Yeah, these are really good, actually. I watched the first half of them, and the only one that made my teeth ache was the “Imagine” spot. The others I thought were good to very good, better than what you usually see.
Sad spin indeed. The banner at the top of the site says, “bush in 30 seconds: a political advertising contest sponsored by moveon.org voter fund” (my emp.)
From the script of one of the ads in question, it says “CHYRON: SPONSORED BY MOVEON.ORG” Additionally, they warned entrants that, “we’re not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television.” Which indicates that they were screening the ads before putting them online.
For them to claim that “None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund.” is misleading. The fact is that the ads were on a site they sponsored, and one of them explictly claimed to be sponsored by moveon.org. For them to accuse the RNC of having “falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading” is itself deliberately and maliciously misleading.
moveon.org should have sucked it up and apologized without taking the opportunity to try and hit back. They screwed up, and an apology hidden behind a giant “Yeah, but!” isn’t much of an apology. Imagine the furor had the parties been reversed. Oh wait we don’t have to imagine, we can just refer back to the weeks of breathless coverage over the damn Bush “RATS” ad.
MoveOn.org warns that they won’t post anything inappropriate for TV.
Two ads not only compare Bush to Hitler, but use the entire 30 seconds to do so.
One of the two ads explictly says “Sponsored by MoveOn.org”
RNC says ads are inappropriate and that MoveOn.org should apologize. (From the RNC press release: “Such ads are anything but appropriate for television, and MoveOn.org should apologize for posting the ads, as the Simon Wiesenthal Center today asked them to.”)
MoveOn.org claims that the RNC is falsely accusing moveon.org of sponsoring these two ads and that such a claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.
Now exactly how is the RNC being misleading by saying that MoveOn.org sponsored the ads? The constest was sponsored by MoveOn.org. The web site to which they were posted was sponsored by MoveOn.org. And MoveOn.org claimed to screen the ads for appropriateness. For them to now say that their posting of the ads on their site for their contest doesn’t “constitute endorsement or sponsorship” is, frankly, a bullshit political dodge.
Additionally, if you read the full release (http://rnc.org/Newsroom/Releases/Jan04/MoveOn2.htm) you’ll see that nowhere does the RNC claim that moveon.orgsponsored the ads, but that they posted the ads, and should apologize for that. Which means, if you’ll note, that MoveOn.org is deliberately (they’re doing so intentionally) and maliciously (they’re doing so in order to make the RNC look bad) misleading the public about the RNC’s claims. That’s a bullshit political spin.
Remember how after Trent Lott’s praise of a doddering old dying guy at his retirement, no amount of “I’m sorrys” showed enough contrition to let him off the meathook? Note what word you don’t find anywhere in MoveOn.org’s statement. “Sorry.” Remember how after .5 seconds of “RATS” appearing on-screen in a Bush ad while the word “BUREAUCRATS” panned and zoomed onto the screen, no amount of “Gee, we didn’t realize either until now” spared them from the charge of evil negative subliminal advertising? Guess who’s screening process on their contest specifically allowed these two ads to get posted to their web site? MoveOn.org.
Hitler was a horrible person. That doesn’t mean that any mention of him is inappropriate, especially if that mention is a valid comparison to the current leader of our country, which one would think would be an important message to get out.
extarbags, I don’t know you, we’ve never met, and I have no idea where your political affiliations lie. Still, I hope you’d be as offended as I would be if Bush put out an ad that had this:
No, a reference to Hilter is not inherently inappropriate. But to compare Hilter’s war crimes (ie The Holocaust) to Bush’s foreign policy is inappropriate and mocks the memory of those who were killed in The Holocaust. Frankly, “inappropriate” is an incredible understatement.