Damn, there went my IronyMeter too. 
Enjoy,
Steven
Not really. Apparently he admitted bookeeping errors, which is not the same as fraud.
Not at all. True, in both cases the issue raised was whether the ad was designed to appeal to sterotypes and phobias. But a judgement about the merits of the charge in one case has absolutely nothing to do with a judgement about the merits in the other.
Personally, I don’t think there was anything wrong with the Horton ads, and don’t know anything about the Taylor one, as mentioned. But I don’t see any conection at all.
I think that the dems just found some embarrassing footage of Taylor and used it. The attempt to tie it to his alleged unethical business practices is specious, I agree, but any inferred homophobia is, well…probably intentional…ok, but still, the pictures are REAL aren’t they? Taylor actually HAD that hair, those PANTS? Don’t give the other side ammunition like that. To answer the OP, yes, of course it’s just as wrong for dems to use homophobia as the reps, but in THIS case, well…think about it. Should we have a code of campaign ethics that says one candidate will not publicize pictures of the other candidate wearing faggy pants. I mean, you’ve got to take some responsibility here and not wear faggy pants to begin with.
Since the meter is still broken, howsabout this one?
Pssst! The allegations against Taylor’s financial integrity are serious “if they’re true” as well.
Enjoy,
Steven
Why would anyone have to say any more than this? This post and this post alone fully reveals our friend’s intellectual bankruptcy. The woman in the poster has a gay facial expression? What does that mean? I respond with a facial expression that is a combination of amusement, incredulity and resignation to nincompoopery.
Spavined Gelding, I said nothing about facial expression. The overall look is dominated by the big unusual hair and the flamboyant clothing. Compare those two features with http://www.screamingqueens.com/
Worst. Cite. Ever.
Dammit, lost my post!
I’ll repeat the most important part: a countercite to the Worst Cite Ever.
Unless the B-52s are gay, that is…
Daniel
Some how this whole thing has turned into a perverse game of “Find Waldo.” We are playing “Find the Homophobic Content in this Advertisement.” Keep looking, it’s in there someplace. Any number can play. Extra points for irrational sightings. Warning: Some players my have special powers to clearly see what is not apparent to the rational.
Old friend, are you now suggesting that the goofy poster accuses, albeit so subtely that only the specially sighted can see it, that Taylor is not only gay but a drag queen to boot? Maybe it just accuses him of having a really bad fashion sense? Maybe it accuses him of cooking the books in an off beat way that is calculated to catch the attention?
Let those who have eyes see, let those who have ears hear. This is like arguing with a five year old, or a UFO believer, or a viewer of FOX News.
It is only fair that we have a show of hands - If a similar ad is run by a republican against a democrat (as we all know it will), is it fair game?
Sure, anyone who can’t win an election without the support of haters (homophobes, racists, anti-semites, etc) Isn’t the sort of person who should be making laws in any case.
Hey, December, I thought of another smoking gun you could give us.
Find out whose picture appears on that flyer.
Find out whether it’s a photograph of a man or a woman.
If it’s a man, then I’ll concede the point to you: I cannot conceive of any reason to show a man in drag on this flyer except as a way of calling Taylor a fag. And I’ll join you in condemning Baucus for a despicable (and, for me, inexplicable) campaign tactic.
If it’s a woman, will you have the grace to take off the tinfoil hat and apologize?
Daniel
PS When I ask you to find out whose photo that is, needless to say, I’m not asking you to quote the John Birch Society Monthly Newsletter in which they insist it’s a drag queen. I want a name, from a believable source.
The actual sex of the person doesn’t make any difference to impact on someone looking at the flyer. The fact is one cannot tell whether it’s a man or a woman. Either way, my opinion is that the picture is suggestive of a drag queen. YMMV.
December, it goes to the heart of intent. If the Dems are trying to play on people’s homophobia, why wouldn’t they use an actual picture of an actual drag queen in this poster? Why use a picture of a woman with bad hair?
OTOH, if they’re trying to mock this guy as a bad businessman, why would they use a picture of a drag queen in this poster? Why wouldn’t they use a picture of a woman with bad hair?
Jesus. They show a photo of Taylor working on a man, and they’re gaybashers. They show a photo of a woman with bad hair, and they’re still gaybashers.
I can see how this woman looks similar to some drag queens (as does the female vocalist for the B-52s, as does Marilyn Monroe, as does Cindi Lauper, as does Zsa Zsa Gabor). But she also looks like a woman with a bad 'do, and that seems the more plausible explanation to me. Show me that we’re dealing with a man beneath that makeup, and you’ll have a case.
Daniel
What difference does it make if the viewer can’t tell?
They weren’t accusing Taylor of bad barbering. They were accusing him of wrongdoing in his education business. This picture is peripheral to the accusation, although there is some connection, since he business involved teaching hair-cutting.
Thank you. I agree that the ad’s homophobia might be unintentional. However, the last sentence of the video seems to have an intentional double meaning. Even unintentionally homoophobic ads deserve criticism. Also, the Dems sent this flyer out long after the problems with the video had been pointed out.
Do you see how this ad looks similar to some rock stars, December? Doesn’t it piss you off that they’re saying Taylor is a rock star bimbo?
Even if they’re saying it unintentionally, somebody might interpret it that way, and unintentional rockstarism should be criticized.
This is why I go for a “reasonable viewer” standard. If we go for the “any nutcase” standard, then everything is open to all sorts of criticism.
In addition to the “reasonable viewer” standard, there’s an “advertiser intent” standard. If we can show that the advertiser intended to play on homophobia, then we’ve got something.
You’ve not satisfied either standard. The only one that you’re willing to use is the “any nutcase” standard.
Amongst the nonissues you bring up, you do make the point that the Dems sent the flyer out after the problems with the video had been pointed out. “Long” after, though? Can you give me a timeline? I was under the impression that Taylor withdrew from the race very shortly after the video came out. Are you saying they sent this flyer out after Taylor withdrew?
If they mailed this flyer more than a week after the video was first criticized by Taylor’s campaign, that’s real interesting. Less than a week, and you may be looking at typical printer/mailer turnaround times.
Daniel
Incidentally, I went back to the mtclean Web site to look for a timeline. They’ve removed the fake quote from Baucus’ fake campaign book, added a “phorum” (in which the only post so far is from someone who doesn’t see any hint of homosexuality in the video), and a “facts” page. I clicked on the facts link.
And got a “page not found” error.
Telling.
Daniel
Yep, it went out several days later. Read the cite that linked to the ad.
Okay, first off, what the hell are you talking about? Here’s your post that linked to the ad:
I skimmed your other posts on the topic and didn’t find a date. On the uberunreliable mtclean Web site, they say that “was targeted to spread viscious [sic] innuendo even after Taylor pulled out.” Is this what you’re talking about?
Second, are you claiming that Baucus’ campaign is smoking so much crack that they spent money on a flyer to destroy the sexual reputation of a man who is no longer in the race?
Please, please explain to me what you think is going on in Baucus’ head. If this is really how Baucus is thinking, then I’m not going to criticize him for homophobia – I’m going to advise he seek treatment for psychosis.
Daniel
It is NOT the quintessential image of a drag queen, it is a caricature of someone with really bad taste and a horrendous
hairstyle. Someone has a CD of stock photography and decided that was a humourous example of someone who should sue their stylist. Hence the tagline saying that customers weren’t the only one clipped* at Taylor’s schools. It is a reference to his questionable ethics and suggesting that he also has poor taste, supported by his attaire in the video.
For you to keep insisting that it is supposed to be a drag queen tells us more about you and your stereotypes than it does about the Baucus campaign. Ditto for the suggestion that the video suggests he’s gay. The look he has in the video is more of a stereotype of a 70s Swinging Ladies Man than of a gay man. Do you think Austin Powers is supposed to be a gay stereotype too?
*5 : to take money from unfairly or dishonestly especially by overcharging