If chickens had the political clout we (temporarily) have, they'd all be posing as chickens.
Pretty much. Unfortunately a lot of voters don't really know jack about the candidates. They vote for who the party their family has voted for, or the opposite if they're a rebellious teen. Or they'll just pick a familiar name, or, as in this case, someone who is associated with something they like. Why do you think so many politicians make the rounds and attend so many various events? Not to get into detailed policy discussions. It's because there is a sizable portion of voters who will see a name on a ballot and think "I remember seeing them at the NASCAR race/at my union rally/at the 'no blood for oil' protest/etc" and check off that name. Not because that actually know anything about that candidate, but because the candidate made an associative link in someone's mind between their name, and something that voter likes. These kinds of ads are designed to do just that. Something I like+this candidate=me voting for that candidate.
Now as for me, I tend to associate that sort of disingenuous play at my emotions with the Left or RINOs. I see politicians who don't think of me as a person with a mind, and instead as a voting block to be manipulated, as usually Leftists or non-conservative Republicans. And when I see any politician playing those old tricks, it makes me skeptical about their motives and their politics. Seeing Bill Clinton or Algore posing with a hunting shotgun doesn't make me think "gee, maybe he does care about guns." It is obviously a ploy. I don't like politicians who use ploys.
A questions I always ask when viewing these ads is "What is this politician really saying and why/what are they
not saying and why?"
Ads meant to pull at the heartstrings are some of the best ways to NOT say anything. Why?
I don't mind if they have guns in the ad, but ONLY guns and no policy is a no-go. An
effective ad with guns for me would have been some of the same clips of her shooting, but the voiceover actually talking about
what she's voted for and what she intends to vote for. I like politicians who make clear definitive statements. "I support the Second Amendment" is BS. "I have voted and will vote against an AWB, again bans on concealed carry, etc" is good to go. "I support immigration reform" vs. "I support Arizona's SB 1070 and will work to pass and enforce similar laws". "I support small businesses and the market" vs "I have voted against and will continues to vote against bills like the TARP, the Bail Outs, and Cap and Trade". One is a useless platitude. The other is a declarative statement that puts the politician on record as directly supporting a particular stance. If a politician can't come out and declare on record specifically which policies, stances, even particular bills and laws he or she supports or opposes, they are not worthy of my vote.
I remember one incident that really made me glad I supported Fred Thompson during the primaries. It was during the NRA convention question and answer with the GOP candidates. All were asked questions about various policies. And ever single one answer with long winded answers that danced around making any stance. "If elected President, would you support renewing the AWB?"
Every candidate answered something along the lines of "Well let me talk about that for a minute...Gun crime is a serious issues but so is the preservation of rights...I firmly believe in protecting the rights...blah blah blah no real answer". Fred Thompson is the only candidate who answered "No. I would not support that."
