previous post next post  

The Current Dem attack ad on McCain.

By The Armorer on April 30, 2008 | | Comments (14)

Running here and there, and on the Democratic Party website, as a fundraiser. Typical soundbite sniping, as practiced by both parties.

Expose the Real McCain

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his lobbyist-ran campaign has and will continue to viciously attack anyone who remind the American people.

We know it -- we have it on tape to prove it -- and with your help, the American people will know it as well with our latest ad on John McCain and Iraq.

Spread the word and contribute today:

Heh. The Democrats don't pander to lobbyists, nope. Snerk. Of course, my guys aren't lobbyists, your's are! Mine are just, um, well-intentioned people with agendas who funnel me information and, um, money. On to the ad:

Narrator: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.

Video of Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Text in the ad: 100 years.

Video of McCain: "That'd be fine with me."

Immediately cut to carefully edited footage of two US soldiers ducking when an IED goes off right next to them (no bodies or gore).

Then snippets of video of lots of screaming people at bombing aftermaths with text that says:

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

In case you'd not quite gotten the point, the narrator says:

"President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years!" with text saying the same thing.

Cut back to Senator McCain: "Maybe a hundred."

Narrator: "If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future? The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.


Heh. The ad is mostly red meat for the already decided, to make them feel good about making sure they get to their max limits on giving. It's not really aimed at thinking people who are undecided. Unthinking people... well, hey, if they'll send checks!

Well, gosh, let's have some more of that... Lessee...

How about an ad that ran (using 2002 adjusted dollars (except for Gulf War II) and US casualty figures, both sourced from DoD):

WWI... Led into war by Democrat Woodrow Wilson

"6 years"

"564 Billion spent"

"Over 116,000 dead"

Um, but that led to...

WWII... led into war by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt

"67 years... and counting."

"4.6 Trillion spent."

"Over 405,000 dead"

Korea... led into war by Democrat Harry S. Truman

"58 years... and counting."

"391 Billion spent"

"Over 36,000 dead."

Vietnam war... led into war by Democrat John F. Kennedy.

"9 years, and we walked away from an ally."

"840 Billion spent."

"Over 58,000 dead."

Gulf War I... led into war by Republican George H. W. Bush

"12 years"

"9 Billion spent (after Allied reimbursements)"

"Over 300 dead."

Gulf War II... Led into war by Republican George W. Bush

"5 Years"

"500 Billion Spent"

"Over 4,000 dead"

Narrator:
"Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead."
"Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead"

"Based on this performance, are Democrats the right choice for America?"

The Armorer of Argghhh! is responsible for the content of the political ad parody. ©April 2008 by Castle Argghhh LLC.

Of course there's a whole host of false parallelism in there. And who knows how those cost numbers were calculated. And a complete absence of context. But we never let that get in the way of politics, now do we?

The Republican Party may purchase the rights to this idea... for enough money for me to buy out the guy next door. But I bet they just steal it. H/t to Princess Crabby for bringing the subject up.

Share This Article:

Categories:

14 Comments

By Princess Crabby on April 30, 2008 9:16 AM
Please tag this article so it can be filed under "Why Princess Crabby loves the Armorer".
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 30, 2008 3:26 PM
Well, Maggie - at least *you* liked it!
 
By Ministry of Talking Truth to Power on May 1, 2008 12:22 PM
We know that this was meant in good-natured humor, but in the interests of giving credit where credit is due, we think it important to mention the importance of the role that Eisenhower, a Republican, played in involving the USA in Vietnam. In an effort to provide fodder for the discussion we expect to ensue, we offer the following: Selected excerpts from the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] article on the Vietnam War
"In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers. By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war. […]"
+ + +
"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil."
+ + +
"The Republic of Vietnam was created largely because of the Eisenhower administration's desire for an anti-communist state in the region."
+ + +
"In May [1955], Diem undertook a ten-day state visit to the United States. President Eisenhower pledged his continued support. A parade in New York City was held in his honor. Although Diem was openly praised, in private Secretary of State John Foster Dulles conceded that he had been selected because there were no better alternatives."
Had we had ready access to our reference materials (which, alas, we did not think to bring to the office with us today), we might have been able to provide additional points to contribute to the debate.
 
By Cricket on May 1, 2008 1:08 PM
However, Johnson ran on a 'I will not send one of our boys to spill American blood over to Vietnaaam' ticket back in 1964. After he won on that platform, as well as his Great Society garbage, he escalated and then micromanaged the war. Outstanding, John.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 1:30 PM
Mark - I said it was going to be as accurate as any political attack ad. I ignored Nixon for Vietnam and Eisenhower for Korea, though if I had chosen to add them, I would have mentioned they technincally ended the wars in question. I didn't mention the Republican Presidents and Congresses which have supported maintenance of troops in Europe and Asia (since the point of the piece was ignoring the context of McCain's meaning regarding 100 years). And I didn't even *try* to separate out the dollars in that respect. Any more than the Democrat's ad does. I ignored the Balkans and all the small stuff like Grenada and Panama. But I still say that the ad works in the context I intended it - as a parody of the Democrat ad. Further edits and "truthing" notwithstanding. That being the whole point.
 
By MOTTTP on May 1, 2008 2:36 PM
Okie doke. Fair enough.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 2:45 PM
Hey, *both* parties rely on blind faith, ignorance of recent and not-so-recent history, and apathy to make it work. I at least said my ad was bad up front, well, more accurately, at the end. Be a hoot if we could make them do that kind of disclaimer... "We know you're too ignorant of the details and too lazy to check the facts, so we think this ad is good enough for getting government work." or something to that effect. If their ads suck... it's our fault. That and the system of education we've constructed. If constructed is quite the right word.
 
By Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:43 PM
Those cold hard equations are going to give you a gal stone, John.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM
Nah, I've got plenty of gall left...!
 
By Ymarsakar on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM
Cassandra likes this too. Personally, I think it is a good attack odd. The best defense is an excellent offense that overruns an enemy's OODA loop cycle. When they are looking around trying to think up ways to explain why your figures are wrong, you hit them again from another side, John. Keep them guessing and expecting that axe-bat.
 
By Cassandra on May 1, 2008 5:33 PM
I did like it! I said it was brilliant!
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 1, 2008 10:06 PM
Yes, Cassie, you did. And in that phenom which is how the Blogs work... the commentary stayed at your place. 'Cuz they're your core herd, but you know me, fragile male ego and all that. Heck, I let Kat tee me off upstream in posts today.
 
By Jason on May 2, 2008 7:22 AM
You want to use this as a political attack ad? Come on, too easy. Here's the counter-ad: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem. (flash clip of the Argghhh! death ad) They claim it's the American way of doing business. (images of flag-draped coffins, teary-eyed widows, young kids saluting at grave-site, planes flying overhead) After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security?" This message brought to you by the Friends of Obama.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 2, 2008 10:10 AM
Gosh, Jason, I didn't know you had such a grasp of irony. Jason: "The Republicans think that the way to fight wars is to just keep on throwing money and bodies at the problem. John: "Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead." "Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead" Jason: "After hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lost lives have been spent, isn't it time for the professionals to take over national security? Flash up text: "Democrats: 73 years. 6.4 Trillion Dollars spent. 615,000 dead." "Republicans: 17 years. 509 Billion Dollars spent. 4,300 dead" Cue laugh track. Your turn. [Mind you, I'm not taking this seriously - but political ad makers, and politicians, do] Both of these approaches are bogus.