Video: Tancredo’s new immigration ad pretty much what you’d expect
posted at 7:08 pm on December 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What really cinches it is the narrator’s inflection on “raping kids.”
Second verse, same as the first. Instead of focusing on jobs and benefits, he turns the issue into a hamfisted “red scare”-era newsreel about barbarians coming to burn and/or pillage America. Those victims’ photos didn’t come from nowhere; as much as the left may pretend otherwise, gang violence is a component of having open borders. But it’s only a component, and the more he tries to inflate it the more sensationalistic and less convincing it becomes.
Even money says his next ad is about illegals importing exotic diseases.
Update: From Slublog in the comments, “He’s turned immigration reform from a serious campaign issue into what looks like a promo for Dateline NBC.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
How do we get him kicked from the debates? Would provide some focus at least.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM
He’s like Coulter: Often has a good point, often ends up being more a liability than an asset.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Tancredo rocks. Must be tough to say the things that people need to but don’t want to hear
400lb Gorilla on December 4, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Although I’d never vote for him, it is nice to see someone call a spade a spade. Taking a soft line to avoid offending people’s sensibilities will get us killed in the end. Time for a little tough love.
quax1 on December 4, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Uhhh…. and the money question…
Is anything said in that commercial incorrect? Or is it just unpalatable…
Sometimes the truth… hurts…
Romeo13 on December 4, 2007 at 7:13 PM
He doesn’t rock. What he’s doing with these cartoonish alarmist spots is making it easier for the left to dismiss real concerns about immigration as demagogic and hysterical. Like Coulter, he’s hurting you and you don’t even know it.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Since immigration is my issue, I want a rabid ally in the White House.
I don’t see a problem with the ad.
Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Terrible ad. He’s turned immigration reform from a serious campaign issue into what looks like a promo for Dateline NBC.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Yes. And when it comes back to the immigration debate, and it will, the Left will point to these ads to attack us.
amerpundit on December 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I like it a lot!
Man I wish We could have a Thompson/Hunter/Tancredo ticket.
Mitt is sissy
Rudy is dirty
Huck is a democrat
McCain is way past his sell by date.
Let’s see, yep that’s all.
TheSitRep on December 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I don’t think this gets into Coulter territory.
Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Precisely.
THEY’RE GOING TO RAPE YOUR KIDS!
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM
He’s like a parody of a Republican.
crr6 on December 4, 2007 at 7:16 PM
What he’s doing is speaking a very unpleasant and politically incorrect truth. The main reason it’s a political liability is because most people can’t handle it.
thirteen28 on December 4, 2007 at 7:17 PM
If the rapes didn’t happen on a daily basis, I would agree with you.
Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Heh. When the Lancet did the same thing with Iraq casualty numbers, the study was slaughtered on these threads. I guess some statistical sampling and extrapolation is better than others.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:21 PM
“Deport those who don’t belong“.
Who needs this racist crap? How about “Deport those who break the law“? Looks like Tanc is courting the more sinister supporters of The Only Man Who Can Save America. There comes a moron…
The Apologist on December 4, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Perhaps you don’t realize how big of a component. Have you ever seen estimates as to the number/percentage of illegal alien prison population in California? I’ve seen estimates ranging from 15% to 40%. And that’s with policies in place like LA’s “special order 40″ that effectively make the place a sanctuary city and severely hamper enforcement against gangs.
I don’t think Tancredo has any hope of winning the nomination, he just wants to bring the issue as far to the front as he can.
peski on December 4, 2007 at 7:24 PM
You are probably right, but as there are real casualties in Iraq to be inflated, there are real child rapes by illegal immigrants.
Valiant on December 4, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Im sorry but i do not see it as some cartoonish alarmist spot.
Its a cold hard simple fact and its about time somebody stands up and says what a lot of us already know , and if NCLR and the leftist open border pandering toads and the business sell outs don’t like the message to freaking bad.
I know Tom isn’t going to get the time or money to run all the way but when it comes to this issue both him and Duncan Hunter are the only ones who have a track record that proves they talk the talk and walk the walk .
and that my friends prove they have the integrity the rest are sadly lacking on this issue .
Mojack420 on December 4, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Hola, soy Chris Hansen, con Dateline NBC.
¿Podría usted tomar un asiento allá?
/babelfish, I barely passed spanish
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Ugh. “Deport those who don’t belong?” That’s a little Nixon-Southern-strategy-ish for my tastes.
I maintain that a border fence + amnesty for everyone already here is the perfect compromise. No one would be happy with it, but the problem would be solved. Isn’t that what consensus is all about? :)
Enrique on December 4, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Yes, there probably are. But scaremongering, either through statistical studies or that ad, is not the most efficient way to communicate an important truth.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Looks to be perfectly sound and reasonable from my view here in the
TijuanaSan Fernando Valley.Or we locals prefer to call, the Hit and Run capitol of Mexifornia.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Tancredo is a problem, but the message is essential. We need someone to push the fringe of this issue. However, I think he should probably drop out of the race though. His presence is unproductive, in spite of his message.
Living in LA, having been assaulted by an MS gangster, I wish Republicans would pull up their panties on this issue.
The Race Card on December 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM
We tried that in ‘86. How’d that work out again?
thirteen28 on December 4, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Good call, Lancet is not a reliable source, be wary.
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Like putting pictures of read meat on most of your immigration posts right, Allah! Funny as a cartoon you are!
All the left need do is read your immigration/Tancredo coverage with all the “witty” humor you attach to your posts and get all the ammunition they need to deflect this issue.
Before this ad came out, you’ve done all you can to be exactly what you accuse Tancredo of being.
If only Tancredo would go away, Huck or Rudy would SOLVE immigration – give me a break. Most of your immigration posts are “cartoonish humor spots that make it easier for the left to dismiss real concerns about immigration as trivial and hysterical.”
bucktowndusty on December 4, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I’m starting to think you’re dealing with the beltway to much. Kinda like pundits to politics are like movie critics to movies.
1. As to libs dismissing “concerns about immigration as demagogic,” haven’t you noticed they do this anyway?
2. As to the reference to Coulter, she’s slaughtered some of the lib’s sacred cows so violently that they can’t use them anymore. Anyone heard from an anti-war 911 widow in a while?
3. You don’t think MS-13 are doing these things? Personally this, to me, isn’t any different to the countless reports about illegals murdering, raping, vehicularly homiciding, etc that Michelle links to on her site. It’s just been wrapped up into a 30 second spot.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 4, 2007 at 7:32 PM
is it just me or is that the same narrator for the show “Cheaters”??
truthmattersfa on December 4, 2007 at 7:33 PM
In other words, he doesn’t sugarcoat the truth.
Works for me.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Preach on, brother.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Tancredo hurts your interests; he doesn’t help them. And at somewhere south of 1%, his presence at these debates is not only unhelpful, but it makes a caricature out of the party.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
My alias used to be “AmnestyPundit” before I changed it.
Apparently you can’t be against illegal immigration, despite the dozens of posts I’ve written about the subject on Hot Air, without being a Tancredo sycophant, even when he’s acting his most buffoonish and demagogic. Whatever. You guys have fun in this thread pretending he’s the only guy willing to say this stuff and not the only guy willing to say this stuff this crassly.
Allahpundit on December 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Tom Tancredo here; for “illega-way”.
Tired of illegal aliens raping your kids? Got that illegal family in your back yard that just won’t go away? Then you need “illega-way”. just spray it on, and in moments, you can rid your home of illegals that took years to gather up. Makes your hardwood floors look just like new! Order within the next 10 minutes and we’ll double your bottle of “illega-way” (just pay extra shipping and handling).
Illega-way. Gets rid of illegals or your money back.
lorien1973 on December 4, 2007 at 7:37 PM
I see nothing wrong with the ad. Latinos live a very patriarchal life, and the men believe that the women (and often children) are their property to do whatever they wish with. Ask any peace officer who works in a Hispanic gang area, or more broadly, take DV calls in their local Hispanic community. MS 13 is one of the most violent gangs in the world, and while they are mostly from San Salvador, they come through the Mexican border at will.
I’m not a Tancredo fan, but he’s right on this issue.
MsUnderestimated on December 4, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Fine. Go with it, then. Let’s not consider the effects of scaremongering demagoguery on how people think about this issue and whether we’re turning off those who might be inclined to listen to this message if it were presented differently.
After all, I’m sure those people couldn’t handle the truth anyway.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:42 PM
That is one of the most truly ignorant statements I think I’ve ever red from you. Ann Coulter has done more for the cause than 99.9% of the people involved it in it including you and every other conservative blogger you can think of all added together. You may not like her, and that’s your right, but to belittle her accomplishments is just plain ignorant.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Sometimes, one person’s crassness is another’s candor.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 7:42 PM
And this on the same day that Romney fired his groundskeepers. Coincidence? I think not-Tancredo must’ve hooked him up!
Big S on December 4, 2007 at 7:43 PM
And what exactly has she done?
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Oh, what complete and utter twaddle. I’ll admit, I saw a lot of machismo and even some misogyny among my male relatives growing up, but there’s a difference between extreme sexism and the nonsense you’ve just stated.
Criminy. Machismo = child rape?
Amazing what some people are willing to believe.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I liked the ad because I feel the same way. They don’t want to play by the rules, so get ‘em out and keep ‘em out…
stacman on December 4, 2007 at 7:45 PM
If the issue is presentation, how would you do it? I would definitely get rid of the “those who don’t belong” phrase and I’d probably pack in some statistics on incarceration and crime and whatnot that’s relevant, but the border issue is a tough one to finesse without opening yourself up to demagogic charges from open borders critics. In fact, all you have to do is say that you’re for enforcement and they’ll call you a nativist and a racist anyway. The border is an economic and security and law enforcement issue all knotted up, and hits on stressed government services too. So how would you present the urgency of the problem in a way that doesn’t strike a tone like this ad?
Bryan on December 4, 2007 at 7:47 PM
This is the real concern about immigration. I really don’t care about your illegal nanny or my illegal delivery person. But I absolutely give a damn about latino gangs and what it does to neighborhoods
sweeper on December 4, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Influenced millions and millions through her MANY best selling books and single handedly exposed, and pretty much stopped, some of the Left’s most despicable tactics like the human shields.
For every “Fake” conservative she chases away she attracts 100 real ones.
The “liability” AP talks about it “bad” press. That’s because too many people play the Left’s game by the Left’s rules by kowtowing to the Press as if they determine right and wrong, who wins and who loses. What Ann realizes is, speaking your mind and the truth (as she sees it) wins over way more people than it loses. That’s a lesson too many on the Right haven’t learned or lack the courage to accept.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM
There, fixed it. The Tanc is crass but we do need someone to play his role in the discussion. Most candidates would love to stay away from this third-rail issue. They know it pits the “everyman” against the “big business” guys. It also tends to make for strange bedfellows i.e. liberals and big business. It’s good to maintain a dialogue about the issue affecting everything from homeland security to childcare. Tanc won’t let them stray off into nothin’ but religion and scandals. He’s the illegal immigration taskmaster.
I wish he wouldn’t have said “those that don’t belong,” however.
NTWR on December 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Instaed of getting them in a wad every time someone says anything a little too harsh to hurt the poor babies’ feelings.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Saying that they’ll call you “nativist” or “racist” no matter how you say you’re against illegal immigration is ridiculous, particularly given that 70%+ of Americans believe we should not be coddling illegals. If a small minority of the population unjustifiably thinks anti-illegal immigration folk are racists… that still means the anti-illegal crowd is in the majority. Not appreciating that fact and acting like the cause is about to get screwed by open borders people is just scare-mongering, which is the only thing Tancredo does. We get it. Some illegals commit crimes independent of their status alone. How about we act maturely about it?
Step 1? Bounce Tancredo.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Too bad if they don’t like the presentation Bryan. They are the Right’s version of the Lefty elites and they aren’t the target market for that message anyway.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I have had one friend who was a prisoner in the California prison system. (I hang out with the all the high class people. ) And from the gruesome stories he forces on me, it does rather seem that Mexico and Central America have made a particularly awful contribution to our criminal class. My friend is of Brazilian decent and so was permitted to hang out with the hispanics. There is little reason to accuse him of bigotry in what he had said to me. I’m sure that the California prison demographics collaborate his basic fact of Mexican criminality, if not his stories of Mexican evil within the prisons.
I’m torn between the truth of what Tancredo has to say and how that truth is bad marketing, but I’d still vote for Tancreado in an instant.
thuja on December 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Man, we aren;t going to get anywhere until we stop worrying what “they” say about us. Worrying about what “they” say is why this country is where it is.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM
You talk a big game. Too bad there’s not a fact to back it up, as your assertion that she’s influence millions assumes the conservative millions pre-dated her books, not to mention this completely made-up stat that she’s gained 100 conservatives for every one she turns off. Hyperbole, fine, but methinks from your posts that you actually believe it. Which is a real problem if you want your causes and hers to succeed in what we call here “the real world.”
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM
The other side calls us racists and nativists every day. Read the Wall Street Journal editorial page on the issue. Our own friend did it in a USA Today column. They know the power of branding someone a racist, they know that’s their most powerful weapon, and they use it every single chance they get. Don’t pretend that you’ve never seen it.
Bryan on December 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Very good question. First, I’d lose the gravely-voiced scary narrator. It’s too cliche. Honestly? Use a female narrator. You can say the same sorts of things but seem softer about it. Marketing trick? Absolutely, but this stuff works.
Then, I’d use the experiences of specific towns/communities to personalize the issue. Quick interview clips of people talking about the effect that illegal immigration has had on their area, newspaper clippings of stories about crime/etc. The more personal you can make the issue, the more people care about it. This ad makes a mistake of just showing pictures without any real context – it doesn’t make you feel anything for those who have been victimized by illegal immigrants.
In other ads, I’d talk about the economic effects of illegal immigration on families by pointing out how illegal labor suppresses wages for Americans who want to earn an honest living. Interview someone who wants to work, but doesn’t want to earn a minuscule wage – after hearing that story, have the narrator say something like “Are there really jobs Americans won’t do?”
Basically, I’d roll out a series of ads that really make this personal. One or two people instead of a series of pictures. The more local you can make it, the greater impact the message will have.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Kind of like worrying about the mythical “Arab street”, isn’t it?
When you start to worry more about appearances than the truth, you’re in trouble.
thirteen28 on December 4, 2007 at 7:58 PM
*didn’t predate her books
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Tanc has a place but Paul doesn’t? Come on man Tanc is a one issue candidate who has no chance of being elected. I’m glad he is there to talk about his one issue. But I’m also glad that Paul talks about limited government when noone else will unless they are dragged there kicking and screaming.
sweeper on December 4, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Drive a beat in MY seat and you’ll know the difference between machismo and perceived “property rights” with children and women. Armchair quarterbacking doesn’t suit you well.
MsUnderestimated on December 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
And it didn’t work one lick because finally the American people didn’t care what “they” said. See how it worked?
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I think if so many politicians weren’t so anxious to get the Hispanic vote and businesses cheap labor, Tanc wouldn’t scream so loud. If the principal response to problems of jobs, entitlements, criminality, drug cartels, persons from “countries of interest”, etc. wasn’t practically universally “You just hate brown people”, Tancredo et al wouldn’t have to be so loud. Glenn Beck has pointed out that there have been scores of recent kidnappings and/or rapes and/or murders of US citizens around Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, but cable news is currently back to solid Natalee Holloway.
It could lead many to some version of “HEY, PEOPLE…! ! ! ! ” And you don’t necessarily make your best style decisions when you’ve been yelling ’till you’re blue in the face.
eeyore on December 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Please, contact the Tancredo campaign.
VolMagic on December 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Well, the ad is effective for the most right-winged of anti-illegalites, but he’s merely preaching to the choir. I agree with Allah in that he should focus on the other factors of illegal immigrants…jobs, healthcare costs, etc.
SouthernGent on December 4, 2007 at 8:01 PM
That’s good stuff. Personal, effective and right to the point.
Bryan on December 4, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Great idea, but most people are too scared to put their face on TV in opposition to illegal immigrants. There ARE a lot of them and they DO have a lot to lose. I’m afraid to put my grassfire.org “Secure the borders now” bumper sticker on my truck for fear of vandalism or whatever.
And if the people talking had their faces or voices obscured for fear of retaliation we’d be right back down this whole “sensationalist” path again…
NTWR on December 4, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Armchair quarterbacking?
Perhaps you missed the point of my post. I’m part Hispanic. I grew up in that culture you so cavalierly describe. You’re an expert because you’ve been in some Hispanic neighborhoods? Give me a break.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM
OK, the commercial puts the issue “crassly.” It is “bufoonish and demagogic.” Is any of it inaccurate? False? No, but that’s beside the point, because, you see, this sort of crass buffoonery will make it easier for the Left to dismiss the issue as a whole.
Got it. “Demagoguery” makes it easier to dismiss valid arguments, eh? Yet recent and not-so-recent history shows that ads that “Allahpundit” would certainly have defined as “demagoguery” were actually VERY effective in focusing public attention on a key issue and helping them grasp those valid arguments — and doing so in a minute or 30 seconds in a medium in which vividness of presentation is a non-negotiable requirement for getting attention.
Two examples that spring immediately to mind are Johnson’s daisy ad in 1964 and the GHW Bush Willie Horton ad in 1988. Johnson’s ad was a vile attack on Goldwater, but if “Allah’s” reasoning were correct, it would have led to a large Goldwater groundswell, as voters dismissed Johnson as buffoonish and demagogic. And the 88 one was even worse: vote for GHW Bush or your kid will get raped and murdered by a furloughed convict! That must have made millions turn to Dukakis and away from the cartoonish, crass Bush, no?
If what “Allah” is saying were true, Goldwater would have swamped Johnson in 1964 and Dukakis Bush in 1988, riding a groundswell of public indignation over these cartoonish, buffoonish, demagogic ads.
Now, Tancredo won’t ever be President, but this ad, if it gets wide exposure, will focus attention on the immigration issue in a way that will make it hard for the eventual GOP nominee to ignore it. And it will be more effective for its vividness, its simplicity, and its focus — precisely the things for which it is denigrated here.
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Amen. You get it. People like Coulter and Rush change the game and that’s why they are so influential and such valuable assets. Like “The Guy from Boston” says, “I got the balls to say what you’re thinking!”
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM
I like Tancredo, one of my top issues is illegal immigration. I would vote for him, but sheesh, I couldn’t watch the ad because my kids were around! He does need to present this issue in an urgent way, but without the blood and gore.
4shoes on December 4, 2007 at 8:04 PM
I don’t disagree that it happens. But its very existence doesn’t therefore mean it represents public opinion, which matters far more than what the WSJ says in its board room. Tancredo just marginalizes himself and the issue.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Liberals have, do and will blast us as demagogic anyway.
About a fourth of the Republican lawmakers and even our feckless Republican President has called us bigots and racists, at what time will liberals say anything different?
Seems to me there’s a lot of tough talk around here but when a tough ad shows up that pushes the envelope to get peoples attention there’s a whole lot of vacuum where the tough lip service used to be.
If you don’t think its an emergency, spend some time in southern California if you go home without realizing that the forty eighth state has been lost to Mexico, your an idiot!
We’re long past caring about what the opposition says and should care even less about appeasing them.
Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Robert makes a good point. Sensationalism in advertising does work. And if it’s such a liability, for instance if it’s so terrible for Republicans to be remembered for Willie Horton (even though Al Gore was the first to bring him up against Dukakis), then why have the Republicans tended to win more presidential elections than the Democrats? I’m not saying that sensationalistic ads by themselves can explain that, just that such ads might not be the albatross that they might seem to be.
Bryan on December 4, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Slublog: A year or two ago, I might’ve been inclined to agree with you, but at this point, my patience is nearly at an end.
And if it forces the other candidates to confront the issue, all the better.
At least they’ll be talking about it rather than ignoring the problem.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Apologist,
those who break the law don’t belong
ColdBore76 on December 4, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Are you seriously conflating the media and social realities of the pre-Internet age with today’s political environment? Seriously?
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 8:10 PM
I think even if those ads are effective in the short run, they tend to damage a party or movement’s reputation for a long time. Liberals still bring up the Willie Horton ad as an example of Republican racism. Whether Al Gore brought it up first or not is irrelevant – it’s now become a potent weapon against us for decades.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:11 PM
The thirty first state, sorry.
Speakup on December 4, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Vizzini:
Yes. Would you mind explaining how you think the dynamic of a 30- or 60-second TV ad has changed since ‘88?
Thanks.
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I won’t disagree with you there.
The voice and cadence it total cornball.
The Ugly American on December 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Slublog,
Correct. And that is because any weapon will do. The fact that the Democrats have engaged in it also never would stop them from using it as a weapon. And if they don’t have this to use as a weapon, they’ll use something else. One reason why they use it as a weapon is because it was effective against them, and that is one way they can neutralize it. I do not believe we should let the Left’s approval set our agenda or approach, for we will never, ever have that approval.
Robert Spencer on December 4, 2007 at 8:14 PM
An even better ad?
NARRATOR: “Common-sense immigration reform.
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported.
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand dollars will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.”
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons.”
Some may see these measures as harsh.
But Mexico, who looks the other way when its citizens are crossing our border, sees them as perfectly reasonable.
Isn’t it time we did the same?
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:15 PM
That can’t be repeated enough.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:16 PM
I don’t disagree. But we can communicate truth without handing them ammunition. It’s harder for them to argue against ads based on facts and figures or personal anecdotes than against demagoguery.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Heh. Better grammar: I agree.
Must remember rule: don’t use no double negatives.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Belly button marketing is dangerous unless you are a member of the target market/audience. Ads like this are created because they have a long history of being very effective. That’s just a fact. You start watering things down and being
“nuanced” and your message gets lost with the vast middle in this country.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Sure. Distribution, critique, redistribution post critique, and if it’s demagogic enough, albatross for years to come. And for what? I don’t recall either party summoning the ghost of LBJ’s mushroom cloud ad in the last couple of decades. And the reason? Because it’s a profoundly stupid idea to associate yourself with crap like that. Which, quite frankly, is why 527s handle it now. That Tancredo is a Presidential candidate not only defiles himself when he runs the ads; he has the potential to defile the whole party in the process.
You’re welcome.
Vizzini on December 4, 2007 at 8:20 PM
The question remains Allah. “Would Tancredo fix this issue if he became our president?” Answer, “yes.”
You sound like a high school kid worrying about “reputation”. Who cares about “inflection” or “making it easier for the left to…” or “crassly”. These are liberal concerns. I think a previous commentor is right; too much time near the “inner-loop” can cause a person to drink with their pinky up.
bucktowndusty on December 4, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Then why don’t we see car ads based on this theory?
Imagine…”Buy Volvo…BECAUSE A SAAB WILL KILL YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN.”
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:22 PM
I saw nothing wrong with the add. Life is harsh for people who are touched by the illegal criminal element, and even more so when a government acts with indifference towards the victims of these crimes.
ColdBore76 on December 4, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Ammunitions to be used against you with whom? People who will never be on your side anyway.
People have got to stop worrying what the Press and the Left says. The Press does not set the country’s agenda.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:23 PM
ps. Want to know where these victims come from. Not from thin air (that would be a bunch of hot air if he did)
VICTIMS
bucktowndusty on December 4, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Part Hispanic doesn’t qualify in my beat. You’re part Hispanic, but I’m referring to 1st and 2nd generation illegal criminals, who refuse to assimilate. Boy, oh boy, are you sensitive.
MsUnderestimated on December 4, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Now if you did an ad where you interviewed the sibling, spouse or parent of one of those victims?
Gold. Personal is always more hard-hitting than sensational. People respond to people.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Don’t believe it? Come and live in my Mesa AZ neighborhood for a week, you’ll change your tune.
Shay on December 4, 2007 at 8:28 PM
I believe that some of us–especially the most reasonable among us–are having a hard time with a particular concept: that we almost never “hand” the Left ammunition. The Left will take the fact that the Right breathes and use it as ammunition. It’s part of how they think: that the results are what’s important and any means used to get the desired results can be fashioned into ammunition, even total out-and-out falsehoods. We’ve seen this before and it’s a centuries-old tactic.
Therefore, if one accepts that the Left will do anything to win, it’s futile to worry about which plastic turkey the Left may decide to load into its cannon. It makes more sense to follow one’s conscious and speak the truth.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Actually you hit on one that has actually been used in many forms. There are all sorts of ads showing cars being smashed into walls to show how safe they are. Many of Onstar’s ads are based on the message, “get our service so you don’t die.”
The people who create these ads aren’t in their basement pulling it out of the air. They tend to be marketing professionals with years of experience. The ads are crafted knowing the target audience. Several versions are usually created and run before test panels before being released. Again, the fact of the matter is, they are created because they have proven to be effective. The fact you don’t like them usually means you are outside the target.
TheBigOldDog on December 4, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Sorry I don’t meet your criteria, but my mom married a gringo. Horrors, huh? She was third generation, and even then, there was a notable lack of assimilation. The sexism in Hispanic culture is lamentable – I saw a lot of it. But I would not characterize it in the broad strokes you’ve used.
Am I sensitive? Not particularly. But I honestly don’t like seeing people mis-characterize a culture I know well because it suits their political purposes. It’s contemptible.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Welcome to the club.
baldilocks on December 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Because politics has tougher standards before something is considered slander, an auto company can’t get away with that without facing suit.
I do agree with your overall point, but an weak analogy…jus’ sayin
Bad Candy on December 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Actually, I’m not the target of Tancredo’s ads, because I agree with him on the scope of the problem. I just think there are more effective ways to tell the story.
Slublog on December 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »