Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Angel Eyes on June 30, 2010, 07:18:48 PM
-
http://nicedoggie.net/index.php/archives/1407
Seems to be a trend among the conservative candidates: pose with a gun.
-
We've come a long way, baby! ;)
-
I agree, Dick. But I wish the ad wasn't so transparently screaming, "I'm pretty and I like to shoot things! I'm just like Sarah!"
-
Pretty empty ad, IMO.
-
I can dredge up some Carolyn McCarthy ads if you like. ;)
-
Wait, wait...
Anti-tax, machine-gun toting, conservative Christian who also happens to be rather attractive, and you guys complain? What else did you want in the ad?
I think they covered the important parts.
-
Wait, wait...
Anti-tax, machine-gun toting, conservative Christian who also happens to be rather attractive, and you guys complain? What else did you want in the ad?
I think they covered the important parts.
Word.
She runs that Thompson rather well, from the looks of it.
-
I think they covered the important parts.
Well, she's lost my vote, then.....she should be showing off those important parts....often as possible....I hate cover-ups.... ;)
-
Wait, wait...
Anti-tax, machine-gun toting, conservative Christian who also happens to be rather attractive, and you guys complain? What else did you want in the ad?
I think they covered the important parts.
I don't think the issue is with those things. I think the problem is that it feels like we're getting played. I don't like a politician trying to push my buttons, even if they are the right buttons.
-
I don't think the issue is with those things. I think the problem is that it feels like we're getting played. I don't like a politician trying to push my buttons, even if they are the right buttons.
Yeah. She may be a gun-toting, tax-cutting "conservative Christian," but that's not exactly a platform. And she seems to be substituting gun pron for any discussion of policy or qualifications. But of course, she may have twenty-seven other, more substantive, ads that I'm not seeing.
-
I would doubt that's the only ad she's running. Any idea where this pro-gun ad is running?
-
Just so we're clear, we are complaining that the ad is too short for us to get to really know the candidate?
???
Ok, just checking.
-
Just so we're clear, we are complaining that the ad is too short for us to get to really know the candidate?
No, just that it seems to substitute shooting footage for "She believes X," or "She's done Y."
-
And she seems to be substituting gun pron for any discussion of policy or qualifications.
Or she may be running that ad just to get your attention and to direct you to her website where all the real information is located. I've never seen a politician's commercial that told me anything substantive about the candidate.
Seriously, do any of you make up your mind about a candidate based on one 30-second commercial?
-
Seriously, do any of you make up your mind about a candidate based on one 30-second commercial?
I don't think anyone on this forum does, but there's plenty of people who do.
-
For years people complained that candidates only posed with 'hunting guns' and not with machineguns.
Here. We finally have it.
-
For years people complained that candidates only posed with 'hunting guns' and not with machineguns.
Here. We finally have it.
And all that arises are complaints.
I think right-leaning people have a problem with anything that isn't "perfect".
-
And all that arises are complaints.
I think right-leaning people have a problem with anything that isn't "perfect".
That's how we get stuff to improve.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good", you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there'd never be any good.
-
But I wish the ad wasn't so transparently screaming, "I'm pretty and I like to shoot things!
Works for me.
-
Oh my…it just keeps getting better and better. From her blog…http://www.gorman2010.com/content/index.cfm/e/blog/title/The-Fun-Little-Gun-Video-that-has-the-Left-all-Stirred-Up-06-29-10/
It all started with a fun day out shooting with my son and some friends and a camera. Some other friends volunteered to make a video out of the footage from that day. Who would have known that this little volunteer project would have been what triggered the Left to take notice and really hate me with such vigor?!
There is so much they could have already hated me for that they overlooked. I’m almost offended! For instance, they completely missed my long record of leadership on key conservative issues. They ignored my leadership position as a conservative with multi-state policy groups, passing conservative model legislation for all 50 states. They overlooked my ultra-conservative voting record and “scores” from various watch dog groups. They missed the government efficiency reform bills I’ve authored, the pro-life bill I passed (though vetoed by Napolitano), the tax reduction bills I’ve sponsored, the spending cuts I’ve supported, the pro-gun legislation I’ve sponsored, the various anti-illegal immigration bills I’ve supported… they even somehow missed that I was a sponsor of SB 1070!!! All of this good stuff that should have been making their heads catch on fire long ago and yet they were completely unaware. So disappointing.
But now, because some friends spliced together some footage of me and my kid out in the desert shooting targets (albeit with some very cool and historically significant firearms) in a fun little video, I am suddenly drawing their attention? Wow. They are going to be really surprised when they find out that the fun little video is nothing compared to what they are really going to get when I serve in Congress! Those that have worked with me know that I am very serious about conservative free-market policies and I do my homework on the issues and the proposed bills that come forward. I shoot guns as a fun sport. But, I destroy bad policy ideas as a mission.
Note: I have received the most amazing and almost artfully profane messages as a result of this video. It seems that it triggers the deep dark nasty places in people’s imaginations. Wish I had time to do a study on why that is. But, I will suffice it to say that nearly all of the twisted dark comments have come from the left… go figure. :)
For the rest of you readers who are level headed and not generally in need of therapy or medication or exorcism … Enjoy!
Let's see her stances:
http://www.gorman2010.com/content/index.cfm/e/issues/title/Pro%2DLife/
Pretty much solid conservative across the board and you guys are complaining..... :facepalm:
-
You do understand that no one is actually complaining about her personally right? Stop being so offended.
We're pointing out that the ad itself, on its own, without doing more research, has no substance. That's it. Don't read anymore into our comments like we're hating her as a politician.
I'll say it again, I don't care who the politician is, or what their stances are on issues. I don't personally like it when a politician is obviously trying to play me. Even if it's a politician I would otherwise support. I pick who I support based on where they actually stand, not based on who can "out-American" each other in ads. And to that end, ads which simply try to paint a candidate as some die hard country music loving American with no actual content or mention of the stuff that matters just seem like ploys meant to sway people who don't actually think.
If you're worthy of supporting tell me why. Don't just pose in a picture or video with a bunch of crap I like and expect me to fall for it.
-
Or she may be running that ad just to get your attention and to direct you to her website where all the real information is located. I've never seen a politician's commercial that told me anything substantive about the candidate.
Seriously, do any of you make up your mind about a candidate based on one 30-second commercial?
It seems to me that the attack ads are the only ones that touch on specific issues and those you have to take with a grain of salt.
-
What would everyone here be saying if she'd just done an ad with a side by side broken open over her shoulder, talking about how she supports the rights of "hunters and sportsmen," as just about every other politician from both ends of the spectrum do?
I can't say I've ever seen a political ad with the candidate shooting full-auto. That tells me that she's solidly pro-gun, and not the least bit afraid to be public about it, and that she's more pro-gun than 99% of the politicians running. One check on the list for her. Now on to other questions of policy.
It's difficult to get a candidate's entire platform into 30 or 60 seconds, and it's just as hard to get viewers to watch a commercial long enough to detail all of the platform.
I just don't get the complaints.
-
I just don't get the complaints.
She didn't pose poolside in a bikini holding an AR-15....that's what......
(....neither did Sarah Palin....but that's beside the point...)
-
I just watched it again, and I think perhaps the worst part is that it's just corny. It looks and sounds like a spoof from Saturday Night Live.
I don't think anyone has said they expect a detailed curriculum vitae or platform from a short ad, but why does the ad spend so much time repeating itself? We get four or five shots of her at the range, as if the answer to every political problem or question is .45 caliber. The impression is one of a candidate whose answer to higher taxation is more range time. ???
But to answer your question, the broken side-by-side is also played out. Maybe the old shotgun pose should be replaced by b-roll footage of the candidate talking to a citizen at the range, safely handling and admiring the citizen's scary black rifle. It would take a few seconds, it wouldn't dominate the ad, but it would still say "this candidate is not scared of freedom."
-
...as if the answer to every political problem or question is .45 caliber.
You mean it's not?
Oh, that's right. The official APS solution for every problem is detcord. ;)
-
Now THAT would make a memorable ad.
-
If chickens had the political clout we (temporarily) have, they'd all be posing as chickens.
-
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."
-
What would everyone here be saying if she'd just done an ad with a side by side broken open over her shoulder, talking about how she supports the rights of "hunters and sportsmen," as just about every other politician from both ends of the spectrum do?
I can't say I've ever seen a political ad with the candidate shooting full-auto. That tells me that she's solidly pro-gun, and not the least bit afraid to be public about it, and that she's more pro-gun than 99% of the politicians running. One check on the list for her. Now on to other questions of policy.
It's difficult to get a candidate's entire platform into 30 or 60 seconds, and it's just as hard to get viewers to watch a commercial long enough to detail all of the platform.
I just don't get the complaints.
I agree. I don't get the complaints either. Ads, IMO, need to grab your attention and generate enough interest so you will learn more about a candidate. I think this did just that. Where are the so-called issue ads that detail platforms and positions? I don't see them. Most of the ads for governor that I am seeing now are just full of slogans and promises to turn Michigan around.