certain omissions in the ad and doesn't like certain comparisons. So what? I don't like it that McDonald's doesn't admit that Wendy's and Whataburger make better tasting cheeseburgers in McD ads, and I don't like that they don't tell people all the carbs and fat aren't good for them, but I don't expect they'll change their ads to accommodate my gripes anytime soon.
2) The exclamation to add the ad creator to the payroll is clearly tongue-in-cheek. Only a fool or an idiot would think that what I write here resonates with any of the important people who run the Bush-Cheney campaign. If I were an egomaniac like Glenn Reynolds, I might think otherwise, or if I had his traffic, I might think otherwise. I don't.
But speaking as a student of politics rather than an advocate for Bush (I can separate the two), I do believe the ad is effective, and I'll give you my reasons:
a) It puts a positive spin on an issue that the Kerry campaign has to make THE salient political issue for the Senator to win, the economy, and it does so by pointing out the positive economic statistics that have been largely crowded out by the opposition's focus on the single indicator of job creation/loss. That blunts the effectiveness of that issue for the opposition without conceding it's a weakness. It portrays what the other side says is a weakness as a strength.
b) It makes comparisons to an Administration (Clinton's) that Americans generally regard as one that took place in a time of prosperity. In so doing, it recalls happy images, and isn't afraid to credit a Dem (however offhandedly). Slick? I think so.
c) It doesn't go negative on John Kerry. In fact, it ignores John Kerry altogether. This is a positive ad about George Bush's economic record. It doesn't shift the focus to the other guy. It stays on message.
d) The use of imagery is whimsical. There are serious numbers, but the overall ad doesn't drone on in a dull, lifeless manner. There's a bit of stagecraft.
e) Further to (a), the ad might have taken on the jobs numbers by calling attention to the household versus payroll job surveys, but then it would have to be twice as long, and in some way you've wound up weakening points a-d (and thereby weakening the power of the ad). That's an issue to bring up in debate, or in speech, or in print, or in interviews, but not necessarily in an ad (specifically, this ad).
I don't think that all is fair in any sort of advertising. Outright lies are not fair. But presenting one's case in the best possible manner is the very definition of advertising.
If Wendy's thinks their burgers are better McD's, however, I would suggest they make that case with their own ads, instead of whining on a weblog somewhere that McD's is being unfair in their ads. :)
I do suspect the Kerry campaign will harp on jobs on deficits in their ads, and that I won't be complaining on Me's weblog about the unfairness of it all. Further to that, if Me's point about the jobs being created being low-wage jobs is true, shouldn't we start to see those declines in income stats, and won't those numbers be featured prominently in the Kerry ads? Frankly, I don't know if Me's assertion is true, but it would seem to be good advertising fodder if it is.
Posted by Kevin @ 11:54 on 04/01/04
Caveat: I didn't read past the first paragraph of your response.
I wasn't trying to MAKE it political ... you were the one that posted it. I also wasn't challenging the facts of the ad, as "me" did; I was just saying the "Me" had a relevant point. You dismissed "Me"'s challenge to the facts by saying they were irrelevant to the context of the post. I don't think that they were. If don't want the tenor of the conversation to be non-whimsical, then don't link to and comment on politcally disputable propaganda. 'Sall I'm saying.
Posted by Zarate @ 12:39 on 04/01/04
They are mostly irrelevant to the post, actually.
Me challenged no facts in that ad. Me complained that other facts were not in the ad. You implied some agreement with Me's position with your question, "Do you really think that all's fair in political advertising?" -- I read that as an extension of Me's position, effectively suggesting that the omission of certain facts somehow constitutes illegitimate, unfair advertising.
I gave you a lengthy answer to your question why I think that position on facts is not really consistent with the concept of advertising, and what my conception of fair political advertising is -- which you've said you didn't read.
I think it an odd thing to ask someone a question, and then announce after reading the introduction to the answer that you'll not be bothered to read the answer!
Anyway, the first response to Me was a gentle attempt to let him know that if he was looking for a vigorous political debate in comments, he probably wasn't going to get that here. There are some readers who are political junkies, but most of the folks who visit aren't, and obviously it's not my focus. Unless provoked. And mostly not even then. *shrug*
Posted by Kevin @ 17:22 on 04/01/04
Gad. What a bunch of whiny babies. What's cool about the ad is the music, the images, the way it's tied together and the fact that it was done by <i>just some frikkin' guy!</i>
Speaking of politically disputable propoganda, didn't MoveOn have some kind of Evil BusHitler ad contest recently? I'm sure you whiny babies were all over those with a fine-tooth comb...
C'mon now, here's your binky. Take a little nappy-poo and we'll have some pudding when you get up.
Posted by Scott Chaffin @ 10:01 on 04/02/04
It's a good add. Unfortunately it's almost all bunk. The economic "facts" this piece boasts are either simply not true, disingenuously misleading, or entirely irrelevant.
See here: <a href="http://www.plec.blogspot.co...">Globalize This!</a>
Posted by anon @ 17:03 on 04/29/04
It's a great ad. Unfortunately it's almost all bunk. The economic "facts" this piece boasts are either simply not true, disingenuously misleading, or entirely irrelevant.
See here: <a href="http://www.plec.blogspot.co...">Globalize This!</a>
Posted by anon @ 17:22 on 04/29/04
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.