OK I will give the definitive answer to this debate, so Guin can put her potato salad in the fridge.
Yes. Yes december, it is indeed OK for a Democrat to run a homophobic ad. I think it’s super. I can’t wait until the Dems come out with their racist and misogynistic ads too.
december, let it go.
Let
it
go
You will not win this one.
let. it. go.
The “national organization”, whatever it may have been, didn’t make a case at all, Sam.
Quit making those pious faces at Daniel and go and get me a cite for this. What organization, and where and when did they complain about the ad?
And when you get back with it, it had better be something considerably more substantial than “Karl Olson, director of Pride, a lesbian/ gay rights organization in Helena”. Helena Pride is not, needless to say, the largest gay and lesbian organization in America.
Neither is the Montana Human Rights Network.
Now, the Human Rights Campaign is reputedly the biggest gay and lesbian organization in America–but they don’t seem to have noticed what’s going on in Montana.
http://www.hrc.org/stateaction/montana/index.asp#legislation
Nor is Helena Pride affiliated with them, as far as I can tell–they don’t even have a link to the HRC on their website.
So, cite?
And it had better include a–L. I. N. K…
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**Mtgman, you have invoked Occam’s Razor. Let’s try the two scenarios:[ol][li]The Democrats told the advertising agency to select a picture of someone with a bad hairdo for no reason. The quality of the do had nothing to do with the point of the flyer. A bad hairdo wouldn’t help them portray Taylor negatively as a Senator. The flyer didn’t even say that Taylor was the person’s hairdresser. Even if he was, doing a bad job on a woman’s hair doesn’t mean anything to anyone (except maybe someone looking for a haircut.)[]The Dems told the advertising agency to select a picture suggestive of gayness, because they believed that Montana had a number of homophobic voters, and because their suggestive video had already been effective at harming Taylor’s reputation.[/ol]Under #1, the Dems acted pointlessly. Under #2 they had good reason for what they did, and it followed past practice. I think Occam would favor #2**[/li][/QUOTE]
Haven’t you been warned about your apparent inability to set up valid hypothetical scenarios? At some point someone will realize that you almost always build straw men and get annoyed with you. Nevertheless, it’s bad form when fighting ignorance to let something like this go unchallenged.
Let’s leave your scenario one alone for the moment, although it’s inaccurate in several ways as well(the suggestion the flyer made to my mind was “If Mike Taylor did this to his customers when he was a hairdresser, what will he do to his constituants when he’s a senator?” I posit that as a valid message the Dems may have been attempting to send and a woman with a bad “do” would be a good fit for such a message), but aside from the one in parentheses, let’s leave it alone for now. We’ll just round out the necessary facets to your scenario two and then see how the razor falls.
The Dems told the advertising agency to select a picture “suggestive of gayness”. This means there would have to be a document or verbal instruction to the ad agency representative from the Democratic campaign official. There’s one extra body who’s now in on our conspiracy. Previously it was just the Campaign insiders. Now it encompasses at least part of an ad agency. Now, any ad agency large enough to mass-produce flyers that would be sent all over the state would probably not be one guy working out of his garage(I know from experience that such setups tend NOT to get important business :(). Let’s say at least a six person shop. A couple in marketing, getting business, a secretary who doubles as an accountant, a couple of graphical designers and at least one “creative” guy. Now you’ve gotten at least two, probably three of these people(marketer who made the deal to produce an ad which is “suggestive of gayness”, the creative guy who decided what kind of ad would be necessary to produce the effect of being “suggestive of gayness” and the graphical designer who had to find the right colors/pictures to make the ad “suggestive of gayness”) My, our little conspiracy is getting crowded. I’d add that all these people must be rabid Democrats and toe the party line with a fervor to keep such secrets or not let their professional ethics get in the way of the production of this masterpiece which is so eloquently “suggestive of gayness”. So we’re up to at least four people who are conspiring to produce this ad which is “suggestive of gayness”.
How many people do you think it would take on the Dems side to review the drafts/approve of the results of the ad agency’s masterfully “suggestive of gayness” ad? Do you think one guy would trust his own opinion in such an important matter? “Well, it certainly looks gay to me, but I may be too much of a homophobe to accurately judge the man-on-the-street’s reaction. Hey! BillyBob! Get in here, I need you to check something out for me. Take a look at this flyer, don’t bother reading the words, just think that it’s connected to Mike Taylor in some way. Tell me, does it look ‘suggestive of gayness’ to you? Looking at this picture, do you get a gut feeling that Mike Taylor’s a fudge packer? Your honest opinion now boy. No? Well ok, thanks. [calls ad agency] Nope, not gay enough. Try again. [another draft comes, with a picture from ScreamingQueens.com] NO! TOO GAY!! [finally the current version] Ah, just the right level. A perfectly ‘suggestive of gayness’ ad. Here’s your check.”
I think I’m comfortable with my assertion that Occam would view this ad as a straightforward attempt to further undermine Taylor’s financial integrity as opposed to the result of a conspiracy between the Democratic campaign and their ad agency to, incredibly cleverly, produce an ad which was so “suggestive of gayness” that the repressed homophobe in every Montana voter would assert itself on election day, and yet the ad be so ambiguous as to appear completely innocent of the “suggestive of gayness” aspect to many people.
Damn, now we’ve not only got a conspiracy, but if you’re right I want to know the name of that agency so I can buy stock. They’re fucking brilliant! Subliminal advertising completely MASTERED! Completely discreet as well! I’ll buy their stock, then drop a link to this thread to Bill Gates along with contact info for the agency. He could use a PR makeover from people who are as good as these people apparently are at manipulating subconsious regions of the public.
**
Haven’t you learned not to try to extrapolate someone’s position on issue B from their stance on issue A? It is possible for someone to generally support Homosexual rights and defend them in debates and STILL occasionally say that they’re off their rocker when they take a position you feel is untenable or exaggerated.
Walk away december, head down to the local Home Depot, hand them your cans of black and white paint, ask them to mix them for you, then come back and try again. You’re still imposing your prejudices and stereotypes on other people. You need to stop doing that.
Enjoy,
Steven
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
Mtgman, you have invoked Occam’s Razor. Let’s try the two scenarios:[ol][li]The Democrats told the advertising agency to select a picture of someone with a bad hairdo for no reason. The quality of the do had nothing to do with the point of the flyer. A bad hairdo wouldn’t help them portray Taylor negatively as a Senator. The flyer didn’t even say that Taylor was the person’s hairdresser. Even if he was, doing a bad job on a woman’s hair doesn’t mean anything to anyone (except maybe someone looking for a haircut.)[]The Dems told the advertising agency to select a picture suggestive of gayness, because they believed that Montana had a number of homophobic voters, and because their suggestive video had already been effective at harming Taylor’s reputation.[/ol]Under #1, the Dems acted pointlessly. Under #2 they had good reason for what they did, and it followed past practice. I think Occam would favor #2[/li][/QUOTE]
Apart from the logical fallacies here, already aptly pointed out by Mtgman, your suppositions also betray a certain ignorance regarding what is likely in the design process for a political ad. As someone who is in the graphic design field and has done print and web work, allow me to enlighten you.
The process most likely went very much as Mtgman described here:
Bingo! Mtgman wins the pink wig. The people paying for the ad mostly likely asked for someone with a goofy hairdo, because they were making Taylor out as a goofy candidate. This direction is supported by the hairdresser ad as well, so if anything the goofy hairdo request follows “past practice.”
The less likely scenario is that the campaign asked for a photo that “suggested gayness,” as you put it. Such a suggestion would meet with resistance from every designer I know, but beyond that, such a blatant request would be evidence of deliberate wrongdoing and would only be made by a particular idiot. As such, it would be all over the press by now. Do you have any evidence of it, december? Any articles talking about the request for a photo suggestive of gayness? No? Thought not.
The campaign against Taylor was basically casting him in the role of goofball. There is abundant evidence of this. The video, the script of the TV ad… and the photo, which even you must admit is laughably ridiculous. It’s a designer’s idea of something that would convey the ridiculous, and as a designer myself I can say, easily, that it does it’s job well.
Here’s the most important part - people directly associated with the campaign most likely did not have a hand in choosing the actual photo used. That was most likely the decision of the designer who built the ad.
But let’s get back to the Razor. I’ll break it down for you, to keep it simple:
Option 1, The campaign gives the ad agency a text blurb accompanied with a request for a photo of someone with a bad hairdo. The designer takes it and runs with it, finds a suitable image on a Corbis or Photodisc library, arranges the type in a complenary arrangement around it, adds a few design elements and hands it off. On to the next project for the designer, and to the printing press for the ad. Refer to Duck Duck Goose’s well-supported timetable for what happened next.
Option 2, The campaign gives the ad agency a text blurb and a request for a “gay-looking” photograph, despite the fact that such a request makes them instantly vulnerable to a ton of backlash. Then, defying the principles of every design firm I’ve had the pleasure to work for or with, the designer goes ahead and fills the request with a gender-ambiguous photo. Not obviously gay (whatever that is, I don’t know), but just ambiguous. Cut, print. Magically, however, all evidence of the campaign’s “gayness” request vanishes when the accusations start to fly.
I think even you can see this one, december, unless you’re impenetrably thick. My experience in the process of print ad design tells me that Occam’s Razor is indeed in play here, and it cuts your scenario out of the picture.
By the way, I felt the same way a couple years ago in a similar, albeit higher-profile, situation. Who here remembers democRATS? 
I’ve had many such odd accidents happen to me in video editing and print work. Even the best designers (not that I’m saying I am one) cannot see all interpretations or happenstances. In the rush of creation, much can sometimes be missed.
As to the veracity of the OP… I’m of two minds. On the one hand, the ad campaign is in poor taste. Even if they’re just painting Taylor as a goofball and not playing to homophobia, it’s still a campaign of insult rather than substance, and I’m basically against any such campaign tactics. It’s a poor campaign at best. However, it bears pointing out that neither Republicans nor Democrats are immune to such tactics… tarring one side and not the other is simply disingenuous.
On the other hand, I find that that ad is “homophobic” only in the most extreme interpretation, and such an interpretation requires several bad assumptions in place about homosexual stereotypes. That’s not to say such an interpretation is impossible (obviously not), but that it only applies to those who are looking for it… those of certain extremist ideologies. All of your cites only serve to prove this point (Andrew Sullivan, the HRC, and a website which can’t seem to gets its facts or its spelling right, for example), december, as do you yourself in the color of your posts.
Another poster said earlier that someone looking for something will almost surely find it, whether or not it’s really there. december’s OP, which draws a conclusion based upon opinion portrayed as fact and supposition without proof, is ample evidence of this trend.
The link and the HRC statement were already on this thread some time ago on Page 2. Here they are again for your convenience:
Thank you for the hamster-related statement of Board etiquette.
Avalonian – I remember DemocRATS very well. There was no allegation of bigotry – just allegedly sneaky sumliminal advertising. To you as a professional, it was bogus. OTOH there is a serious case to be made as to the impact of the Montana ad – a case that is supported by HRC. HRC is hardly a conservative organization. Actually, the HRC statement relates to the video ad. This flyer is a second suggestive ad from the same folks.
Look at the difference in how these epsodes were treated by the national news media. The silly accusation against Reps, not involving alleged bigotry, got so much national publicity that you and I both remember it two years later. The plausible one against Dems never hit the national radar scope. That’s the point of the OP.
Mtgman, you are right about your analysis of my scenario #2. However, try scenario #3: the Dems chose the picture.
It is possible that the Dems inadvertantly created two ads that were both suggestive of gayness. Perhaps they were just trying to portray Taylor as odd or unusual or a sissy, and they “lucked out” into something more powerful.
As Andrew Sullivan complains, if the perps get away with this ad, candidates will be more apt to use this sort of thing again in future elections.
Oh, okay. Well, thank you anyway, December. To my point of view, the HRC’s statement is nothing more than a display of bandwagon-jumping, which is why it didn’t register on my consciousness as your loudly trumpeted, “The largest national gay and lesbian political organization in the United States thinks it is offensive!” I didn’t remember seeing anybody from a large GLPO standing on a soapbox, expounding–and the reason for this is that nobody from a large GLPO ever stood on a soapbox, expounding.
A single press release is hardly the nationwide protest campaign that happens with other gay issues.
For starters, it wasn’t released until the day after Taylor quit the race. Obviously, with everybody in the media from the Billings Gazette to CNN discussing whether or not the ad is homophobic, they could hardly remain silent, but they could hardly go on record as disagreeing with Toole and the Montana Human Rights Network, so, inevitably, they went on record as disapproving of the ad.
But it doesn’t have the same ring of outrage, the same high national media profile, that the Salvation Army/gay partner protest, or the SBC/Disney “toycott” did.
http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2001/011114sarmy_action.asp
http://www.hrc.org/publications/hrcq/hrcq97su/pg6.asp
A statement seemed to be required, they issued a statement, end of discussion. The statement doesn’t even come up on GoogleNews, that’s how feeble an impact it had. You can put in “human rights campaign montana” and all that comes up is the CNN.com All Politics chit-chat page.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/week.ahead/
Notice that John Mercurio, Robert Yoon and Alan Silverleib don’t think it was homophobic, just “scathing”.
Anyway, I’m outta here. This thread has been going on for nine days now, which is about eight days longer than it deserved.
<< packs food in back of station wagon >>
If y’all are still hungry, you can go to McDonalds.
<< drives away >>
Actually, there was an allegation of bigotry in the “democRATS” ad, that of bigotry against Democrats! :smack:
However, that misses the point of my earlier post. My point in all of that, including the democRATS example, was that in both cases Occam’s Razor makes the more complex “conspiracy” angle invalid. If you agree with me that the “democRATS” is most likely attributable to a simple mistake rather than a “vast conspiracy,” then by the same prinicple you agree that the readiest explanation for the Taylor ads is the simplest one… that the campaign officers and design firm didn’t team up to create a deliberately homophobic angle, but they were just trying to make Taylor look stupid (and doing a good job of it, too).
In this way, it’s the same issue. Occam’s Razor eliminates the more unlikely option.
As for your option #3, it’s even more unlikely. In the design process. it’s extremely rare (almost unheard-of) that the client chooses the specific photo to be used. There are practical reasons for this (the client rarely has access to the photo resources of the ad agency), as well as creative ones (the designer usually prefers to maintain some creative control). If the Razor cuts out your option #2, then it certainly also rules out #3. Though given your dislike for Democrats in general, I can see how you might want to believe #3, you have no evidence for it and the general process would dictate otherwise. Sorry.
And with that, I’m off too. This has been entertaining (I particularly like the bit where december used the movie Shampoo to defend his ideas, when a real understanding of the movie denies the principle of the OP… funny stuff!), but I’m with DDG. Time to pack it in.
I’m not in the mood for McDonald’s. One of those big Wendy’s salads does sound good though.
Thanks for the debate, y’all. Pizza on this end.
Heh, just treated myself and the missus to a five course meal and we rounded it off with a trip to our favorite specialty candy shop where we loaded up on sugary goodness. It’s been a long thread.
Obligatory On-Topic point. Re: Scenario #3 above, the Dems design the flyer. In that case why would they have an ad agency at all? My company has a print room where you can send pre-designed materials for printing and distribution. The journalism department at the University I went to would do it as well. I know of several printing shops where you can give them a pre-designed flyer and they produce it and bulk mail it for you, but they don’t do any of the designing. Much cheaper that route. If the Dems were capable of designing the flyer themselves, then I’d suggest it as highly unlikely they would work with an ad agency at all. Nope, only choice that makes sense here is that they provided the facts and a description of what they wanted and let the agency design it and then either the agency arranged for printing and distribution(possibly within their own shop depending on the size of the agency and what equipment they had available).
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve forgotten. Do we know for sure that the flyer was produced by an ad agency?
Hi-ho Silver, Away!
WTF? I think there is something in the water in Montana that produces a bunch of wackos!http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/2002/10/19/build/local/82-jones2.inc
Another man of principle. 
And I thought we here in Northern Ohio had a monopoly on goofs.
december Yes, DDG’s cite on the past page included something like “the agency which produced the ad”. One of the last lines in one of the quotes from the AP article where they interviewed the campaign manager.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’d just like to note that the Equine Abuse division of the ASPCA has taken official note of this thread. 
Do you live in or near Greenville?
My wife, Moxmaiden, and I went to college in Commerce, about twelve miles NE of Greenville. We live in Irving now. We took a trip to Greenville a couple weeks ago and splurged on Puddin’Hill candy for trick-or-treaters at work. We also had dinner at Ryan’s while we were there, kind of a nice stroll down memory lane. The visit I was referring to in my last post was a couple of nights ago when we went to the Puddin’Hill storefront shop they open during the holiday season at NorthPark Mall in Dallas. Not nearly as cool as the Puddin’Hill store in Greenville, but the candy is the same and the people are nice.
Poly, I took the weekend off from the SDMB, answer december’s question when I get back and suddenly I’m a horse-beater? :wally
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, you know about us evil Democrats, mtgman – any opportunity for a slamfest!
Seriously, I posted that without reference to who might have posted last, simply in honor of the fact that this thread, based on a fairly slender premise, had grown to five pages and showed no signs of quitting…
Yea, it was kind of a train-wreck. We ended up debating the views of pundits instead of matters of fact. Lots of off-topic discussion as to the veracity of the OP. Not a very interesting question to begin with, only got as big as it did because it turned into pride arguing against pride. As Sua noted, this was a posioned well from the start.
As to the actual matters which could have been debatable? As DDG and others observed, it seems the homophobic nature of the ad was dormant for almost a week after it ran. Then the candidate dropped out saying “they played too dirty.” After the homophobic interpretation of this ad had been pointed out, other people started saying, “Yea, I can see how someone might think that” and that’s about as far as we got. The HRC issued a position statement, but it was light on facts as well, it seemed to assume the ad was indeed homophobic and cited the dubious authority “widely seen as”. As with the pundits, the HRC statement was criticised as avoiding the question the entire “debate” was predicated upon. Was the ad, in fact, homophobic.
The opponents of the ad have not shown it to be homophobic except by subjective/anecdotal evidence. The majority seemed to think the ad was a straightforward slam against Taylor’s financial integrity. Since the homophobic nature of the ad was never successfully established, the debate “Is it ok if the Democrats do it?” never materialized.
The piece about the flyer was just sad. I also note that I’ve not seen, even the pundits, complain about the flyer being homophobic. Some considered it “vicious innuendo” but the homophobia angle wasn’t really even claimed. Perhaps it was supposed to be inferred simply because it ran along similar lines as the TV spot. The parallel with a “drag queen” was not made by anyone that I could find aside from our very own december. The main complaint about the flyer was that it came out after Taylor had withdrawn and it was like kicking a man while he was down. This was adequately explained by the fact that Taylor’s withdrawl was unexpected and the presses/mailings could not be stopped fast enough.
Enjoy,
Steven
Looks like a fair summary, Mtgman. Of course, there’s always a point or two to quibble with:
This is true, but it’s unavoidable. Unless the ad said, “Don’t vote this gay guy,” or unless someone confessed, it would have to be a subjective judgment.
I think the flyer got less attention because the story was over by then. However, one pundit, Andrew Sullivan, both criticized the flyer for homophobia and mentioned the drag queen interpretation.
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2002_10_13_dish_archive.html