FUCK YOU.
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you’re going to spend money on a campaign ad that you didn’t approve?
Do you know how much it makes you sound like sheep – hearing political ads, back to back – that each say, “I’m <insert fuckward name here>, and I approve this message.”
Oh and by the way? How the fuck are your political rantings and finger pointing a message?
You do know that that message is required by law, right? (It does seem silly, but don’t blame the candidates.)
Exactly, they don’t have a choice.
I think it’s pathetic, nonetheless. As if we care if they stamp their approval on their candidate snarking.
I also think it’s simply to say, “This is an OFFICIAL Obama/McCain campaign ad.” As opposed to one run by some independent group that neither candidate ever met before.
Not only required by law, but a law that was passed because of people ranting that politicians would pay for smear ads and then deny that they had anything to do with said ads.
In other words, they used to claim that their money was spent on ads that they hadn’t approved.
So, yeah, people honestly believe that they would spend their money on ads they didn’t approve.
Think a little bit beyond the scope of that commercial. Because OF COURSE the candidate approves their own ad. The point is to let people viewing know that this is an ad sponsored by the campaign itself rather than an outside organization or a wacko fringe group (both of whom also need to identify themselves in ads).
I like them. I want to know if the candidate okayed the crappy, lying commercial, or if it was ginned up by a pack of fucked up yahoos with no accountability.
I think it’s a good rule. It prevents a candidate from running an ad and claiming it was a fringe group that slung the dirt. It forces candidates to take responsibility for the lies they say and the pledges they make.
What’s not to like?
Fine. Then I pit the audacity of the government that assumes we would honestly believe a politician’s claims that they didn’t approve the ad.
Stop poopin’ on my pittin’, y’all. It doesn’t have to make sense for me to be upset with it. Thank gawd it will be over with before we know it, and then we can have new pit threads on how horrible the new president is performing.
I’m Rysto, and I approve of that law.
Again - can we honestly believe the politician when the ad they placed backfires? So they blame the staff and order the ad pulled - it’s damage control.
Some people will. Some people honestly believe that when John McCain said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” that he was talking about American workers.
It’s a good law and I’m pleased every time I hear a candidate explicitly say they approved the message in one of their ads.
We shouldn’t have to cater to the inept.
But yet, McCain didn’t have to say he “approved this message” because it wasn’t an ad. So, thats O-Tay.
I’ll have to confess I have a problem with this law. I don’t have a problem with a requirement that an ad provide notice regarding who paid for it, but requiring that the candidate personally make the statement verbally smacks of the government putting words into the mouths of people participating in the political process. A tad scary.
It’s a lot better than when they didn’t require it. I believe that there was always a requirement that who paid for the ad be listed, but in the smear ads, it was always for about a quarter second in microscopic type.
It’s one thing to put out an ad that says that McBama is the lowest sort of worm who hangs out with jaywalkers and loiterers, but it’s another to say that when you have to put your smiling mug on the ad and explicity claim responsibility for what you’re saying with an “I’m O’Cain and I approved this message.”
I do: you’re never sure, when you see “paid for by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” that it’s truly a party interested in Truth, or that they’re really all Veterans that served with that individual.
“American Mothers Promoting Obama” could be a legitimate organization of Obama supporters or they could be a bunch of sleazy McCain spin doctors hiding behind the name in order to mislead.
The candidate’s actual voice is reassuring.
To those who think that this practice provides accountability: what’s to keep a staffer from just using an audio sample from a previous ad and splicing it in to the current one?
The candidate could just say that he had not actually reviewed the ad in question, and that the staffer had incorrectly placed his image/voice on it.
So is Orwell’s 1985.